Mister Pterodactyl: Evolution, schmevolution.

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Evolution, schmevolution.
The school board of Grantsburg, WI has voted to teach “theories other than evolution” in their science curriculum. A letter signed by 43 of the University of Wisconsin System's liberal arts and science deans urges the board to reverse the policy. So does another letter, which was sent Monday and is signed by more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members from 42 state academic institutions. The board, however, is adamant. School Board President David Ahlquist: "To promote only one view is indoctrination.”

Janet Spiewak, writing in the MJS, has some pent-up frustration regarding her evolution-only education. “What would you think of a police department that disregarded evidence to follow only one of several possible theories to solve a mass murder? You would call them foolish, and you would be right, because it’s foolish to insist on looking at only one theory when there is evidence for other possibilities…but that is what Wisconsin public schools have done for decades. They teach the theory of evolution as though it’s the only one out there.”

And about those deans and faculty members, she says “I can’t say I’m surprised. When you are suffering from terrible insecurity, the least little things seem like an enormous threat.”

She then urges that educators “give [students] the facts about all the primary viable scientific theories,” and asks “why can’t science teachers discuss scientific theories based in the Jewish and Christian scriptures without making it an issue about state-promoted religion?”

Never mind the ‘if you disagree with me, it must be due to your ignorance/stupidity/insecurity’ attitude. Never mind the ‘teaching theories that are grounded in religious doctrine isn’t promoting religion’ thing (although there is so much wrong with that). But if evolution isn’t the only viable scientific origin theory, name another. Now name a third one. See my point? [If you said ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design,’ you cheated.] Repeatedly referring to ‘other possibilities’ and ‘all the viable theories’ is just a dodge.

Finally, if a writer is going to refer to “logical, scientifically based evidence for intelligent design,” is it too much to ask that they actually offer some of that evidence? Has anybody ever seen any? I haven’t.

Mister Pterodactyl will be researching this problem. In the meantime, via Roger Simon: "Georgia schools to stop teaching law of gravity."

- posted by Dactyl @ 9:24 AM

Comments:

Why is it cheating to mention creationism or intelligent design?

# posted by

Lance Burri : 11:46 AM

Todd, where have you been? You could fill a library with good works that support creationism and shoot holes throughout evolutionary theory. Check out the Intitute for Creation Research for starting grist.

# posted by

Steve Burri : 6:49 PM

It's cheating to mention creationism and intelligent design.

# posted by

Dactyl : 9:27 AM

Hey, I was born in Grantsburg!

Since it's a controversy, let's see the evidence. But maybe the evidence should be argued among adults.

# posted by

Al : 1:14 AM

DAMN those prepositions.

# posted by

Lance Burri : 2:29 PM

Lance: I knew you'd figure it out. No I didn't.