Reply
Tue 4 Dec, 2007 10:26 am
Finally, after a two-year battle to insert Intelligent Design into the science classes, the school board repealed the controversal policy that had split the community. But the ID advocates never give up and vigilence is required. See the Texas article below.---BBB
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Schools Repeal Science Policy
By Elaine D. BriseƱo
Albuquerque Journal Staff Writer
The Rio Rancho school board rescinded a controversial science policy on Monday after an hour of heated debate, jokes about being lynched and a likening of evolutionary supporters to Nazis and communists.
The board voted 3-2 to strike the policy, which allowed discussion on evolution to include other explanations for the origins of life.
Those who spoke in favor of discarding the policy accused supporters of hiding their agenda, saying their real intent was to teach religion in science class. The policy was adopted in 2005.
Besides board president Lisa Cour and members Margaret Terry and Divyesh Patel, those who spoke against the policy were primarily teachers from the high school and people who have ties to the science community in Rio Rancho and Albuquerque.
In favor of leaving it in place were board members Don Schlichte and Marty Scharfglass, a few parents and Joe Renick, executive director of the Intelligent Design Network in New Mexico.
Intelligent design is the belief that life forms are too complex to be explained solely by Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Scharfglass and Schlichte have said the district needs the policy to make sure students who have alternative beliefs to evolution are allowed to express them without being silenced or ridiculed.
Cour, Patel and Terry called the policy redundant because it mirrors what is in the state standards. They argued that the policy singles out science teachers.
Terry said that although the policy does not say explicitly that teachers must discuss religion, she believes that is the intention.
Schlichte, who is the head pastor at Rio West Community Church, presented a slide show. In his presentation, he said most laws come from a system of beliefs, and that Nazis and communists used their belief in evolution to pass harmful laws.
Cour responded to his comment later in the meeting.
"Just because evolution is embraced by evil and unethical people, it does not mean evolution is evil," she said.
Meanwhile, Schlichte said if logic and critical thinking lead to the idea that there is a creator of life, that's what students should be allowed to examine in biology class.
"The core of the debate is that evolution is a fact," he said. "I don't believe it is. If we don't allow other interpretations of data, we are indoctrinating students in a religious belief?- the very thing you are arguing against doing."
Scharfglass said he was offended by accusations that the policy was passed for "some trumped-up reasons."
"I'm telling you to teach evolution," Scharfglass said to the teachers present. "But also let kids know there are other works there so they can investigate it on their own."
Parent Michael Patrick followed with his comments after a group of people opposed to the policy had spoken.
"At the risk of being lynched, I'm going to speak in favor of the policy," he said. "The policy is a winner and promotes critical thinking."
High school biology teacher Lisa Valle said after the meeting that she didn't think the policy was necessary.
Evolution and Texas
New York Times Editorial
Evolution and Texas
Published: December 4, 2007
Is Texas about to become the next state to undermine the teaching of evolution? That is the scary implication of the abrupt ousting of Christine Comer, the state's top expert on science education. Her transgression: forwarding an e-mail message about a talk by a distinguished professor who debunks "intelligent design" and creationism as legitimate alternatives to evolution in the science curriculum.
In most states, we hope, the state department of education would take the lead in ensuring that students receive a sound scientific education. But it was the Texas Education Agency that pushed out Ms. Comer after 27 years as a science teacher and 9 years as the agency's director of science.
As Ralph Blumenthal reported in The Times yesterday, Ms. Comer forwarded to a local online community an e-mail message from a pro-evolution group announcing a talk by Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University. Professor Forrest testified as an expert witness in a 2005 Dover, Pa., case that found intelligent design supernatural and theological and definitely not part of a scientific education.
An hour later, Ms. Comer was called in by superiors, pressured to send out a retraction and ultimately forced to resign. Her departure was instigated by a new deputy commissioner who had served as an adviser to George Bush when he was governor of Texas and more recently worked in the federal Department of Education.
It was especially disturbing that the agency accused Ms. Comer ?- by forwarding the e-mail message ?- of taking a position on "a subject on which the agency must remain neutral." Surely the agency should not remain neutral on the central struggle between science and religion in the public schools. It should take a stand in favor of evolution as a central theory in modern biology. Texas's own education standards require the teaching of evolution.
Those standards are scheduled to be reviewed next year. Ms. Comer's dismissal and comments in favor of intelligent design by the chairman of the state board of education do not augur well for that review. We can only hope that adherents of a sound science education can save Texas from a retreat into the darker ages.
I'd be perfectly happy to allow every scientific theory which passes certain scientific integrity standards to be discussed, but "intelligent design" doesn't qualify. It's nothing more than religion with a thin veneer of scientific jargon. So far, the only scientific theory anyone has come up with is evolution, and it matches the observed facts very well.