Two bills have been introduced into the House of Delegates in order to retard the excellent science based education we have here in the state of Maryland in exchange for — you guessed it — more “intelligent design” mythology.
HB 1531 would provide that teachers in Maryland’s public schools and faculty members in Maryland’s public institutions of higher education “shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information to [sic] the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning”; the phrase “the full range of scientific views” is evidently taken from the so-called Santorum language, which was in fact stripped from the federal No Child Left Behind act. A subsequent provision repeats the phrase “the full range of scientific views,” while adding, “including intelligent design.”
“While there is arguably a place for ‘intelligent design’ to be discussed in public school classrooms,” commented NCSE executive director Eugenie C. Scott, “Marylanders would do well to be wary of the bill. Teaching ‘intelligent design’ as if it were scientifically credible is pedagogically inappropriate and constitutionally problematic, whether it’s in a science class, a philosophy class, or a home ec class.” Scott cited the recent case Hurst v. Newman, in which parents in Lebec, California, challenged the teaching of a four-week elective course on “Philosophy of Design.”
These two bills have been introduced by a Democrat, but as I’ve noted here, the labels are mostly irrelevant in the true litmus test: progress vs stasis and regression. Maryland has a long legacy of leadership, and we can’t allow the forces of ignorance to gain a foothold in the The Free State. Sign here and I’ll be on top of these issues. Let your delegate know about your opposition (I recently sent emails in support of stem cell research and received personal responses from two of my delegates)
Thanks to Pharyngula and reader “Rheinhard” for the heads-up.
You’re welcome, Oliver. I’ve grown to really love Pharyngula over the last couple months since I started checking it out, if for no other reason than it’s one of the few places on the web to get one’s fix of hot cephalopod sex. Although one hopes that the Maryland reps are at least a bit more coherent than this guy, I can’t help but imagine that ol’ Chuck Darwin would still give them more or less the same response.
And although PZ is an atheist and proud of it, we do share the same underlying cultishness.
Why should the IDer’s give up? Liberals never do.
Well, IDer’s are a one-trick show… kinda like flat-earthers… or comet-riders.
I would hope that more people could agree on the precepts of science yet the subject is a little too nuanced for many people to grasp. And so their superstition takes over because their faith in the veracity of the truth-tellers has been shaken by money-takers and war-mongers.
Frank, ID’er won’t give up. Like all species on earth, they will simply evolve into some new form. What will they call themselves next?
Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech?
It’s not about freedom of speech to lobby the Bd of Ed to change the curriculum?
I’ll bet you that if there were a school system teaching that former Pres Clinton was a sex addict, you wouldn’t mind somebody protesting it.
It’s not the subject matter that determines a person’s right to free speech — you can petition the School Board to teach that the moon is made of bleu cheese, if you want — and you ought to know better than to suggest that.
Frank, this is not about Freedom of Speech, and shame on you for suggesting such an ignorant idea. The State has a responsibility to teach subjects that further the scientific literacy of their citizenry. Science means understanding the scientific method. The scientific method – the use of evidence, hypothesis testing – support the Theory of Evolution. Teachers are not being constrained from voicing an opinion, they are being told to teach an important subject.
If you want creationism taught in school, teach it in a Bible class. There there’s an entire Book dedicated to the formation of the earth.
Freedom of speech applies (of course) even if that speech is flat-out wrong-headed, backward and superstitious (and otherwise tricksy and false).
Sorry Frank, but I don’t buy your argument about this being about free speech. Don’t try to confuse the issue. This is a tactic folks like to use whenever they just don’t agree with something.
This isn’t about free speech. Someone is proposing a bill, and right-minded (or better yet, left-minded) folks oppose it. That’s how things work.
No conspiracy. No evil leftys trying to crush freedom. Just reasonable people who know that religion belongs in the church and science belongs in the classroom.
Frank, I’m beginning to thing you’re one of those RNC plants employed to muck up the discourse on liberal blogs, just like Pedro the Liar.
“It s not about freedom of speech to lobby the Bd of Ed to change the curriculum? I ll bet you that if there were a school system teaching that former Pres Clinton was a sex addict, you wouldn t mind somebody protesting it.”
Just a stunning example of old-school sophistry on your part. No one minds the protesting, it’s the ignorant contrarianism which leads people to these protestations which is the problem. And we wouldn’t mind someone protesting that GWB was an alcoholic in a science class either. Wow.
Thanks FM… Don’t want to be mucking about (excuse the pun) with the Constitution, now do we?
“You can petition the School Board to teach that the moon is made of bleu cheese.”
Granted. But would you favor the bleu cheese theory being taught as a scientifically valid alternative to existing theories of lunar composition?
Frank, you are intellectually dishonest and let’s hope not a parent.
As a science teacher, you are paid to teach science. This involves the application of the scientific method. If you are teaching something that does not meet scientific scrutiny, you are not doing your job. If a doctor incorrectly prescribes a medicine, it is not a free speech issue, it is a job performance issue. Why is your skull so thick on this issue?
ID is a belief, not a theory. Science doesn’t fill in the blanks by saying “..and then a miracle happened.”
“God does not play dice.” -Einstein
“God not only does play dice, but sometimes he throws them where they cannot be found.” -Stepehn Hawking
So, let the people have their say, as it should be; …
The airing of the grievances shall commence promptly on the vernal equinox and shall continue until complete in that all opinions must be given their fair hearing. We expect the grievances — those past, present, and those to be — will be completed within a few days — fore or past — of the summer solstice.
Z: Damn right I’m a parent — of two teenage boys! Why do you think I’m so friggin’ crazy? And I’m not thick, I’m stubborn — and proud of it.
Seriously, though, there was a time when evolution was not taught in schools (it is my understanding,though I’m not familiar with the details, that there scientific, non – creationist theories of the origin of the universe, the earth, and life on earth, before Darwin’s). In order for it to happen, it took effort and appeals. Were it not for those efforts and appeals,we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now.
Science gets no exemption from the Free Market. They are not gods, and they have been known to be stupendously wrong — thalidomide comes to mind.
So, let the people have their say, as it should be; and let the educators put their heads together, and work it out — as they should.
“Seriously, though, there was a time when evolution was not taught in schools (it is my understanding,though I m not familiar with the details, that there scientific, non – creationist theories of the origin of the universe, the earth, and life on earth, before Darwin s). In order for it to happen, it took effort and appeals. Were it not for those efforts and appeals,we wouldn t be having this discussion right now.”
I’m far from an expert, but you’re right. There were competing theories with Darwin’s. One was the theory of acquired characterisics. It hypothesized that, for example, giraffes achieved their long necks over time by continually stretching for leaves. This was eventually proven not to be the case.
It took time for evolution to gain acceptance and that acceptance is not complete even today. However, in the case of the Scopes trial, evolution wasn’t taught because Tennessee state law said it couldn’t be taught.
New theories will arise and be tested. But they have to be testable. ID for the most part isn’t. This problem isn’t confined to theories regarding the origin of life. In physics, the frustrating thing about String theory is that while it has potential, in its current it is so complex, many of its assumptions it cannot be tested empirically.
Scientific theories should stand or fall on verifialbe evidence. They should not be mandated or prohibited by legislation
I wasn’t referring to a comparison between ID and Darwinian evolution. I know where I stand (I don’t believe in ID, per se, I believe in “mitigated evolution” — where God began, and continues to guide evolution) I know where you, and the all other lefties stand. No use beating that dead eohippus anymore.
I was referring to the process whereby Darwinian evolution entered the educational system. It was, in a sense, competing with other theories, and it its adherents and its opponents.
Frank, I am glad you know where you “stand” on the origin of life, and in the privacy of your own home your are welcome to preach (yes, preach) your own beliefs. You can even pontificate about those beliefs on liberal blogs to the great amusement of anybody with a scientific education. But it is not sound public policy to offer your beliefs as science unless you can commit them to the same scrutiny that has been applied to evolution.
saying “darwinian evolution” is as accurate as saying “newtonian gravity”. More of a starting point than an accurate description of the current state of the science.
I am indeed sorry it amuses you. Perhaps some good old left – wing tolerance is called for here, especially when you can make an unneccesarily snotty remark like “anybody with a scientific education.” I am sorry you had a scientific education.
Perhaps I was fortunate that I educated myself for 20+ years before I returned to college and finished. I had what was once called a liberal education — one that taught me that everything we know doesn’t come from the world of science — far from it.
I don’t you think should consider it “unscientific” to believe that God was, and is involved in the process of evolution. I find it much more satisfying than trying to believe that I, and all other humans, are the result of some solar scale game of pinball.
And I don’t really think that you or anybody else on earth should tell me to confine my beliefs to the privacy of my own home. I have as much right to be heard as anybody. It has become a well – worn cliche among liberals that if you don’t like — pornography, liberal documentaries, anti – religious programming, “fill in the blank” — you can just turn it off. But when a person comes along with a belief you don’t like, you can nonchalantly tell him, “You’re free to talk about that in your own home, but not where I or anybody else can hear you.”
I’m here to tell you, “Chuck you, farley!” That’s not the America I grew up in, and if it changed when I wasn’t paying attention, I didn’t get the Memo.
Frank, I expect more from you, and you should expect more from yourself. I explicitly stated that you can have any ideosyncratic belief system you choose. You are free to express those views in public – this is a public forum afterall. I am not censoring you but I am challenging your views. That’s what we do in science and on the left. We believe that open discussions are healthy, unlike blogs at FreeRepublic, Instapundit or Red State.
But if you come into this open forum and try to spout junk science as fact, you should expect that you are going to be shot down. It is not a reflection on you as a person unless you are unable to change your mind.
z: “It is not a reflection on you as a person unless you are unable to change your mind.”
Do you realize what you typed?
I explicitly stated that you can have any ideosyncratic {Deviating from the customary: bizarre, cranky, curious, eccentric, erratic, freakish, odd, outlandish, peculiar, quaint, queer, quirky, singular, strange, unnatural, unusual, weird} belief system you choose.
It is not a reflection on you as a person Read: You’re OK
unless you are unable to change your mind. Read: believe what we believe.
Amazing. You re still clinging to the idea that existence and creation are defined by science. Actually, no, you are insisting that there could not have been any creation, because science cannot prove there was one, while at the same time maintaining that what I believe can t be true, because it isn t scientific.
Of course, it s possible that the world was created by a God. Not only possible, but damn near certain. Have you ever heard of exnihilation?
Have you ever read the work of Guy Murchie?
This isn t Jerry Falwell vs. Richard Dawkins on the Today Show. The greatest minds that ever existed on this planet have wrestled with these issues for nearly 8,000 years. Do you think you re going stroll in here and wish it all away with the magic words, Sorry – unscientific”? Is unscientific a curse word? Are you telling me that scientists, all of them , with their cumulative knowledge, know everything?
As far as I m concerned, we could find out tomorrow that Creationism is wrong, ID is wrong, and science is wrong about cosmogony, and maybe even cosmology, and it wouldn t mean a damn thing to me. For you, your world would end. You re so locked into your worldview, the change would kill you. And I certainly don t mean you personally, Z. I mean all you people who think that science has the answer to everything.
You couldn’t be further from the truth.
Frank,
I happen to agree with you on this one. ID is absolute B.S. and does not need to be in our schools, but in my opinion, my very liberal brethren are naive to believe that everything can be proven scientifically. We can search till the end of time and never figure everything out scientifically. I think we can all agree that when I want to learn about my faith I will go to my church and when I want to learn about science I will go to school.
Absotively. I, personally, don’t see anything wrong with using the teaching of ID, as a mean of teaching both the pros and cons of the scientific method. Although it’s been a long time, I seem to remember that there were X amount of steps to the scientific method.
It would be interesting to present evolution and ID, side by side, to see how they each stack up against those steps.
But, as I said above, that’s for educators (i.e., the Board of Education) to hash out, not City or Town Councils, or State legislatures.
“I know where you, and the all other lefties stand. No use beating that dead eohippus anymore.
I was referring to the process whereby Darwinian evolution entered the educational system. It was, in a sense, competing with other theories, and it its adherents and its opponents.”
Frank:
In an earlier thread (the one regarding regarding the small town paper editorial on the state of Blacks in the US) you chastised me and others for what you perceived as gratuitous insults. I posted a response, but the thread was already so far down, I don’t know if you saw it. Don’t do the same thing to me. This “lefty” was agreeing with you that potential theories have to compete with each other.
My point was, no theory should be mandated or proscribed by legislation. Do you disagree?
And no, science doesn’t have all the answers. Darwin is burried in Westminster Abby along with Newton, who was almost as much of a biblical scholar as he was a scientist.
This is a fabulous find
http://tinyurl.com/zm7rq
OT, but even I thought this was funny…
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/23/comic_advises_women_.html
If your sons came home from school today and said their new science teacher told them the moon was made of cheese, wouldn’t you have a problem with that?
If your sons came home and said they were suspended becasue they told the teacher he was full of shit, would you have a problem with that?
Wouldn’t you complain to the school board that a) the teahcer was teaching his beliefs instead of what is observed to be true and that b) your sons were punished (freedom of speech) because they disagreed with his beliefs?
Frank_D says again:
“Have you ever read the work of Guy Murchie?
This isn t Jerry Falwell vs. Richard Dawkins on the Today Show. The greatest minds that ever existed on this planet have wrestled with these issues for nearly 8,000 years. Do you think you re going stroll in here and wish it all away with the magic words, Sorry – unscientific ? Is unscientific a curse word? Are you telling me that scientists, all of them , with their cumulative knowledge, know everything?”
Frank_D, they know the most important things there are to know – they know how to find out the truth (or at least the facts), and they know how to do it without resorting to a supernatural crutch. Who cares if the greatest minds that have ever existed on the planet have spent 8,000 years on this? It wasn’t until the 19th century that this wrestling produced the logic and the background and the environment that made it possible for Darwin to conceive of his theory, and it’s only in the late 20th century and early 21st that computer technology made it possible to simulate evolution and test out different variations on evolutionary theory. For the record, this is called “Artificial Life”.
Frank_D sayeth: “I don t you think should consider it unscientific to believe that God was, and is involved in the process of evolution. I find it much more satisfying than trying to believe that I, and all other humans, are the result of some solar scale game of pinball.”
It is very unscientific. In simple terms, it’s called a “fudge factor”; in simpler terms, it’s called cheating. The scientific method is successful precisely because it doesn’t allow appeals to authority or to a deus ex machina for answers to questions. You have to figure out the answer and publish it so that someone else can try to duplicate and validate your answer, or you have to go back to the drawing board. Appealing to the supernatural for help in a scientific endeavor is silly and self-defeating for a number of reasons. One of them is that in science you can’t put things into a theory that can’t be defined, because that leaves the door open to making your undefined entity “X” be the magical wand-waver that makes all your difficulties vanish.
No pain, no gain in science. And no appeals to supernatural beings, either. Science deals with the material world and material causes and effects.. no matter what that idiot Philip Johnson says.
http://www.cartoonbank.com/assets/1/40967_m.gif
it’s kind of like the Rumsfeld mantra. There’s stuff we know, stuff we don’t know and stuff we don’t know we don’t know.
My point was, no theory should be mandated or proscribed by legislation. Do you disagree?
I agreed with you two hours before you wrote your comment.
See
March 23rd, 2006 at 7:36 am
Yes, Duros, when of my son’s teachers told the class that Pres. Bush fixed the election of 2004, you’re damn right, I called her boss. If he got suspended for telling her she was full of shit, he would have got in trouble for that with me. The kids in my family are not in the habit of telling authority figures they are full of shit — they leave that to me.
Frank,
Looks like my comment got hung up in moderation for awhile.
No, Frank, I was referring to if the teacher made stuff up and presented it as fact.
Hehe, chuckle, chuckle…
yeah, thought you’d like that.