Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

How embarrassing these things are for those in any given state who don't have a religious agenda . . .

However, a top Republican in Kansas announced yesterday that he is switching to the Democratic Party. He asserted that Kansas Republicans have moved too far to the right (citing the change in science education standards, among other examples).

Did you think my post on "urban intellectuals" was vapid.

I'll bet Bernie doesn't agree.

... Unless vapid might mean something like delightful.

High school biology standards cleared for June 12 adoption
(BY MINDY B. HAGEN, Charleston Post and Courier, June 1, 2006)

The impasse to potential changes to high school biology standards has ended, with the state Board of Education and Education Oversight Committee reaching a long-awaited agreement on the guidelines that govern teaching evolution and other scientific theories.

On Wednesday, the state Board of Education unanimously voted to send the biology standards back to the oversight committee for final approval, without the scrutinized 'critical analysis' phrase that drew science educators' ire. The committee is scheduled to adopt the standards at its June 12 meeting.

While all other academic standards were approved by the oversight committee in the fall, controversy erupted concerning the biology guidelines. The recommended wording called for students to 'demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life.'

But a group of lawmakers and the oversight committee, which includes state Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, fought to make the standards more specific by adding that students should 'use data from a variety of scientific sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.'

Biology teachers and science educators rallied against that proposed change, arguing that 'critical analysis' would push aside evolutionary theory and Darwinism and potentially open the door to religious teachings about creationism in the classroom.

Every five years, the state Board of Education and oversight committee must give the go-ahead before teaching standards are enacted and the disagreement over 'critical analysis' caused a stalemate between the governing agencies.

But discussions in recent weeks and a compromise reached as part of the Legislature's annual budget, helped bring about progress. The budget calls on the state Department of Education to buy textbooks that use 'higher-order thinking skills and critical thinking, which should be integrated throughout the core curriculum.' With the critical thinking issue now addressed by the purchase of new textbooks in all subjects, proponents who wanted similar language inserted in the biology standards backed off their demands.

Jo Anne Anderson, executive director of the oversight committee, said the idea of using 'critical thinking' as a guideline when selecting textbooks satisfied those people who wanted to see similar language inserted as part of the state curriculum standards.

'It would have been nice if we had been able to resolve this six months ago, but this process has allowed South Carolina to have a full airing of this issue,' Anderson said.

After Wednesday's OK from the state board, the biology standards will become final if adopted by the oversight committee June 12.

Biology teachers and science educators rallied against that proposed change, arguing that 'critical analysis' would push aside evolutionary theory and Darwinism and potentially open the door to religious teachings about creationism in the classroom.

Jo Anne Anderson, executive director of the oversight committee, said the idea of using 'critical thinking' as a guideline when selecting textbooks satisfied those people who wanted to see similar language inserted as part of the state curriculum standards.

The move to claim that "critical thinking skills" ought to be taught is an attempt to get ID/creationism in the back door, as a contrast to evolutionary theory, the teaching of which will inculcate "critical thinking skills."

Are these phrases just codes.

The substitution of mild or vague terms for ordinary expressions is euphemism. Such things, which are a highly developed esoteric language in some circles, are destructive of language and drive a wedge between social groups. Because euphemism is used in changing contexts it eventually comes to mean nothing and communication is lost.

The shift from science curriculum legislation to school textbook budget legislation is appeasement (in my opinion).

And ID is light years away from creationism as well.

You waste everyone's time.