Richard B. Hoppe posted Entry 1908 on January 12, 2006 04:14 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1903

Lou Dobbs will be “discussing” ID at 6:00 pm (Eastern Time) tonight. Rob Hovis, a strong defender of honest science education on the Ohio State Board of Education, will be on the show along with another OBOE Board member – possibly ID creationist Deborah Owens Fink, who introduced a “two model” (ID and Evo) motion to the Board in 2000. Anyone remember Debbie denying that they want ID taught in Ohio publics schools? Yeah, sure.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #70710

Posted by steve s on January 12, 2006 4:58 PM (e)

Dobbs is very conservative, ergo, I am not expecting good things.

Comment #70712

Posted by Daniel Morgan on January 12, 2006 5:01 PM (e)

Why, I can’t believe that you would imply that Debbie would lie…
“Deborah Owens-Fink, a member of the Ohio State Board of Education (SBOE) did a remarkable job on TOTN…saying that ‘we need to be very careful that we don’t get into the issue of religion, but yet, at the same time, that we also do not censor ideas that might go against what some elite scientists believe with respect to evolution … explaining the total diversity of life and origins of life.’” (2002, link)

“Owens Fink said the lesson is a good compromise (between two opposing viewpoints), and she said that ‘ID concepts are not in the lesson.’” (2004 SBO Meeting, link)

You guys think she would lie? Surely, not!

Comment #70715

Posted by Spore on January 12, 2006 5:10 PM (e)

I woner if they’ll show the guy in the panda suit looking in the window of the building where the board meeting was held?

hehe.

Comment #70717

Posted by Rick W on January 12, 2006 5:11 PM (e)

The segment would be a good opportunity for Dobbs to take allygally’s suggestion and refer to ‘ID is science’ as a hoax.

The only issue even close to a “controversy” was whether ID is science. If Kitzmiller didn’t put that to rest, nothing will. Any reporter or journalist with integrity should now identify the ID movement as non-scientific/religious and the ‘ID is science’ movement as a hoax. The “discussion” is over.

Hopefully the segment will not be yet another display of lazy, non-analytical reporting, i.e. no reporting whatsoever, just two unequal views presented “equally.” Let the viewers decide, if you will.

That format may be entertaining, but it does a disservice to the viewers by abusing their trust. They should be told up front that one side wants quality science education and the other side wants to teach science students something that has now been exposed as a hoax.

In my dreams, I guess.

Comment #70720

Posted by Spore on January 12, 2006 5:21 PM (e)

BTW, if anyone’s interested in reading through the objectional part of Ohio’s lesson plan, read the “Critica Analysis of Evolution” section.

Comment #70725

Posted by Rich on January 12, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

http://www.re-discovery.org/active_1.html

Track record…

Comment #70739

Posted by geoffrobinson on January 12, 2006 5:53 PM (e)

‘we need to be very careful that we don’t get into the issue of religion, but yet, at the same time, that we also do not censor ideas that might go against what some elite scientists believe with respect to evolution … explaining the total diversity of life and origins of life.’”

Yeah, screw those elite scientist.

e·lite or é·lite (ĭ-lēt’, ā-lēt’) pronunciation
n., pl. elite or e·lites.

1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status: “In addition to notions of social equality there was much emphasis on the role of elites and of heroes within them” (Times Literary Supplement).
2. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team’s elite.

Comment #70745

Posted by Spore on January 12, 2006 6:01 PM (e)

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9519/panda6aq.jpg

Comment #70754

Posted by Andy on January 12, 2006 6:20 PM (e)

Never watched this show before, and it hasn’t even gotten to the ID part yet, but I don’t think I’ve ever been less impressed with a news anchor/talk show host.

Comment #70760

Posted by Andy on January 12, 2006 6:36 PM (e)

Ok, little more impressed with Dobbs, he seemed to make it very clear that ID was religous. Not impressed with Hovis. There were several opportunities for him to tear apart Fink’s argument and he didn’t take any of them. He was on the defensive the entire time. It would have been interesting to actually hear what the “Five Conecepts” are, along with their merits, or lack thereof.

Comment #70763

Posted by Spore on January 12, 2006 6:39 PM (e)

If anyone else wants to watch that tripe, I captured it on my PC.

I think Dobbs and Fink should hook up…..they appear to have much in common.

Comment #70765

Posted by zoarkk on January 12, 2006 6:40 PM (e)

De-lurking to comment:

The pro-science side on the show was not as strong as it should have been.

Where can I send contributions to support legal action.

christine

Comment #70768

Posted by Jeff McKee on January 12, 2006 6:45 PM (e)

Debbie said it was “never our intent” to introduce intelligent design. I guess she forgot her motion before the Ohio Board of Education, March 7, 2000, to give 50% evolution, 50% intelligent design int he classroom.

Debbie said that the material in the “critical analysis” plan is not ID. She knows otherwise. She said these topics are debated in the scientific community. She is either ignorant or dishonest.

I don’t care if she accosts me again at another Board of Education meeting with this simple message, I’ll say it anyway:
she is a liar.

It makes me very sad for the state of Ohio that someone like this controls the content of what my children will be taught.

In disgust,
Jeff

Comment #70771

Posted by Rick W on January 12, 2006 6:53 PM (e)

A disappointing segment… exactly what was expected. We hear the same old, boring argument from the science side (“non-science is not science”) and the slick new phrase from the creationist IDers (“critical analysis”).

What uninformed viewer could possibly have learned anything from that segment? It looked like a legitimate debate… let’s just call it even, shall we?

Clearly the ID (CA?) side wins every time something like this is aired.

I can’t imagine watching Mr. Dobbs again if this is how he “reports” the “news.” Ugh.

Comment #70774

Posted by RBH on January 12, 2006 6:58 PM (e)

Andy wrote

Ok, little more impressed with Dobbs, he seemed to make it very clear that ID was religous. Not impressed with Hovis. There were several opportunities for him to tear apart Fink’s argument and he didn’t take any of them. He was on the defensive the entire time. It would have been interesting to actually hear what the “Five Conecepts” are, along with their merits, or lack thereof.

Hovis is an investment advisor in a small town in rural Ohio, and has worked damned hard to educate himself on the issue and then put his political capital on the line for us. He’s not Clarence Darrow, but he’s a damned strong advocate for us on the Board.

Debbie Owens Fink is a marketing prof at U of Akron (where her husband in chair of the board of trustees), and has been pushing this crap for half a dozen years. She’s got the patter down pat – her coaching from the Disco Institute only occasionally slips.

Bear in mind also that Hovis has to work with the rest of the Board on a host of issues – school funding, charter schools, standards for other subject matter areas, evaluations of troubled districts, and so on. Neither he nor the others can blow up the bridges over one issue or they become ineffective Board members.

Regardless of how “not impressed” you might be with him on TV, Rob is a damned good man to have on our side.

RBH

Comment #70775

Posted by Laser on January 12, 2006 7:13 PM (e)

Owens Fink came off as reasonable until the very end. Her statement that students should be taught to critically evalutate theories, “especially one that is so dogmatically taught” gave her away.

Did anyone watch the segment on the avian flu after the ID discussion? There were three medical doctors talking about how H5N1 has mutated so that it can more easily stick to human skin cells. I wanted to yell at Lou and ask him if he wanted doctors who understand how viruses (and bacteria) mutate or not.

IMHO, Rob did a good job given that all of Lou’s questions to him were along the lines of, “Well, why don’t we just be reasonable and teach ID?”

Comment #70782

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 12, 2006 7:26 PM (e)

Where can I send contributions to support legal action.

I’m kicking around the idea of organizing another science-book donation to the El Tejon, California, school district, like the one the DebunkCreation email list did for Dover. Ohio and Kansas don’t offer any specific district to target with such a thing. California, however, does.

For those who don’t know what I’m referring to, go to:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000888.html

Anyone interested?

Comment #70792

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 7:43 PM (e)

This would seem to fit here -
Richard Dawkins was interviewed today (on BBC Radio 5) about his new UK TV series the ‘Root of all evil’. The series puts forward his views on religion of course - in the course of his travels he goes to Colorado and interviews ‘Pastor Ted Haggard’ about evolution. Religious teaching in UK schools and the Dover trail gets a brief mention at the end (when the next guest who happens to come on the show is an Army Chaplain - he shows he doesn’t understand what ID even is - and why it’s not an issue here).

In case you’re interested:

Richard Dawkins on BBC Radio 5 live

Comment #70794

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 12, 2006 7:46 PM (e)

Good idea Lenny I’m not working at the moment, and ‘hard up’ as we say - but if there is an easy way to get you a fiver (Paypal?) - you can have my ‘widows mite’.

Comment #70796

Posted by RBH on January 12, 2006 7:47 PM (e)

zoarkk asked

Where can I send contributions to support legal action.

Americans United and NCSE. AU is specifically focusing on Ohio now, and NCSE supplies the scientific advice on cases like this.

RBH

Comment #70812

Posted by Jeff McKee on January 12, 2006 8:06 PM (e)

I want to second Dick’s comment about Rob Hovis. He is a class act, and will continue to fight for honest science education in Ohio.

Comment #70819

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on January 12, 2006 8:13 PM (e)

Is the Lou Dobbs show segment on ID streamed to the web anywhere? I hear I’m on it…

Comment #70861

Posted by Jason Spaceman on January 12, 2006 9:27 PM (e)

Here is the transcript in case anybody missed it. I think Dobbs’ show is also repeated at 4:00am ET Friday morning, if you are up that late.

Comment #70863

Posted by RBH on January 12, 2006 9:28 PM (e)

Nick asked

Is the Lou Dobbs show segment on ID streamed to the web anywhere? I hear I’m on it…

Yeah, you were on it, but for some reason weren’t identified by name or affiliation except in the fire station where I watched it. Weird. You were your usual articulate self, however.

I dunno if it’s streamed anywhere. For guys my age, a “stream” is something you fish in. :)

RBH

Comment #70867

Posted by Spore on January 12, 2006 9:37 PM (e)

Nick,

I have it recorded on my PC. If you want it you can ftp it from me, or we could figure out something else if needed.

Drop me an email if you’re interested.

Comment #70869

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 12, 2006 9:41 PM (e)

For guys my age, a “stream” is something you fish in. :)

hmm, not to be confused with things you can phish in (tho i think that’s illegal).

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/p/phishing.html

Comment #70915

Posted by Brian McEnnis on January 13, 2006 12:40 AM (e)

This is a repeat of comment #70901 which I accidentally posted on the wrong thread. Sorry.

Jeff McKee wrote:

I don’t care if she accosts me again at another Board of Education meeting with this simple message, I’ll say it anyway:
she is a liar.

I don’t know if this has come out before, but Jeff was the target of a vicious personal attack at the board meeting. He was there as the official representative of the Senate of The Ohio State University, and after presenting the Senate’s official position on the lesson plan was blindsided by Deborah Owens Fink.

She produced an email that Jeff had written and she misrepresented its contents to imply that Jeff was advocating physical violence on his opponents. (Can anyone say Mirecki?) Another creationist on the board (Michael Cochran) joined in on the attack. Jeff was blindsided and left almost speechless. There was a stunned silence in the room as Jeff struggled to find words to respond. He was far more composed than I would have been.

Jeff was followed by a student who was harassed by Cochran.

When I got up to speak, I was furious and let them have it with both barrels. I will be back next month.

The details of Jeff’s attack appeared on the Discovery Institute website within a few hours. Headline: In Ohio Darwinist Admits Plan to Burn Evolution Critics. I will not provide a link; I will not contaminate this site with even that much of this vile pollution.

I suspect that Debbie, Cochran, and DI conspired together to launch this attack.

If you want to protest Jeff’s treatment, or ask them how they got their hands on Jeff’s email, or how the DI learned about Debbie’s performance in Ohio, contact them at:

Deborah Owens Fink
Michael Cochran

BTW: I usually post as McE. This time, I’m uncloaking.

Brian McEnnis

Comment #70916

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 12:46 AM (e)

Brian, I’m not shocked by the behavior of folks like Ms. Fink (how appropriate her name is). Standard political tactics engaged in by the right since the neocons started trying to take power in the late 70’s.

swiftboating has become quite a successful tactic.

It doesn’t make it any better tho.

What never ceases to shock me though, is that after pulling this kind of stunt, they invariably STILL claim the moral “high ground”.

and what disgusts me to the utmost extent, to the extent I’m working on leaving the US as we speak, is that most Americans let them get away with this crap.

the audience in attendance at that meeting should have raised an immediate stink about Fink’s behavior, and demanded an immediate halt to any further proceedings until her claims could be investigated and shown to be what they are.

but… other than a brief moment of silence, what did the audience actually do, Brian?

did they side with your correct indignation at such low tactics?

or did they just sit and watch the show.

I’m genuinely curious to know.

Comment #70924

Posted by Brian McEnnis on January 13, 2006 1:21 AM (e)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

the audience in attendance at that meeting should have raised an immediate stink about Fink’s behavior, and demanded an immediate halt to any further proceedings until her claims could be investigated and shown to be what they are.

but… other than a brief moment of silence, what did the audience actually do, Brian?

did they side with your correct indignation at such low tactics?

or did they just sit and watch the show.

The audience at that point consisted mostly of fellow members of Ohio Citizens for Science. So, yes, they were on my side.

I can only speak for myself. I waited for board president Westendorf to say something. She just called the next speaker, who was attacked by Cochran. At that point, board member Eric Okerson spoke up, reminding board members that they were not supposed to be cross examining the speakers.

I think all of us chose to keep quiet, since each of us knew that we had opportunities to speak our minds when we got up to the microphone.

The speaker before me got up said words to the effect: “Given the way that previous speakers have been treated I have decided not speak.” And then he sat down. Very theatrical, and very effective.

Then I told the board exactly what I thought of the behavior of Owens Fink and Cochran.

I think that was far more effective than disrupting the meeting with protests.

After the meeting, several board members apologized to us individually. I received apologies from Jim Craig, who had voted to keep the lesson plan, and from Rob Hovis, who had voted to remove it. Both showed their class.

Brian McEnnis

Comment #70928

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 1:36 AM (e)

kudos to you for sticking it out.

I doubt i could have been so restrained.

I think i would have stood up and pulled a “this whole court is out of order” routine and stormed out.

then insisted on being interviewed by the press about what happened in there.

but that’s just me, I guess.

If i were any member of the board, i would have immediately called a halt to the proceedings as soon as el finko pulled that little stunt of hers.

I’ve seen more civilized city council meetings end directly after similar stunts were pulled.

perhaps I’m wrong in this case, but it sure rankles.

btw, i couldn’t find any reference to the specific claims of el finko over on the DI site. perhaps they thought better of it and removed it.

doubtless it will wind up on UD later today or tommorrow.

at this point, is there any doubt in your mind that there will have to be yet another federal court case to settle this matter?

it’s obvious the IDiots want this to go to the supremes.

better now that later, i say, let’s get this over with.

Comment #70937

Posted by Brian McEnnis on January 13, 2006 1:54 AM (e)

Sir_Toejam wrote:

btw, i couldn’t find any reference to the specific claims of el finko over on the DI site. perhaps they thought better of it and removed it.

I didn’t want to do this, but what the heck. Consider this site polluted with DI sewage

Comment #70941

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 2:07 AM (e)

oh.. god.. my eyes!

I’m gonna go scrub my eyes with drano.

brb

Comment #70943

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 2:17 AM (e)

*ack* *sputter*

that’s a little better.

my sincerest apologies. i just checked the front page without actually checking any deeper.

I guess they figure they got a lot of play out of Mirecki, so why not do it again.

heck, even out current resident troll Larry has heard of Mirecki.

*sigh*

Comment #70952

Posted by Renier on January 13, 2006 3:41 AM (e)

People like Fink are the ones that think they have the right to teach other people’s children what they want to. “god” forbid my own children turn out like them one day, dishonest, arrogant, self-righteous, smug, ignorant…

I don’t give a rats *ss if they want to teach their ID creationism junk to their own children. But I choose REAL science for my own.

Comment #70962

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 5:56 AM (e)

From the CNN script:

The intelligent design movement suffered a setback last month when a Pennsylvania judge ruled the concept unfit to be taught in state schools. But intelligent design supporters, who believe in a master plan for the universe, will not admit defeat. They’re regrouping and they’re rethinking their challenge to evolutionary theory in the classroom and the court.

I know the ‘Wedge document’ is far reaching - but ‘master plan for the universe?’.

Oh! the irony at the end of the segment - the next article is about ‘bird flu mutating’ - lets hope that if ‘religiousity’ is inherited, bird flu can evolve to target the likes of Fink. Or perhaps she’ll take that as a threat?

Comment #71009

Posted by Tyrannosaurus on January 13, 2006 9:33 AM (e)

The science groups all around the country should start attending school boards meeting and began a campaign for good science. Obvious the forces of good are at the defensive against the forces of obscurantism (i.e., IDiots). We should go on the offensive and be proactive.

Comment #71031

Posted by qetzal on January 13, 2006 10:26 AM (e)

Spore’s link to the “Critical Analysis of Evolution” lesson (in #70720) was an interesting read.

I wasn’t too impressed to see that the second sentence on page 1 reads:

As new scientific data emerge, scientists’ understandings of the natural world may become enhanced, modified or even changed all together.

I realize I’m picking nits, but wouldn’t you expect educators to know the difference between all together and altogether?

Then, on page 2, we find this gem:

Theory
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

I seem to recall that scientific theories also involve a lot of supporting evidence. We are talking scientific theory here, right? Since this is a science lesson plan?

The “best” part is Attachment A, Five Aspects of Evolution.

Teachers are directed to:

Present supporting and challenging information for five aspects of evolution found in Attachment A. This will give students background information concerning both supporting and challenging evidence. Students can use this information to focus their research.

The five aspects are:

Aspect 1: Homology (anatomical and molecular)
Aspect 2: Fossil Record
Aspect 3: Anti-Biotic [sic] Resistance
Aspect 4: Peppered Moths
Aspect 5: Endosymbiosis

You can readily guess what the “supporting” and “challenging” evidence for these aspects is like. I’ll just exerpt one as an example:

Aspect 3: Antibiotic Resistance

Citations in the General Tips Section may provide a starting point for student research. It is suggested that students employ additional resources in their research.

Brief Supporting Sample Answer: The number of strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as of Staphylococcus aureus, have significantly increased in number over time. Antibiotics used by patients to eliminate disease-causing bacterial organisms have facilitated this change. When some bacteria acquire a mutation that allows them to survive in the presence of antibiotics, they begin to survive in greater numbers than those that do not have this mutation-induced resistance. This shows how environmental changes and natural selection can produce significant changes in populations and species over time.

Brief Challenging Sample Answer: The increase in the number of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains demonstrates the power of natural selection to produce small but limited changes in populations and species. It does not demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce new forms of life. Although new strains of Staphylococcus aureus have evolved, the speciation of bacteria (prokaryotes) has not been observed, and neither has the evolution of bacteria into more complex eukaryotes. Thus, the phenomenon of antibiotic resistance demonstrates microevolution.

Finally, I looked over all 66 lesson plans for 9th & 10th grade science on the Ohio Dept. of Education’s web site. Guess how many other theories have a full lesson covering their “critical analysis”? (Full marks if you guessed 0.)

Comment #71038

Posted by JONBOY on January 13, 2006 10:39 AM (e)

Tyrann,I totally agree with your comments,it is time to go on the offensive.I am a member of the N.C.S.E and The Center for Inquiry, hear in central Florida.We recently conducted the inaugural meeting of the newly formed Florida Science Standard Committee.
Our aim is to target the local school districts and offer our help and advice,and place with them statements from the NSTA and the NABT along with other literature clarifying their legal position.We will also offer to work with them, to develop science workshops for both students and teachers.Our site is flscience@ncseweb2.org,we would be honored to have any good advice or suggestions from PI

Comment #71048

Posted by Russell on January 13, 2006 10:50 AM (e)

The science groups all around the country should start attending school boards meeting and began a campaign for good science. Obvious the forces of good are at the defensive against the forces of obscurantism (i.e., IDiots). We should go on the offensive and be proactive.

You can say that again! Religious Right diehards all over the country know that the easiest way to insinuate yourself into public policy is to run for school board. Voters pay no attention - even at the state level. Here in Ohio, the execrable Michael Cochran (see Brian McEnnis’s comments above) barely defeated the runner-up. That runner-up campaigned not at all, so far as I could tell, but happened to have the same last name as the state’s high court chief justice. Cochran almost certainly prevailed because he had the endorsement (surprise, surprise!) of the Republican party, and many voters probably just transcribed the Republican “Sample Ballot”.

Comment #71173

Posted by slpage on January 13, 2006 1:24 PM (e)

If you are unaware, Dobbs stated on his show a few months ago somethiong to the effect of “Darwinism is not science”. I forget who the guest was, but he asked Dobbs if he was saying that evolution is not scientific and he reiterated that he felt it is not.

I send a message on his website, requesting that he stick to journalism, but I don’t think he took it to heart…

Comment #71217

Posted by Sir_Toejam on January 13, 2006 2:24 PM (e)

The science groups all around the country should start attending school boards meeting and began a campaign for good science

no! don’t leave it to “science groups”!

It’s something we ALL need to take responsibility for.

attend your local school board meetings YOURSELF and make your views known.

It’s general apathy that leads to things like Dover to begin with.

Comment #71335

Posted by dre on January 13, 2006 4:38 PM (e)

for those that didn’t watch and aren’t familiar with lou dobbs, he claims to be a hard-talking, straight-shooting journalist that just wants the truth, but he never lives up to it. it’s easy for him to look lefty in his promos, because he implicitly compares himself to the fox menagerie, which makes him look… “intellectual” or “educated”, i guess, in comparison. righties don’t want that in their “news”, of course. but when it really comes down to it, lou dobbs has always disappointed by failing to do his research, and furthermore prolonging dramatic debate by ignoring anything obvious that might bring the argument to a close.

like the staggering evidence supporting evolution and the absolute lack of evidence supporting ID, for instance.

for some reason i want to like lou, but he is part of the problem, not part of the solution. don’t get excited next time he wants to talk about evolution.

just a thought.

Comment #71346

Posted by Jason on January 13, 2006 4:48 PM (e)

Spore,

that picture is kinda scary
it’s giving me the willies
thank god it’s not the burger king!

Comment #71356

Posted by Jason on January 13, 2006 5:00 PM (e)

CLASSIC:

HOVIS: Dr. Owens Fink and I agree on that. I’m a Christian believer myself. And I think that American teenagers need more religion in their lives, not less. But it does not further that agenda to introduce non-scientific subject matter into science class and confuse them about what science is at a time when our country should be worried about its competitive position in the world economy. We need to be strengthening the integrity of our science education, not weakening it.

OWENS FINK: And that’s exactly why students should learn to critically analyze every subject, particularly one that’s taught so dogmatically.

DOBBS: Deborah Owens Fink, you got the last word. Robert Hovis, we thank you being with us. The Ohio State Board of Education well served by both of you. We thank you very much for being here tonight.

OWENS FINK: Thank you.

HOVIS: Thank you.

DOBBS: Just ahead, new signs a deadly bird flu is mutating and could turn into the feared global pandemic. We’ll have a special report and I’ll be joined by Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health.

I didn’t realize that evolution was taught “so dogmatically.”
But isn’t EVERYTHING that’s taught in school taught pretty much dogmatically? Maybe I’m wrong.

But I thought it was funny to follow up the evo/ID “debate” with a story about mutating flu.

Comment #71377

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 5:30 PM (e)

But I thought it was funny to follow up the evo/ID “debate” with a story about mutating flu.

Jason - you’re beginning to understand: ‘Irony’ : - something that most British people look for to find humour. Especially ‘dry’, ‘black’ humour.

Dawkins Radio 5 Interview

Notice how the interviewer (Simon Mayo) doesn’t give Dawkins an easy ride. Standard form here.

Comment #71469

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 13, 2006 7:45 PM (e)

no! don’t leave it to “science groups”!

It’s something we ALL need to take responsibility for.

attend your local school board meetings YOURSELF and make your views known.

It’s general apathy that leads to things like Dover to begin with.

Amen, brother.

In any case, science groups won’t help win this fight, simply because this fight isn’t about science. It is a political fight, and it must be fought using the methods used in any OTHER political fight.

ID wasn’t killed in Dover by “science” or “science education”. It was killed by a handful of lawyers.

Never forget that.

Comment #71486

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 8:14 PM (e)

And critical thinking Larry..

never forget that…

Comment #71488

Posted by Dean Morrison on January 13, 2006 8:15 PM (e)

Whoops …. fukc!

sorry LeNNy!!!

Comment #71524

Posted by Henry J on January 13, 2006 9:34 PM (e)

Re “But isn’t EVERYTHING that’s taught in school taught pretty much dogmatically?”

Like physics or chemistry? Near as I can recall (it was a few decades ago), yep. Laws of motion, electromagnetism, etc., or properties of elements and compounds. Leastwise I don’t recall any class time spent on debates or controversies over the material.

Say, some of those classes taught that the periodic table had only 103 elements in it, and now it has 116 (last time I looked). Oh well.

Henry

Comment #71554

Posted by jeffw on January 13, 2006 10:45 PM (e)

Re “But isn’t EVERYTHING that’s taught in school taught pretty much dogmatically?”

Like physics or chemistry? Near as I can recall (it was a few decades ago), yep. Laws of motion, electromagnetism, etc., or properties of elements and compounds.

Yeah, I couldn’t believe my organic chemistry lectures went unchallenged. All that stuff about carbon bonds and electron orbitals. If that stuff was important, it would be in the bible :)

Seriously tho, I suppose hard cold facts might have a dogmatic quality about them. Reality seems to be somewhat dogmatic and consistent. No way around that it seems, except for religion and drugs.

Comment #106128

Posted by Mary Box on June 16, 2006 4:05 PM (e)

You can’t be 87510 serious?!?