Ed Brayton posted Entry 2348 on June 7, 2006 03:38 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2343

We’ve got a sudden rash of ID activity here in Michigan. The MCFS board got word yesterday that the House Education Committee in Michigan was going to hold a hearing this morning on HB 5251, a bill that would require the teaching of all the major ID arguments in public school science classes. We had thought this bill was dead in light of HB 5606, which was signed into law in April. But the pro-ID language had been taken out of that bill, so the sponsors of 5251 have revived it.

Continue Reading at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Comments may be left there.

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 #104264

Posted by Coin on June 7, 2006 4:15 PM (e)

Just curious. Is the Michigan house up for re-election this year?

Comment #104265

Posted by mark on June 7, 2006 4:16 PM (e)

all very depressing. how about relevant some humour, courtesy of The Onion:

Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method

Comment #104268

Posted by Grand Moff Texan on June 7, 2006 4:33 PM (e)

a bill that would require the teaching of all the major ID arguments in public school science classes

ALL of them? When did they get one?
.

Comment #104277

Posted by kay on June 7, 2006 5:46 PM (e)

Point. This would at most mandate that the science teacher observe a minute of silence or proclaim aloud, I’ll give you some ID arguments if and when they ever make some.

Comment #104278

Posted by AD on June 7, 2006 5:54 PM (e)

Related from the Onion as well…

Taurus April 20 - May 20

It seems like no matter how many times you pick up the Bible, you always discover something new within its pages for you to wildly misconstrue.

Comment #104285

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 7, 2006 6:55 PM (e)

Ed notes that:

The pro-ID professor was Ralph Seelke

and you can see his website here:

http://www2.uwsuper.edu/rseelke/index.htm

from the site:

. I also have an ongoing interest in Christian apologetics, which [b]sometimes overlaps my professional career[/b]. I am convinced that Christianity is not only true, but that it is perhaps the only way of viewing the world that allows you to have both meaning and rationality in life. (emphasis mine)

Yet another lost soul trying to convince himself that his religion is somehow science.

*sigh*

Comment #104287

Posted by Ron Okimoto on June 7, 2006 7:12 PM (e)

You have to begin distinguishing the replacement scam from the old ID scam. The new scam that is being perpetrated by the same scam artists, but they try to not mention ID. The Wisconsin professor just demonstrates how difficult it is to snow anyone on the new scam. He has to cite the same ID perps that failed with ID. Just because they try really hard not to mention creationism or ID they are stuck with the fact that the ID replacement scam is just the old creationist obfuscation scam without telling anyone why they are obfuscating. It is a no brainer that the same guys that perpetrated the ID creationist scam are perpetrating the controversy creationist scam. If the bill gets passed they will have to explain why they passed it knowing that fact, and they will likely have to answer the question in court.

Comment #104289

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2006 8:01 PM (e)

I also have an ongoing interest in Christian apologetics, which [b]sometimes overlaps my professional career[/b]. I am convinced that Christianity is not only true, but that it is perhaps the only way of viewing the world that allows you to have both meaning and rationality in life. (emphasis mine)

But ID has nothing to do with religion. No sirree Bob. Not a thing. It’s just those lying atheist darwinists who say it does.

I would very very much like to see this guy on a witness stand some day.

Comment #104298

Posted by Richard Simons on June 7, 2006 8:23 PM (e)

From the bill:
“Use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution.”

But there is no scientific theory of global warming. There are various theories of radiation absorption and emission, the behaviour of gases and so on which, together with data, have been used to make predictions on climate change, but there is no theory of warming. Just another example of their woolly thinking.

Comment #104300

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 7, 2006 8:39 PM (e)

Well, there are two reasons for the “global warming” addition:

(1) it lets the fundies argue “See? It’s NOT all about religion”

and

(2) global warming is their SECOND-favorite anti-scientific gripe – in general, fundies hate environmentalists because, after all, Jesus is coming back soon, so who CARES if we destroy the planet?

Comment #104303

Posted by His DSPness on June 7, 2006 8:50 PM (e)

From Rev Dr. Lenny Flank: “after all, Jesus is coming back soon, so who CARES if we destroy the planet?”

I guess a lot of them think he’ll come after the oil company whose stock they own reports its earnings……

Comment #104312

Posted by stevaroni on June 7, 2006 9:58 PM (e)

From the bill:
“Use the scientific method to critically evaluate scientific theories including, but not limited to, the theories of global warming and evolution.”

Could you imagine the reaction that would break out if some biology teacher, maybe someone close to retirement, got pissed off and took this law at it’s word, put the two theories up side by side in front of his class and proceeded to publicly chew up ID in front of the students.

Imagine if it happened in a district with an activist preacher arguing that the teacher shouldn’t be allowed to evaluate ID “critically”.

I almost salivate over the zoo that would break out over all this stupidity.

But then again, I’m getting old and cynical and starting to think that I might actually like an occasional train wreck.

Comment #104315

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 7, 2006 10:58 PM (e)

Could you imagine the reaction that would break out if some biology teacher, maybe someone close to retirement, got pissed off and took this law at it’s word, put the two theories up side by side in front of his class and proceeded to publicly chew up ID in front of the students.

better than that, how ‘bout if same hypothetical teach went to visit Ralph Seelke’s church and did it there.

Comment #104327

Posted by Wheels on June 8, 2006 12:32 AM (e)

I have considered taking these bills at their face value, even when they say to teach the “alternatives” to Evolution like ID.
So when it comes time to wade through the subject in a class, show the folks exactly what makes YEC wrong, and what makes ID unscientific. That way you not only knock them out of the running, you also sneak in an education about the actual mechanics of science for the students.

Comment #104332

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 8, 2006 12:49 AM (e)

The problem is, while YOU would take the obvious approach of using the “opportunity” to trash ID, in reality, there would be just as many teachers (more, depending on the district) who would take the opportunity to screw up science in their classes as much as is legally permitted under that statute.

nope, it’s just a bad idea all the way round.

Comment #104398

Posted by misanthrope101 on June 8, 2006 4:45 AM (e)

I don’t think a lot of ID proponents see what would happen if ID were taught in the classroom and subjected to critical thinking, though obviously they should. ID-leaning parents would freak out if a teacher skewered their pet theory in the classroom, because they would take it as an offense to their religion. They view this as a battle to unseat evolution (and materialism) but they aren’t contemplating how they’ll react to a smart-alec teenager (like I was) writing a “serious” science paper on the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn and turn it in to his ID/crypto-YEC teacher. Even if they “win” and get ID into the classroom, it’ll take 18 seconds for the ID proponents themselves to reveal that it really is about religion, because they’ll be so quick to take offense to any critical assessment. The same goes for outright teaching the Bible–they would never be able to tolerate an atheist teenager disputing the historical validity of Jesus or the Bible. I realize they’re trying to sneak it in, but what’s the point of sneaking in if you already know that you have to be honest about it anyway, when it comes down to it? The more subtly they try to hide it, the more obvious their dishonesty will be when their religious sensibilities are offended later. It’ll be trivially easy for sarcastic teenagers to “out” teachers who want “ID” to be a synonym for “God.” Don’t they see this coming?

Comment #104418

Posted by Keith Douglas on June 8, 2006 7:42 AM (e)

A microbiologist ID supporter? Urgp.

I do notice a slight “evolution” in the claim. The bit “including, but not limited to”, is new, no? Perhaps an attempt to get around previous criticisms that earlier law drafts “special cased” evolution.

Comment #104478

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 8, 2006 3:13 PM (e)

I realize they’re trying to sneak it in, but what’s the point of sneaking in if you already know that you have to be honest about it anyway, when it comes down to it?

again, this entirely depends on the district we are speaking of.

Sone districts (take for example, that district near Bakersfield in Southern California that made the news a few months back), would have no problems at all with converting their science classes to bible study groups. Yes, there might be a couple of parents that sue, but the entire district still suffers, and the message given to the kids is that science and religion are equivalent as far as their educators are concerned.

There are many good reasons why many of us have fought so hard to keep ID out of the classroom, and this is just one of them.

They don’t call it “The wedge document” for nothing, you know.

Comment #104738

Posted by Sam Lewis on June 9, 2006 1:53 PM (e)

Along with the “critically analyze” language, the bill also includes this:
“The state board also shall ensure that the Michigan educational assessment program and the Michigan merit examination are based on the state recommended model core curriculum content standards, are testing only for proficiency in basic and advanced academic skill and academic subject matter, and are not used to measure pupils’ values or attitudes.”
Basically saying “if your religion says evolution is wrong, we can’t hold you accountable if you don’t learn it.” That may not be the intent, but that’s how it will be used.

Comment #104742

Posted by steve s on June 9, 2006 2:11 PM (e)

They don’t call it “The wedge document” for nothing, you know.

They should have called it The Wedgie Document, for all the discomfort it’s given them.

Comment #105041

Posted by Bilbo on June 11, 2006 6:12 PM (e)

Whoa! I live in Michigan. I haven’t seen or heard about this until I came across it here. I’ll be curious to see what happens. Yes, it’s an election year in Michigan. Yes, the legislature has a Republican majority. Because of high unemployment, our Democratic governor (Jennifer Granholm – a wonderful, intelligent woman. I wish we could elect her for life), is in for the fight for her life from the Republican candidate, Dick DeVos, one of the Amway owners (the pyramid scheme people). This might become a hot political issue.

Personally, although I am a proponent of ID, I don’t think it belongs in public school until it is able to prove itself to the Scientific Community as a whole (yes, yes, I already know how impossible you all think that is).

As to the question of teaching the problems with Darwinian theory in public schools, I think most public school teachers are mentally challenged enough just to teach the theory itself.

Comment #105292

Posted by Charley on June 12, 2006 9:31 PM (e)

For a master lesson on deception, check out the press release by the author of the bill:

http://www.gophouse.com/GOPNewsWire/News_Releases/Moolenaar/060706_ScientificMethodMoolenaar.htm

He’s not fighting the teaching of evolution or global warming; he’s helping students to be more scientific by promoting the use of the scientific method! “If we, as a society, didn’t pursue the truth on scientific theories, we’d still believe the earth was flat and bloodletting was an effective cure for the common cold. We must empower young people to use scientific principles and come to their own scientific conclusions.”

Amazing job of cloaking superstitious beliefs with the rhetoric of science.