Science Teachers Confront Intelligent Design

Posted 28 May 2006 by PvM

Science Teachers Confront Intelligent Design by Gloria Hillard (Download MP3)

In classrooms across the country, science teachers are increasingly finding themselves on the front lines of the decades-long evolution wars, pitting accepted scientific explanations against biblical-based challengers. So when some 15,000 science teachers convened for their annual conference recently, many attended workshops designed to help them deal with the issue.

Evolution Resources at the National Science Teachers Association NSTA resources include The Creation Controversy & The Science Classroom by James W Skehan and Craig E Nelson (Sample)

In the debate over creationism, you need ammunition that will let you respond to the opposition in a forceful but reasoned manner. This is it. Organized into three practical parts, The Creation Controversy arms you with insights into modern science and the Book of Genesis, effective strategies for teaching evolution and other controversial topics, and the NSTA Position Statement on Evolution. A must-read resource. "Thought provoking and unique ... The creation controversy is explained in great detail in neutral terms differentiating science and religion." --Jacqueline Pfeiffer, Elementary School Teacher, Cabot, PA

The Nature of Science and the Study of Biological Evolution NSTA

This inspired (and inspiring) two-part set weaves an examination of the nature of scientific inquiry into a compelling study of evolution. The package consists of a teacher guide on CD-ROM with a text designed specifically for high school students. The text's stage-setting first chapter provides a broad introduction to the nature and methods of science. The remaining five chapters cover the events that led to Charles Darwin to develop his ideas on the unity and diversity of life on Earth; seven lines of evidence that support the theory of evolution; population genetics; natural selection; and primate and human evolution. To help students monitor their own learning, the book's special features include statements of key concepts, strategies to reinforce learning, and memorable quotes about evolution. The teacher CD ties in with major points in each chapter, where activity icons serve as invitations to explore major concepts in more depth through the CD's related activities and Zoom Ins.

Virus and the Whale: Exploring Evolution in Creatures Small & Large by Judy Diamond, Carl Zimmer, E Margaret Evans, Linda Allison and Sarah Disbrow Sample Chapter and Sample activity

With this lively book of activities as their guide, students can follow seven scientists into their labs and out to the field to discover how evolution works. Meanwhile, you'll benefit from the practical help the book provides with the twin challenges of evolution: what to teach and how to teach it. For students, Virus and the Whale brings to light some of today's most exciting and up-to-date research through the stories of scientists who study evolution. Each featured research project highlights an important aspect of evolutionary biology, from the "arms race" between viruses and their human hosts to the long-term evolutionary changes that can turn a land mammal into a whale. The activities lead students to investigate evolution as they try out the kinds of creative thinking skills real scientists use to make new discoveries. For teachers, three preliminary chapters explain how to use the scientists' stories as a logical framework for teaching evolutionary concepts. These chapters provide accurate natural history background; offer additional information on the evolution of each of the seven organisms investigated in the book; and introduce common ways in which children and adults think and learn about evolution. Each activity lists learning outcomes tied to the National Science Education Standards and includes assessment questions and materials lists. Virus and the Whale combines a dynamic narrative with easy-to-use activities, clear illustrations, and a welcome dose of humor.

Evolution in Perspective: The Science Teacher's Compendium by Rodger Bybee Sample chapter

If ever a subject could benefit from a strong dose of perspective, it's evolution. This important new book supplies the necessary insights by bringing together the views of leading scientists, professors, and teachers. Working from the premise that only those students whose schools teach them about the nature of science will truly understand evolution, the collection gathers 12 influential articles first published in the NSTA member journal The Science Teacher. The articles fall into three categories. The Scientific Perspective explores the evidence supporting evolution. The Educational Perspective looks at evolution's place in the National Science Education Standards and at the thorny problem of calling evolution a "theory." The Science Teacher's Perspective moves into the classroom, discussing lesson plans that allow students to explore evolution and draw their own conclusions. Also included is the recently revised NSTA Position Statement on Evolution. This collection comes from, and is developed for, the people on the front lines---educators who deal with the controversy over evolution every day. From a practical standpoint, the book can help you address the subject in the classroom without being dragged into endless, ultimately unproductive debate. From a substantive standpoint, it provides a remarkable overview of the state of teaching evolution in America. "...an elegant collection of journal articles that bring together the concepts of the nature of science and the theory of evolution...compelling reading for science teachers, because we must ensure that our students understand science as a way of explaining the natural world." -- Mary Poarch, middle school teacher, San Antonio, Tex.

and more....

42 Comments

Wheels · 28 May 2006

Does anybody forsee the DI following suit and holding conferences about how to "teach the controversy" to Christian school science teachers or homeschoolers?

Pete Dunkelberg · 28 May 2006

Hats off to NSTA! This is a great set of teaching resources!
More and more people are realizing that the IDiots are rightly so called. The result of Disco's machinations will stronger science teaching.

Gerry L · 28 May 2006

Wheels asked "Does anybody forsee the DI following suit and holding conferences about how to "teach the controversy" to Christian school science teachers or homeschoolers?"

Check out the press release at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb391040.htm
""Creation or Evolution? Does It Matter?" will be the topic of a free seminar led by Dr. Jerry Layton and his wife Donna Layton at the First Baptist Church of Ferndale, WA, on the evening of June 3, 2006, beginning at 7:00 PM. Since 1999, Dr. Layton and his wife have taken their 2-hour Creation Science PowerPoint Symposium into more than 200 universities and public schools in the Philippines, usually speaking to very large audiences. "

DI is not mentioned, but it's close enough to Seattle to make one suspicious. I hope someone at NCSE saves this item for the next Dover-like trial in order to -- AGAIN -- address the issue about the religious nature of ID.

Vyoma · 28 May 2006

Check out the press release at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb391040... ""Creation or Evolution? Does It Matter?" will be the topic of a free seminar led by Dr. Jerry Layton and his wife Donna Layton at the First Baptist Church of Ferndale, WA, on the evening of June 3, 2006, beginning at 7:00 PM. Since 1999, Dr. Layton and his wife have taken their 2-hour Creation Science PowerPoint Symposium into more than 200 universities and public schools in the Philippines, usually speaking to very large audiences. " DI is not mentioned, but it's close enough to Seattle to make one suspicious. I hope someone at NCSE saves this item for the next Dover-like trial in order to --- AGAIN --- address the issue about the religious nature of ID.
— Gerry L

I saw that press release as well, and I'm hoping that somebody with whom I'm networked over the net will attend the seminar. I'm dying to know what the new evidence against evolution is and why it's being presented at a church rather than before a critical scientific audience. Interestingly, as I went over Layton's website (he's not someone of whom I've heard in the past that I can recall), I didn't even find the words "intelligent design." All I saw was repeated mention of slightly-older-fashioned "creation science." From the press release, it seems likely that he equates the two. As I haven't seen anyone from DI, or in the intelligent design movement at large, criticize Layton for confusing the two, I can only conclude that they tacitly approve of his equation. If not, then I assume that someone from the DI or one of their allied organizations will be raising as much protest about Layton as they have about "Darwinists."

Philip Bruce Heywood · 28 May 2006

Reading Gloria Hillard's report, we find a quote from a Prof. Miller: "Evolution disturbs people, Miller says, because it concerns where we come from .... and who we are ... ". When we think about that statement for a while we find it has everything to do with religion. F = MA never attracted this sort of attention. Although it is true that some people thought Newton's works were of the Evil One. What really interests me is why I can't find a whole segment of comments from 2 pages ago (dealing with EDGE & ID). Someone please enlighten me.

Vyoma · 28 May 2006

"Evolution disturbs people, Miller says, because it concerns where we come from .... and who we are ... ". When we think about that statement for a while we find it has everything to do with religion.
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Evolution disturbs a few people who need to believe that they're the most important thing in existence. It doesn't back up the unfounded idea that we are separate from other living things and the act of some special creation. It's pathetic that people need to find meaning in where they came from rather than in what they are. Unfortunately, the intelligent design/creation science movement panders to those insecurities in exactly the same way that a pimp plays upon the insecurity of runaway teenagers. Make 'em feel special, hook 'em, and then keep 'em in the dark. Then, you know, they have to make up tall tales about how the moon was designed and come up with conspiracies and cast aspersions upon others. Funny how what's called "magic" in one culture becomes "religion" in another.

Sir_Toejam · 28 May 2006

Then, you know, they have to make up tall tales about how the moon was designed and come up with conspiracies and cast aspersions upon others. Funny how what's called "magic" in one culture becomes "religion" in another.

sure sounds a lot like cultism instead of religion, doesn't it?

Shalini, BBWAD · 29 May 2006

[sure sounds a lot like cultism instead of religion, doesn't it?]

Sounds a lot like the Cretin Cult.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 29 May 2006

Sounds like someone's been standing on the cat's tail to me.

Hey, how do I access the complete set of comments two pages ago?

stevaroni · 29 May 2006

... why it's being presented at a church rather than before a critical scientific audience.

Because nobody ever holds up their hand and stops a sermon in church asking "before you move on, could you explain how you got the third set of numbers on that last slide?"

Vyoma · 29 May 2006

Because nobody ever holds up their hand and stops a sermon in church asking "before you move on, could you explain how you got the third set of numbers on that last slide?"
— stevearoni

It would be priceless to actually hear those words come from Layton's lips were someone to ask him the question during his creation science seminar! "I'm presenting this here because nobody will ask me to explain my conclusions." If useful science (as opposed to "creation science") worked that way, we'd all still be chucking virgins into volcanoes in hopes that the gods wouldn't smite us.

rubble · 29 May 2006

Re: Jerry Layton's seminar ...

Layton is apparently a YEC. The ID/DI approach of "don't ask, don't tell" (it's God) wouldn't fly there. Layton's approach apparently lies with showing the allegedly atheistic basis of "evolution":

"Since Atheism is unthinkable, students and educators are appalled when we show them the anti-God bias of evolution." http://message.abwe.org/vol53no03/creation-science-evangelism-reaching-students-and-educators.html

Also note the ICR and AiG references ...

Vyoma · 29 May 2006

Layton is apparently a YEC. The ID/DI approach of "don't ask, don't tell" (it's God) wouldn't fly there. Layton's approach apparently lies with showing the allegedly atheistic basis of "evolution":
— rubble

Absolutely... which makes me wonder all the more where the outrage is from DI when Layton's press release regarding his seminar contains the following statement: Last July the Laytons trained their first group of Filipino Creation Science Presenters who are now giving seminars all over the Philippines. The seminar shows the weakness of evolution in light of recent evidence for intelligent design in all of nature, and presents Intelligent Design Theory or Creation Science as approaches which contribute more to research and better explain our origins. If indeed YEC-style "creation science" is substantially different from "intelligent design," one would expect some reaction from the intelligent design crowd distancing themselves from an explicitly religion-based seminar delivered by an explicitly religion-based seminarian who equates the two. I haven't seen any such reaction. Where's Dembski weighing in to say that Layton is wrong in saying that creation science and intelligent design are equivalent? How abut this Heywood fellow we have lurking around here? Anybody? Hello, ID camp? Your hypothesis is being presented as a religious model... where's the disclaimer from your side against Layton? Anybody home?

Registered User · 29 May 2006

I'm leaving this comment here because, for whatever reason, there's no reason left to leave it.

I am extremely happy to discover that some folks are finally getting around to seeing what was plainly obvious to a great many of us: Paul Nelson is a lying sack of doo-doo. Similarly, I recall someone else (or was it Ed B. again) recently "seeing the light" (or darkness, as it were) with respect to Casey Luskin's moral bankruptcy.

But I remain astonished. What in the frick took you so goddang long?!?!?!?

If the folks here who claim to be recently "enlighted" re Nelson and/or Luskin want to claim the truly high ground, they will apologize to the commenters here who recognized Nelson's and Luskin's inate dishonesty ages ago and tried to inform the public regarding same. Some of those commenters were criticized repeatedly for their "rudeness," as if calling a habitual liar and professional progandist a "liar and professional propagandist" was beyond the pale.

The bottom line is that these charlatans should not -- and should never have been -- treated with anything remotely resembling respect. Why not? Because they don't treat the rest of humanity with the same respect. Rather, those who disagree with their bizarre and less-than-worthless religious beliefs (you know which beliefs I'm talking about) are treated with utter contempt.

Will these charlatans weep and gnash their teeth and claim that they are being persecuted when we don't shout "AMEN" and praise them for their vacuous "insights"? Of course they will. That's the essence of their beings: pathetic little crybabies trapped in adult bodies. They won't stop telling everyone that "Titanic" was the absolute greatest movie ever until everyone on earth believes it, so help them God. It is written.

Sir_Toejam · 29 May 2006

RU -

it's about appearences. Even if one knows that your opponent is a fraud coming out of the gate, it's not necessarily the case that your audience does. If you come out guns blazing, your audience can turn against you as being a bit overzealous and "mean".

therefore, it's best to play your opponents as "innocent until proven guilty" until the the "obvious" has rather incontrovertible evidence.

In any political mudslinging contest, you want your opponents to throw the first salvo, while you stay "clean".

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 May 2006

Hello, ID camp? Your hypothesis is being presented as a religious model... where's the disclaimer from your side against Layton? Anybody home?

Maybe if there is a re-trial in Cobb County, we can get Selman to come and testify that (1) ID is creation "science", and (2) it's all about religious apologetics.

RBH · 29 May 2006

Philip Bruce Heywood asked

Hey, how do I access the complete set of comments two pages ago?

Find the main post to which the comments were appended in the Archives that are available from the menu on the right side of the main page. RBH

Keanus · 29 May 2006

That IDiots & creationists attack evolution persistently and ignore Newton's Laws, Ohm's Law, and other notions lies less with an obsession over human roots and more with the fear that evolution fosters atheism and, therefore, an amoral world. In the eyes of many religious folks, Xians and others as well, to behave morally one must fear punishment by god. In their eyes the absence of god = amorality. The see methodological naturalism as denying their god, failing to recognize that having nothing to say about A is not the same as denying A. Even the Millers, Kenneth and Keith, strong Christians of different stripes, are regarded as liars. To the IDC folks they must be atheists, wolves in sheep's clothing. So no matter how couched, their hysteria at evolution will continue either until they die or they can be made to see that evolution truly has nothing to say about god, pro or con. I won't hold my breath for the latter to happen. (And as much as I admire and enjoy the writings of Richard Dawkins, his oft repeated position on religion and atheism only adds fuel to the fire that consumes the IDiots and their comrades in arms, the creationists. )

Michael Rathbun, FCD · 29 May 2006

In their eyes the absence of god = amorality. The see methodological naturalism as denying their god, failing to recognize that having nothing to say about A is not the same as denying A.
— Keanus

This "failure to recognize" is built into the particular mindset that you encounter in these contexts. Since it is incontestable (i.e. Paul tells us) that everybody without exception, deep down in their hearts, knows that there is a holy God who requires proper behavior, we then know with certainty that all behavior not instructed by the Word and Spirit of God is, at its roots, the product of conscious or unconscious rebellion. (Remember that the heart of man is desperately corrupt, and always tends toward wickedness.) Since God Incarnate specifically said that "he who is not with me is against me"[1] it follows as night does the day that those who fail positively to acknowledge God are actively denying (and indeed, defying) Him. mdr (who was deeply into this mindset for entirely too many years) [1] we leave it as an exercise for the reader to reconcile this with the complementary statement "he who is not against me is for me".

P B H · 30 May 2006

I always said there are gentlemen visit this site. Thanks.

Frank J · 30 May 2006

Layton is apparently a YEC. The ID/DI approach of "don't ask, don't tell" (it's God) wouldn't fly there.
— rubble

Glad to see that my phrase "don't ask, don't tell" is catching on. I say "my phrase" only because I admittedly use it ad nauseum and have yet to hear it anywhere else (except for that Clinton "gays in the military" thing). The most important part of the DI's DADT strategy, however, is not the God part, but the "what happened and when." The former was motivated by the legal failure of classic creationism, but the latter was motivated by the scientific failure (e.g. falsified claims and irreconcilable YEC-OEC contradictions) that IDers were aware of even 20 years ago. IDers (the major players if not the groupies) know that YEC is nonsense, and would be nonsense even if it omitted the designer's identity. If ID were science - even a "not ready for prime time" science as some IDers have admitted, the least IDers can do is devote "equal time" to refuting YEC. And for that they would not need to quote mine, define terms to suit their argument and otherwise bear false witness.

Ex-Fundie · 30 May 2006

It should be noted that the press release is hosted on the ABWE web site (Association of Baptists for World Evangelism). As an ex-fundie, I know some of the leadership of this organization personally. They are the most-rabid form of fundamentalists you can imagine; Chick tracts, God hates fags, YEC, you name it; if it's disgusting, it's there.

I'm not really surprised that the DI would try to cover these guys with their tent/robe/skirt. I am very surprised that the ABWE would have anything to do with a bunch of liberal, non-YEC, atheist-sympathizing, Satanist like the DI.

Wheels · 30 May 2006

Hey now, Chick Tracts are far from disgusting!
They're some of the most brilliant satire ever written.[/inamoreperfectworld]

Tyrannosaurus · 31 May 2006

Chick Tracts that is hilarious. Not to mention how charitable and good the Xians preachings are. YOU WILL ROT IN HELL....... YOU WILL DIE TWO TIMES.....etc, etc.

Sounder · 31 May 2006

I love it when Chick tracts try to demagogue about scientifikery dealamahookeys. It's absolutely hilarious, and a good example of the religious apologetics of creationists taken to its natural extreme.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 31 May 2006

Speaking of demagogues and extremes, I hear the Dover School Superintendant is about to become jobless. Gee, after helping to put the district a cool million in the hole, I can't imagine WHY the school district would want to dump him . . . . . Must be that darwinist atheist censorship, huh.

Can't wait to see the whining about it from DI's Ministry of Propaganda.

Sir_Toejam · 31 May 2006

Can't wait to see the whining about it from DI's Ministry of Propaganda.

phht. either last month or the month before, the NEW Dover school board did nothing to stop, or even counter, a standard Hovind kid's lecture at the auditorium at the high school in question. I wrote to Bernadette Reinking and she wrote back saying that legally, there was no way for the school board to stop any public group from using the auditorium. aside from sounding like a bit of BS to me, this did nothing to address what they COULD have done to help counter Hovind's indoctrination techniques. No counter lecutures for the kids, no demonstration from the school board that anything Hovind said was incorrect. *sigh* I understand the pressure the new board is under from the preponderance of creobots in that district, but still. What do the IDiots have to complain about? sounds pretty much like status quo has been achieved. You're probably right tho; like Robertson before they will somehow claim that the "devil" now controls Dover.

Spike · 1 June 2006

Sir,

It's not really for the school board to counter the Hovind presentation. Any other community member who understands evolution could use the space and do their own presentation. You should ask around the community to find out why no pro-evolutionist has stepped up yet. (In other words: Quite whining for the government to solve your problems!)

The IDiots, though wrong, have the right to present their drivel in any forum they choose, except those supported by compulsory taxation and compulsory attendance. Recent cases have reiterated that religious groups have as much right to after-hours use of government school space as do beer-gutted pick-up basketballers.

Sir_Toejam · 4 June 2006

(In other words: Quite whining for the government to solve your problems!)

i'll leave everything you say as is, except this statement, which is assinine considering the context. remember, this is a teaching facility. It's publically funded. It IS a government institution. shall we say we shouldn't "whine" for schools to solve problems in education directly represented by the likes of Hovind? no wonder things have gotten so bad. go see a Hovind lecture sometime. then tell me to stop requesting that shcools play a hand in countering this crap directly.

Spike · 5 June 2006

And I'll reiterate my point again, because you didn't answer it at all (You argue like a DI Fellow):

Public facilities are for public use. You are part of the public. You can get together with other like-minded parents and educators ANY TIME YOU WANT and use the same facilities that Hovind is using and present counterarguments to his lies. No one is stopping you. You don't have to wait for the school board to do it for you. Get off your fat arse and stand up for what you believe in.

Sir_Toejam · 5 June 2006

Get off your fat arse and stand up for what you believe in.

no, i didn't miss your point. your point is irrelevant in this specific case. perhaps you missed it when I mentioned the pressure the preponderance of creobots in dover put on the schoolboard? who should represent the standard? the public in dover, or the folks they trust with teaching their kids, eh? your point is well understood, and it's still assinine. with your logic, there is little point in having a government at all. it's far too late for extreme libertaranism to work in a country as large and complex as this one. get a clue.

Wheels · 5 June 2006

Oh sh*t, the L word.

Sir_Toejam · 5 June 2006

Libertarian is an "L" word now?

i thought that was reserved for "liberal"?

Do other political bents get a letter too?

I must have missed the memo.

;)

Henry J · 5 June 2006

Re "I must have missed the memo."

Thou shouldst check thy inbox more often! ;)

Spike · 5 June 2006

Wow! What a non-sequitor! "it's far too late for extreme libertaranism to work in a country as large and complex as this one." See? You DO argue like a DI-fellow!

What on earth does that have to do with you and me and others who think Hovind is a liar getting together and running our own presenatations? And reserving the auditorium after school hours to do it?

What special government funding is Hovind getting? What special government support? None that I know of, at lease none that you and I couldn't get ourselves. In fact, I'm the treasurer of a private, non-profit that is doing quite a bit to help kids get excited about science. But you wouldn't care about that, because it's "extreme libertarianism" and, since no school boards are involved, then it's irrelevant.

I never said anything about doing away with government. I just don't see the need to use the school board to promote -your- religious and political agenda.

Spike · 5 June 2006

Wheels,

Around the squishy, "government has to wipe my arse" types who seem to be the majority of posters to these boards (here and at Science Blogs) - you are right, libertarian is the "L"-word.

Anything that would allow people to act on their own, think for themselves and take care of each other without first seeking blessings of Almighty Government has to be stamped out. Who knows? If people were to think for themselves they might come to some wrong conclusions and actually believe in God or something. Couldn't have that in our liberal, pluralistic, egalitarian-at-all-costs society, could we? Can't let people make mistakes!

What would you want next? Freedom of speech? No way, dude, we only reserve that for -our- side.

Rant ends XD

Sir_Toejam · 5 June 2006

What on earth does that have to do with you and me and others who think Hovind is a liar getting together and running our own presenatations? And reserving the auditorium after school hours to do it?

what it has to do with is exactly why i disagreed with you to begin with:

(In other words: Quite whining for the government to solve your problems!)

is an assinine argument in this instance, and your further argument smacks of an overgeneralized libertarian argument. again: If the folks of Dover were well educated on the ToE to begin with, or the damage Hovind's indoctrination seminars cause, they might in fact create counter presentations. However, realistically most people would assume the role of educator to belong to their local public school. If the public school system takes no stand against Hovind, why should the general public do so? You are overextending a good general argument that folks should take part in publically denouncing this crap, to a specific instance where it would in fact, be an excellent idea for this specific school board (since it actually RAN on a platform of rejection of ID in public school curriculum) to take to task the lies and idiocy of Hovind. It's not the general idea that folks should take a stand against this stuff and "get off their arse" that is assinine, it's trying to apply it where it doesn't belong, and then generalize to thinking that this represents a public desire to have the government do everything for them. that's what's assinine about your argument. and it still is. If you want to extend your idea even further, why not just say that science should be decided by public opinion? or would that be extending it too far? Also, it seems you have wrongly assumed I personally live in Dover. As to why folks in Dover don't stand up to the likes of Hovind.... THEY INVITED HIM!!! so again, who should take the lead here? the educators and board who actually know better, or the majority of residents in Dover, who apparently haven't a clue as to what's wrong with Hovind's argument and methods to begin with?

Arden Chatfield · 5 June 2006

Couldn't have that in our liberal, pluralistic, egalitarian-at-all-costs society, could we?

Our society is "liberal, pluralistic, egalitarian-at-all-costs"?

Spike · 6 June 2006

Sir,

"They invited him" Everybody in Dover got together and decided that Hovind should come? Talk about overgeneralizing.

There are people in Dover who disagree with Hovind - They voted for Dover CARES. If you think they are waiting for the school board to "do something" then you must be telepathic, since, as you admit, you don't live there (which makes me wonder why you think the Dover school board should give an RFA what you say).

Hovind is a private citizen. He was invited by private citizens. Even if he performed his magic show at a school auditorium, he did it after hours, with no required attendance. (Unless you can show otherwise - I searched the York Daily Record website and could find no reference to his visit.) To call in the government to counter the actions of a private citizen who is not breaking the law is assinine and "nanny-stateism" at its most extreme.

The school board -is- doing its part. They have science curricula appropriate to the various grades and they hire the most competent teachers they can afford. The current board removed the unconstitutional requirement for teachers to read that silly statement. What happens outside of school is none of their business, but it is the business of any private citizen who wants to bother.

Again, I ask: Why should the school board promote -your- religious and political agenda?

Arden,

It was a rant.

Aureola Nominee, FCD · 6 June 2006

I wasn't aware that "rant" = "untruth", but thanks for clarifying it.

Spike · 6 June 2006

Here's something else that doesn't make sense:

"However, realistically most people would assume the role of educator to belong to their local public school."

That's actually quite UNrealistic. The role of educator belongs to the parents. The local public school, private school, college, etc. are extensions of the parents' role. We private citizens indirectly hire teachers, principals and the rest to educate our children on our behalf. We vote for the school board to administer that process, and when the school board does something we don't like, we oust them.

"If the public school system takes no stand against Hovind, why should the general public do so?"

We could turn that into a Mad-Lib:

If the public school system takes no stand against -racism-, why should the general public do so?

If the public school system takes no stand against -religious intolerance-, why should the general public do so?

If the public school system takes no stand against -envrionmental degradation-, why should the general public do so?

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Laura Walker · 15 June 2006

http://s168146235.onlinehome.us/periodic-table.htm

The web site that teaches science chemistry fundamentals to children, the periodic table for kids.