Wesley R. Elsberry posted Entry 1079 on May 28, 2005 11:38 AM.
Trackback URL: http://degas.fdisk.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1077

In an online press release on 2005/05/25, Oklahoma state Senators Mike Mazzei & Clark Jolley announced, "Henry Nominee for Textbook Committee Opposed".

Interesting... what, in particular, made them think that the nominee in question, Dr. Virginia Ann Dell, should be opposed?

“Despite her impressive academic degrees and her service as a teacher at the Oklahoma School of Science and Math, her errant belief that the teaching of the Intelligent Design Theory blurs the line between the separation of church and state is the first of many problems to arise with her nomination,” stated Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond.

Sen. Mike Mazzei, R-Tulsa, stated, “Nothing exists in state or federal law that prohibits the discussion of creationism or Intelligent Design theory in the classroom. Let’s encourage open and honest discussion of all theories so students can learn to think critically and, with their parents’ guidance, develop their own worldview.”

Dell’s responses to questioning in the Senate Education Committee showed she is unwilling to even allow a mention or discussion of alternative theories on the origins of the universe.

So, someone with actual academic training, experience as a science teacher, and apparent familiarity with the legal status of antievolution efforts (such as Epperson v. Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard, which show Mazzei to be behind the times as far as legal issues go) is definitely someone to keep away from helping make decisions on textbooks in Oklahoma.

Continue reading "Oklahoma, Textbooks, and Ignorance" (on The Austringer)

Comment #32550

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 28, 2005 12:02 PM (e) (s)

Sen. Mike Mazzei, R-Tulsa, stated, “Nothing exists in state or federal law that prohibits the discussion of creationism or Intelligent Design theory in the classroom.

I could cite a few precedents.

Comment #32552

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 28, 2005 12:09 PM (e) (s)

That press release was dated “For Immediate Release: May 25, 2005”. Why haven’t I read about this in the national press yet?

“Dr. Dell’s views are too closed-minded and too liberal to qualify her for this critical position responsible for selecting textbooks for our schoolchildren,” Mazzei stated.

Let’s look up liberal in a dictionary:

lib·er·al adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded….

Comment #32555

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 28, 2005 12:43 PM (e) (s)

Bayesian Bouffant wrote:

I could cite a few precedents.

You could start with the list in my post and add to it.

Comment #32556

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 28, 2005 12:54 PM (e) (s)

That’s a pretty compelling scientific case, don’t you think? ‘We are not aware of legal precedents against it’.

Comment #32562

Posted by Duane on May 28, 2005 01:31 PM (e) (s)

Why is anyone surprised that people who are ignorant of science are also ignorant of the law? Perhaps there is an underlying causal relationship for both phenomena.

Comment #32563

Posted by Jack Doolan on May 28, 2005 01:36 PM (e) (s)

Ah yes, Oklahoma, scene of one of the most egregious thefts of native land in national history. Terminal of the “Trail of tears” ..for the survivors. The site of the extinguishing of 5 small republics, in contravention of all law and treaty, this conveniently forgotten by “history”. After the Glenpool was discovered the theft began in earnest, dubious “dead claims” and the plundering of orphans being only notable because of the extent of the judicial enablement. Put nothing past the Okies. Folks who decry the current environment of illegal wars and nefarious torture schemes, theft of resources from a conquered nation and the rest as being unique to our times, should read a bit of history. Many in Oklahoma guard their ignorance carefully, with good reason.

Comment #32577

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 28, 2005 02:58 PM (e) (s)

Science vs. science

The debate over the teaching of evolution isn’t just in Kansas anymore, as other states take up the issue. While these battles make headlines, they are the fruit of a scholarly movement that has shaken up the scientific establishment. WORLD talked to four “Intelligent Design” revolutionaries who are fighting Darwinists on their own terms | by Lynn Vincent

The evolution debate reignited this month as Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson ruled that Oklahoma’s State Textbook Committee doesn’t have the authority to require that biology textbooks carry a disclaimer that calls Darwinism a “controversial theory.” (Committee members plan to challenge the ruling.) Meanwhile, in Louisiana…

Keep a barf bag handy if you plan to read the entire article.

Comment #32583

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 28, 2005 03:24 PM (e) (s)

Off-topic, but the relevant archived thread doesn’t seem to be accepting comments any more:

Design proponents take movement to Web

By Kyle Alspach
(May 26, 2005)

The site features posts from top creationism proponents.
(Staff Photo: Phillip N. Davis)

Intelligent design has gone online with a Web site that offers a daily dose of commentary from the leaders of the movement.

Called Intelligent Design The Future, the Web log —- or blog —- was launched in March by theorists who support the idea that life came about not through evolution but by the deliberate design of some intelligent creator. Among the blog’s eight contributors are mathematician William Dembski, biochemist Michael Behe and philosophers Stephen Meyer and Jay Richards….
Unlike most blogs, however, Intelligent Design The Future does not let readers respond online to the posts. Reed Cartwright, a contributor to the evolution blog called The Panda’s Thumb, said preventing readers from adding their comments to the online discussion about intelligent design, also known as ID, shows that those who created it are not interested in running an actual blog.

“If ID is the future, as the title of the blog advertises, can’t it withstand criticism?” said Cartwright, a doctoral candidate in genetics at the University of Georgia. “I think that it is ironic that a movement, which claims to want ‘more discussion’ about biology in schools, does not allow discussion [on their blog].”

Comment #32600

Posted by harold on May 28, 2005 04:17 PM (e) (s)

Just to repeat what we all know, anyway…

1) The implicit motivation of ID/creationism is the idea that “science is the only major alternative to my particular religious dogma”. They seem to suffer from the illogical conviction that even if they could prove mainstream science to be “wrong”, their particular dogma would win by default, whereas an infinite number of explanations of reality would still be possible.
2) Their motivation is entirely political; it’s about forcing their dogma on others by law.
3) In all its not-very-variable variations, the message of “intelligent design” is always that some particular natural phenomenon (bacterial flagellum, human blood clotting cascade, ribosome, mousetrap, whatever) is too “complex” or “irreducible” to be explained by mainstream science, and that by extension, this must be true of many other phenomenae as well. In other words, it’s ultimately an attempt to forbid, broadly speaking, scientific conjecture or research in biology. The intelligent design “theorist” has already “proved” by “logic” or “statistics” that such and such a problem cannot be solved by science*. Whatever mainstream science says in the future, no matter what the evidence, must be wrong - it’s already been “proved” that the “flagellum” or whatever can’t be explained “reductively”. If “intelligent design” is correct, it would be madness to do science (or to fund it).
*Of course, the intelligent design “theorist” will muddy the waters a bit by saying that throwing up hands and declaring that “designer did it magically” is now “real science”, and that mainstream science isn’t.
4) Of course, intelligent design doesn’t hold itself to actually explaining anything. It merely argues that science “can never” explain certain things which seem ammenable to scientific thought (obviously no-one denies that there is much that science legitimately can’t deal with and in fact doesn’t attempt to, but that isn’t the point). Unlike a scientific explanation, a “design” explanation is merely a belligerent expression of enforced ignorance - the “designer” can’t officially be identified*, how or why the designer did anything can’t be studied. *The hypocritical implications by all ID advocates that the “designer” is God notwithstanding.

Comment #32614

Posted by tytlal on May 28, 2005 05:46 PM (e) (s)

“The gatekeepers of evolutionary theory are very worried about the design movement,” Mr. Meyer said. “It’s got a huge appeal with students, it’s framed in a way that makes their position very unattractive, and the evidence supports it. When it was religion versus science, evolutionists won that debate every time.”

Now, it’s science versus science, he said. And the debate evolutionists had thought was settled has only just begun. —-•

Wow. Speechless.

Comment #32624

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 28, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)

Keep a barf bag handy if you plan to read the entire article.

It’s an old article since the OK ad ruling was issued several years ago (1999?).

Comment #32718

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 29, 2005 02:48 PM (e) (s)

Her problem was that she was edyookated beyond her intelligence..

Comment #32808

Posted by Gary on May 30, 2005 02:16 PM (e) (s)

Stuart, you mean “eddicated”. Boy! Could you be more ig’nant? ;>)

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.

Remember personal info?