In Which I Horrify Anna
Brooklyn Dodger reported last month that the majority of Americans, according to Gallup, don't believe in evolution. It's not even close. So when reading the Associated Press accounts of the trial in Pennsylvania in which parents are suing to force the Dover Area School District to teach actual science in biology class, I get the sense the rest of the country isn't reading with the same sense of horror that I am. There's a part of me that says sure, that local school board can mandate whatever it wants, as long as real institutes of higher education are not forced to recognize high school credits from science classes that don't actually teach science. So teach whatever you want, but when the valedictorian of Dover Area High School applies to college and wants his or her biology class accepted as proof of science education, fuck him or her.
Anna was horrified earlier today when I floated this theory. She's a scientist.
I am merely a reporter, and, as such, the the supporters of I.D. offend me with the case they make for "teaching the controversy." This is straight from the "balance equals objectivity" school, which I detest. Balance is merely balance. If I were writing a story, the juxtaposition of two viewpoints on an issue would imply an equal intellectual basis on both sides. These criteria, given, the facts on the ground
The clear strategy of the religious backers of I.D. is to play up the holes and uncertainty in evolution, offer an all-encompassing solution and then hope rejection of the scientific explanation for the origins of life leads to a widespread rejection of secular thought. So there you go. And it's not a bad place to start. In his court testimony today, Miller said that science offers no absolute truths, just testable (and disprovable) theories. I.D. offers a complete worldview, where everything can be ascribed to divine origin. It's easy, but it's not provable.
People are entitled to their religious beliefs, and I have no problem with those who believe in creationism. But you can get that in church. This is about making sure that people have access to ideas beyond themselves in the public schools.
Anna was horrified earlier today when I floated this theory. She's a scientist.
I am merely a reporter, and, as such, the the supporters of I.D. offend me with the case they make for "teaching the controversy." This is straight from the "balance equals objectivity" school, which I detest. Balance is merely balance. If I were writing a story, the juxtaposition of two viewpoints on an issue would imply an equal intellectual basis on both sides. These criteria, given, the facts on the ground
"There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory," Brown University professor Kenneth Miller added. On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."have clearly not been met. Imposing balance on biology curriculum here is actually an act of ideology, the insistence that I.D. is actually an equally plausible.
The clear strategy of the religious backers of I.D. is to play up the holes and uncertainty in evolution, offer an all-encompassing solution and then hope rejection of the scientific explanation for the origins of life leads to a widespread rejection of secular thought. So there you go. And it's not a bad place to start. In his court testimony today, Miller said that science offers no absolute truths, just testable (and disprovable) theories. I.D. offers a complete worldview, where everything can be ascribed to divine origin. It's easy, but it's not provable.
People are entitled to their religious beliefs, and I have no problem with those who believe in creationism. But you can get that in church. This is about making sure that people have access to ideas beyond themselves in the public schools.
0 Comment(s):
