Valentine Pontifex

I have no problem with classroom discussion. But creationists and other evolution deniers have been for several years campaigning to allow the "evidence" against evolution into the curriculum. If this is put forward, we will have teachers teaching that the second law contradicts evolution with impunity. Every single ignorant anti-science argument will become, in practice, part of science education. This is what the creationists have struggled for since the Lousiana "balanced treatment" law was struck down by the Supreme Court. For them it is all about a way to get around that decision.

ConiferBog

Well, I reread the above-linked Cincy Post article. Somehow I originally took it to mean that the "evidence" would be part of the formal curriculum (which could then be subject to vetting.) If indeed the deal is that individual instructors could present any information they want with no guidelines, then...(*sigh*).

Nic Tamzek

Less good news:

NPR did a brief story (NPR guy chats with Ohio reporter guy) on the ID debate today.

ID 'theory', mainstream science compared to the censors at the scopes trial, no hint of the fact that ID has about the same credibility as UFOology...

<a href="http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=03/12/2002&PrgID=2" target="_blank">http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=03/12/2002&PrgID=2</a>

I encourage everyone to listen & then write NPR and/or specific science reporters if you can. The science reporters, at least, will probably be able to tell ID from a hole-in-the-ground.

Nick

hezekiah jones

Well, I will defer to you guys' grim assessment for the time being. Personally I think the tinpot philosophers at the Discovery Institute are going to come up empty in September, when the Ohio standards appear.

There was an article by the aforementioned Stephen Meyer and two other dudes in the Utah Law Review a couple of years ago. It concludes with the following startling statements:

And this, probably the finest example of political spin I have seen in at least the last ten minutes:



[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

hezekiah jones

No doubt you are correct. In fact another article, this time in the Regent University Law Review (yes, Pat Robertson's Regent University) purports to provide step-by-step instructions on "Pursuing alternatives to Darwinism by avoiding Edwards' pitfalls."

Unfortunately, the article is mostly wrong, since it concentrates on aspects of Scalia's dissent that criticize the majority opinion's references to Louisiana Senator Bill Keith's legislative motives, and utterly avoids the fact that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. Keith's motives were simply icing on the cake.

Incidentally, the author of the Regent University article is a gentleman named David K. DeWolf, who teaches "Torts, Product Liability, [and] Criminal Law" at Gonzaga University. He also happens to be one of the co-authors, along with Stephen Meyer, of the Utah Law Review article mentioned above.

theyeti

I'm pretty sure that DeWolf is a DI fellow. This is his specialty; trying to find legal ways to get ID into the classroom. And they say it's a scientific movement...

theyeti

b71

Is it me, or does the reporter being questioned seem to avoid informing listeners that the science standards are not currently being written, but that they already have been written and rejected by several board members for "not including all ideas". Then when asked if the writers of the standards(which i take to mean the 41 scientists and science educators who wrote the standards and pretty much to a man reject ID as a science ) will include ID or stick to evolution, he shifts the question to the school board members, saying that an insider told him if the vote were today it would pass. I would think it would have been worth noting that many members of the science standards commitee have said that they would leave panel if the were forced to rewrite the standards to include ID.

hezekiah jones

To help clarify things, perhaps we should turn to the unbiased reportage of AiG, whose "coverage" leads, tellingly, with a breathless list of the "international media" covering the event.

AiG claims the evolutionists introduced some new arguments, "along with their favorite old canards," and even made a "wisecrack" about the competency of the "designer" - How dare they insult the buybull-god of the fundies! After all, this is all about science, not religion.

Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer are treated to glowing presentations, along with numerous links to AiG propaganda supporting Wells' irrelevant claims.

Lawrence Krauss and Kenneth Miller are treated, as Spiro Agnew would say, like nattering nabobs of negativism, again with editorial insertions allegedly rendering Krauss' claims "erroneous" and "thoroughly rebutted."

Of Miller, AiG writes that he "says that he is a Christian." (Emphasis mine.)

"As AiG has said repeatedly, this whole debate is a sad testimony to the decline of Christian influence in America."

Wasn't it the lovely and talented randman, that champion of the AiG link, that claimed evolution was supported merely by propaganda and lies?

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0313ohio_update.asp" target="_blank">You want propaganda ...</a>

Dr.GH

Dear NPR-ATC

The recent ATC broadcast on the Ohio science standards consideration of Intelligent Design exposed a serious lack of background research on the part of the reporters.

The goal of so-called intelligent design is nothing other than returning plain old creationism to public schools. In internal documents, and presentations to "safe" groups (i.e. Christian fundamentalists) the principle advocates of ID are quite clear on who their "designer" is. They have cleverly avoided the need to defend Biblical creationism by repackageing it as a "theory" and relying on the generally poor scientific background of reporters and the public.

I would urge that future reports benefit from some background research. Good online sources are;

<a href="http://www.natcenscied.org/" target="_blank">http://www.natcenscied.org/</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/</a>

<a href="http://www.agiweb.org/education/statesurveys/survey.html" target="_blank">http://www.agiweb.org/education/statesurveys/survey.html</a>

The quality of science education in America is declining and the creationist attack currently under the guise of Intelligent Design is a significant contributing factor.

etc...

Kevin Dorner

Here is some good news from Ohio, no quotes or disclaimers required:

<a href="http://www.newsnet5.com/news/1301307/detail.html" target="_blank">Ohio's University Presidents To Oppose Intelligent Design</a>

I post it here as the Wire will not be updated tomorrow (I did send this article though. It should be updated on Friday.)