Intelligent Design Deployed in Kentucky

Wow, that IS a big tent, isn't it. YEC craziness abounding in this case. Kudos to those who got on the ball on this.

A victory and a warning. If creationists aren't challenged and smacked down, they'll just keep sprouting up.

Lenny Flanks' rule strikes again!

Hot Damn! Can we get copies of that "chart containing Intelligent Design’s rationale for the earth’s short existence."

I would dearly love such a sweet thing.

And the "five page “fact sheet” on Intelligent Design’s Model of Origins, its critique of the big bang theory, and its theory that dinosaurs coexisted with humans" would probably make me fall to the floor (laughing).

Yeah, I think this is the first time I've read about ID being so closely associated with YEC in the "teaching" materials. Perhaps PT's most persistent troll will show up and tell us again why ID doesn't represent a religious viewpoint...

Why is it not in the Kentucky ACLU newsletter?

It strikes me as typical but I want the hard evidence

Michael

Intelligent Design’s rationale for the earth’s short existence. This chart provided a timeline that included (and dated) Noah’s Ark and the Biblical flood story.

Why can't the taxpayers of Kentucky decide whether they want Jesus or Darwin honored in public schools? Why must the courts be used to ban Christianity from the schools when democratic sentiment is against it? What is wrong with teaching the idea the evidence that God created the world, or the role of sodomy in AIDS transmission, or that babies feel pain when being aborted?

Yet another candidate for the Bathroom Wall. Send him along.

"Why can’t the taxpayers of Kentucky decide whether they want Jesus or Darwin honored in public schools? Why must the courts be used to ban Christianity from the schools when democratic sentiment is against it? What is wrong with teaching the idea the evidence that God created the world, or the role of sodomy in AIDS transmission, or that babies feel pain when being aborted?"

Why? Shit load of history. And I mean a Shit load. This social experiment has been tried many times, particularly by people of your mental capacity, and they turn out not to like the results too much.

Charlemagne,

Despite a rash of troll activity of late, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - once.

Ignoring for the time being that teaching ID/creationism violates church-state issues, most mainstream Christian religions have decided that Jesus is best honored by teaching science correctly, without the bearing false witness that is necessary to teach ID/creationism or the (phony) controversy. Darwin is best honored by 150 years of scientists trying to prove him wrong, and succeeding on some details (e.g. blended inheritance), but failing in general.

Charlemagne: No one wants to honour Darwin and as far as I'm concerned you don't even have to believe his theory is correct. But his theory is part of science and unless you want to be at the mercy of lots of other unscrupulous people I'd recommend that you and your children study and think about it as an exercise in critical thinking. Why don't you want to at least be aware of what current research into our origins is saying? I know something about science and something about faith and consider myself better for it. It's not an either or thing. Science is the provable stuff and religion is the faith stuff. Science doesn't care what you believe and faith is all about what you believe.

And, theocratic societies aren't much fun when you're in the minority.

Frank J: Despite a rash of troll activity of late, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - once.

Frank J: Rather than the tired old "ID 'is' creationism" (hasn't everyone heard that by now?) how about some fun with how classic creationism (YEC, OEC) and ID will eventually undermine each other?

Charlemagne,

I think that you and I want to teach our children the truth.

There may be different ways of revealing different truths, but the truths revealed within nature are best done by methodological naturalism....the basis of modern science.

There are wonderful passages in the Bible that reveal beautiful and profound spiritual truths. Other guides to spiritual discovery offer truths not found in the Bible. These are religions that each of us are free to choose (or not) and we are free from the influences of government to pursue the beliefs of our choice. Lets keep it that way.

For the sake of our children and for the sake of our religious freedoms we must keep these centers of learning apart.

The irony of a group which ruthlessly enforces conformity when in power, trying to GAIN that power by arguing for fairness and freedom, is often overwhelming. But as Lenny Flank says, we're guaranteed to see it so long as the DI believes that lying about their intentions is the best way to achieve those intentions. Doesn't take long for even the simplest lies to tangle the web beyond the comprehension of the creationist in the street.

The DI is a wonderful, consistent target because it's well-funded, highly visible, and blatantly dishonest. But it may be the wrong target, because it seems clear to me that this teacher need not have ever heard of the DI to preach his faith to 7th graders in public school. He's telling the kids what he knows to be true, and backing it up with what he knows is solid, factual material because he sees this same material at every web site that interests him. And if EVERYONE says it, how can it be wrong?

So I think MrG has the right insight here - the DI's approach is much too indirect and lawyerish to be effective. Their constituency has been trained their entire lives to get out there and preach their delusions at every opportunity they can engineer. Not only is this all about Jeezus, but pretending it's not is worse than wrong, it's SINFUL. What lawyers do is search for ways to misrepresent the letter of the law to violate the clear intent of the law. What creationist do is save souls. And these aren't very compatible.

I am a bit concerned that this story can't seem to be found on the KY ACLU site. In fact, when I search for it, I only find this article. Has anyone contacted the KY ACLU to confirm the story? I'd hated to think that PT got spoofed by someone.

dpr

Charlemagne:
"Why can’t the taxpayers of Kentucky decide whether they want Jesus or Darwin honored in public schools?"

1. It's forbidden by the constitution.
2. It would make nonsnense of the educational system to have one state teach one thing and another state teach an entirely different thing about the same topic.
3. Whilst there's ample objective evidence for the existence of Darwin and whilst the Theory of Evolution is the only scientific explanation for the fact of evolution, there's absolutely no objective direct evidence whatsoever that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god. When you come up with such evidence, then we can talk about teaching it in schools.

"Why must the courts be used to ban Christianity from the schools when democratic sentiment is against it?"

The constitution is against it.

"What is wrong with teaching the idea the evidence that God created the world"

There's no scientific evidence that any god had anything to do with this universe. If you can provide the scientific evidence, then we can talk about whether its fit to teach in schools.

"or the role of sodomy in AIDS transmission"

If you accept that your god created everything, then you msut accept that your god created disease - and that he created it before the so-called "fall of man". Let's see you come up with a supported, workable explanation for that, first, then we'll talk about whether your explanation is fit to teach in schools.

"or that babies feel pain when being aborted?"

Let's have you come up with a supported, workable explanation as to why your intelligent designer needed millions of sperm to create just one baby and why he aborts so many so capriciously first. Then we'll talk about whether it's fit to teach in schools.

From the original post:
"This teacher also provided students with a five page 'fact sheet' on Intelligent Design’s Model of Origins, its critique of the big bang theory, and its theory that dinosaurs coexisted with humans."

I'd just love to see this so-called "fact sheet"! Is that finally the Theory of Intelligent Design for which we've all waited ten years?!

“What is wrong with teaching the idea the evidence that God created the world” There’s no scientific evidence that any god had anything to do with this universe. If you can provide the scientific evidence, then we can talk about whether its fit to teach in schools.

— Ian

OK - This really needs to be verified. I have been doing a search on this middle school and so far all I have come up with is layouts of Mock Trials.

- Before I go any further, they are really quite fun to read :-) Characters are "Eva Lution" and Mrs. Dover" etc... _

Here is the opening sentence of one of the Mock Trial Layouts

" On December 10, I noticed that Mr. Born hadposted an article on Intelligent Design on the bulletin board. Later on that day a student askedhim about the article. Mr. Born and the class had alengthy debate about the subject and we didn’t getback to the lesson the whole period "

The person who sent us the article is reliable, so I doubt he is tricking us. The article was said to be in the Tourch, and the website only has back issues up to Spring 07.

Well I don't know if the story is true or not, but it certainly sounds credible. After all, you can't make up stuff this good. Teaching critical analysis of the big bang to seventh graders, man that must be some school. I can hardly wait to see the math and physics background they must be given in grades one through six.

Of course, with such an extensive science background, I don't think that anyone will fall for the Flintstones routine of dinosaurs and humans coexisting.

Oh well, just another chapter for EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE EVER!

Are you folks thinking about this? There is far far too much complacency about what's being taught to the great unwashed. My favorite word lately seems to be naivete, but I keep butting my head against that and complacency with people and organizations that should really know better. Its naive to think that just because creation science, in all its guises, has been beaten back in legislation and public school standards that creation science isn't being taught in public schools. This teacher in Kentucky is just a peek at what's going on under the radar. Survey's cited by Randy Olson show that about a third of all secondary school science teachers sympathize, to one degree or another, with teaching creation science. This Kentucky teacher is just more extreme than most, but one class on the "weaknesses of evolution", or "critical anlaysis" is all it takes to permanently confuse students about what science is and how its done. No one seems to want to look at this, and it drives me crazy. A large portion of AP Biology classes include "teaching the controversy", and you can not get The College Board to deal with the problem in an informed and effective way. A science teacher in most US communities has a HUGE incentive to include a brief introduction to evolution "alternatives", and most of the naive general public will just think of this as minor and fair. You think the creation science propaganda campaign isn't successful, or certainly not in your neighborhood? Ha! Go, right now, to your neighborhood's public library online catalog and look at where the creation science books are shelved. I'm NOT objecting that the books are in the library, look at where their shelved. Most of them are on the science shelves right alongside the biology textbooks. If it isn't happening in your neighborhood then God bless you, but it is NOT uncommon, and it is becoming more common, not less.

What's responsible for this? One thing: framing the debate as religion vs. science. No win scenario. Stupid Stupid Stupid

Thank you for this report. I will post it to the Louisville Atheists and Freethinkers meetup website.

I have been unable to find any other references to this issue. Could someone please verify if this is real?

"Go, right now, to your neighborhood’s public library online catalog and look at where the creation science books are shelved.... Most of them are on the science shelves right alongside the biology textbooks."

It's common for libraries to file nonfiction by their subject; that is, what they're discussing. So you'll typically find sound science, obsolete science, and crank science filed together, as long as they're about the same topic. (Of course, most public libraries should try to have more sound science books than crank or obsolete science books in their collections for any topic of current interest. So anyone finding a crank volume on a scientific topic should be seeing sound science books available to them as well.)

The person who sent us the article is reliable, so I doubt he is tricking us. The article was said to be in the Tourch, and the website only has back issues up to Spring 07.

It’s common for libraries to file nonfiction by their subject; that is, what they’re discussing.

— John Mark Ockerbloom

The Bloomfield teacher in question has confirmed the gist of the story. I am trying to flesh out the details for my blog at www.wheatdogg.com.

Reed A. Cartwright: The person who sent us the article is reliable, so I doubt he is tricking us. The article was said to be in the Tourch, and the website only has back issues up to Spring 07.

D P Robin: Reed, I'm still concerned. I can't find anything called "the Tourch" searching Yahoo!, and the listings for "The Torch" leads to college newspapers, none from KY.

I was the person who sent this to the Panda's Thumb. I retyped it directly from "The Torch", the KY ACLU newsletter (older issues are at the KY ACLU website, but this one just arrived via snail mail yesterday and I don't know how long they take to put them online). I will post later tonight (I teach in the evenings) with the Volume/Issue/Page number and get a friend to scan the relevant page of the newsletter tomorrow so I can send it to Reed Cartwright. I had not heard anything about this incident before receiving the newsletter yesterday (Tuesday, March 25). I have no reason to think this was made up as it comes from a reliable source of information.

I too would love to see a copy of the "fact sheet/timeline" the teacher used, but there is not an e-mail address in the newsletter for the attorney that wrote the article.

Here is the citation:
The Torch, Spring 2008, Page 7 under Legal Program Update by William E. Sharp, Staff Attorney.

I will try to get the Panda's Thumb folks a scan by this weekend. I can probably take a digital photo if people are really bent out of shape over this and want it more quickly. Of course this could be The Matrix, or someone went to a hell of a lot of trouble faking the entire goddamn ACLU newsletter just to fool me. Jezzzus tapdancing Christ it is amazing that people think EVERYTHING is available instantly on the internet.

I'm going to guess that the materials the teacher used came from the CREATION MUSEUM which is also located in Kentucky.

The reason doubt was raised in my mind, as to the accuracy of the post, was because I didn't think that the DI had an official position on the age of the earth.

The article says ...

" a chart containing Intelligent Design’s rationale for the earth’s short existence. This chart provided a timeline that included (and dated) Noah’s Ark and the Biblical flood story. This teacher also provided students with a five page “fact sheet” on Intelligent Design’s Model of Origins, its critique of the big bang theory, and its theory that dinosaurs coexisted with humans. " ...

or is the CREATION MUSEUM using the term "Intelligent Design" now?
... just a hunch.

"It’s common for libraries to file nonfiction by their subject; that is, what they’re discussing. So you’ll typically find sound science, obsolete science, and crank science filed together, as long as they’re about the same topic."

Nope. Not going to find astrology shelved in astromony. And I'm talking about catagorization of creation science as science being done with MY tax dollars, in the public library, not book stores which are free to do any damn stupid thing they please. This is first amendment violation stuff.

The reason doubt was raised in my mind, as to the accuracy of the post, was because I didn’t think that the DI had an official position on the age of the earth.

— Stacs S.

Daniel Phelps: Here is the citation: The Torch, Spring 2008, Page 7 under Legal Program Update by William E. Sharp, Staff Attorney. I will try to get the Panda's Thumb folks a scan by this weekend. I can probably take a digital photo if people are really bent out of shape over this and want it more quickly. Of course this could be The Matrix, or someone went to a hell of a lot of trouble faking the entire goddamn ACLU newsletter just to fool me. Jezzzus tapdancing Christ it is amazing that people think EVERYTHING is available instantly on the internet.

Why can’t the taxpayers of Kentucky decide whether they want Jesus or Darwin honored in public schools?

— Charlemagne

Why must the courts be used to ban Christianity from the schools when democratic sentiment is against it?

What is wrong with teaching the idea the evidence that God created the world,

or the role of sodomy in AIDS transmission,

or that babies feel pain when being aborted?

Frank J: A recent PT article suggested that Paul Nelson, one of the few DI fellows known as a YEC, may actually be an Omphalos creationist (i.e. he personally believes a YE in spite of the evidence, not because of it).

I am always dumbfounded to find that somebody actually believes such a thing.

— MrG

Frank J: In contrast, anyone who defends YEC after looking long and hard at the evidence is probably either a closet Omphalos creationist or closet evolutionist.

Nigel D:

Why can’t the taxpayers of Kentucky decide whether they want Jesus or Darwin honored in public schools?

— Charlemagne

Two reasons:
(1) Public schools are tax-funded and thus are government institutions. Therefore, the first amendment (you know, where it prohibits government from favouring one religious denomination above any other) prevents the promotion of any religion in public schools. Unless you are suggesting that Mohammed, Krishna, Vishnu, Kali, Set, Odin, Thor, Bast, Mielikki, Cthulhu and Amaterasu Omikami (inter alia) be given equal time with Jesus...?
(2) Darwin does not get "honoured" in schools by the teaching of evolutionary theory. Modern evolutionary theory (MET) is good science, and it has earned its place in the science curriculum in any school that wishes to teach actual science (as opposed to myth, fiction or unreasonable doubt) in biology classes.

Why must the courts be used to ban Christianity from the schools when democratic sentiment is against it?

Oh boy, you really have not understood human rights, have you? The first amendment guarantees that government will not favour one religion above any other. Therefore, tax dollars may not be used to promote any religion. This right exists to protect minority religious views from persecution by the majority. The biggest flaw of a democracy is that minorities can end up being voted into a position of second-class citizenship. Most western democracies have laws in place to prevent this from happening. In the USA, it is the constitution itself that protects religious minorities. Christianity is not "banned" from schools. It has the same status as every other religion, or indeed absence of religion.

What is banned from public schools is the active promotion of Christianity by the school, which is as it should be. My personal feeling is that, in public schools, the students also should be prevented from proselytising, but this is not the case.

What is wrong with teaching the idea the evidence that God created the world,

Uh, yeah, science classes are all about the evidence, and conclusions drawn from the evidence. There is no evidence that indicates the involvement of a deity in either the beginning of the world or the beginning of life. At the same time, there is no evidence to rule out either option. The beginning of life is an active area of biological research (abiogenesis), but this is not relevant to MET. MET explains how life changes over time, not how it arose initially. Do not confuse MET (a specific biological theory) with the more general sense of "evolution" (meaning change over time of anything). MET can quite comfortably accommodate a single event of special creation in the distant past (which, IIUC, is what Darwin himself actually believed).

or the role of sodomy in AIDS transmission,

[sarcasm]Good luck with getting permission to teach high school kids what sodomy is.[/sarcasm] Seriously, what kind of a sicko are you, that you want to teach children about this?

or that babies feel pain when being aborted?

Again with the inaccurate terms. Babies are never aborted. Sometimes, blastocysts, embryos or foetuses are aborted.

And what relevance does this topic have to a full, well-rounded education?

If abortion were a major component of biology, then sure, but it is actually one of many tens of thousands of medical procedures. Human reproductive biology should be taught at some stage, but the curriculum should concentrate on the most important points.

Since evolutionism makes claims about past, unrepeatable events, it is ipso facto a matter of faith. There is no more scientific evidence life came from a rock than there is that Jesus rose from the dead. The difference is we have written record of the latter claim.

Well, the homosexual propaganda machine maintains a monopoly on the discussion of these issues. Children are already taught all about sodomy–on the terms of the Sodomites themselves. Evolutionists regularly teach the “fact” that “AIDS does not discriminate” and ergo, a virgin has exactly the same chance of getting AIDS as a daily visitor to a San Francisco bathhouse.

Hatred of human life is the linchpin of evolutionary ethics

Yes, and authentic people were never sent to the gas chambers in Auchwitz, only “Untenmenschen” (sub-humans)

Charlemagne: Since evolutionism makes claims about past, unrepeatable events, it is ipso facto a matter of faith.

Charlemagne: Jesus said those who are not for him are against him.

Since evolutionism makes claims about past, unrepeatable events, it is ipso facto a matter of faith.

— Charlemange

There is no more scientific evidence life came from a rock than there is that Jesus rose from the dead.

The difference is we have written record of the latter claim.

The difference is we have written record of the latter claim.

No offense meant, but I’m not sure I’d buy that.

— MrG

Frank J: In haste I did exclude some other "middle" positions such as "closet OEC" and "hopelessly compartmentalized."

Well, the homosexual propaganda machine maintains a monopoly on the discussion of these issues. Children are already taught all about sodomy–on the terms of the Sodomites themselves.

— Charlemange

Evolutionists regularly teach the “fact” that “AIDS does not discriminate”

and ergo, a virgin has exactly the same chance of getting AIDS as a daily visitor to a San Francisco bathhouse.

Having read the remainder of Charlemange's comment (#148772), I have reached the conclusion that this is just another troll. Not interested in understanding anything. Not interested in an open and honest exchnage of views. Only interested in spewing vitriol in an attempt to garner some attention from educated people.

Charlemange, before posting again please either go back on the meds or grow up and get a life.

Since evolutionism makes claims about past, unrepeatable events, it is ipso facto a matter of faith.

No one wants to honour Darwin and as far as I’m concerned you don’t even have to believe his theory is correct. [...] Science is the provable stuff and religion is the faith stuff. Science doesn’t care what you believe and faith is all about what you believe.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Bill Gascoyne: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)