Intelligent Design and Florida

Oh you tricky tricky Intelligent Designers. Masking your creationist views under the guise of another name, ID, was very crafty. But now you are attempting to hide behind the "academic freedom" legislation up in the Florida Senate. As if Floridian education wasn't already in the shitter we are actually considering giving teachers "academic freedom" to mention this crap in the scientific forum? Howard Simon, a Florida director for the ACLU, expresses my opinion on the matter succinctly:
The strategy is this: Let's call Intelligent Design scientific information, and let's make sure that teachers can teach that scientific information,'' Simon said, adding that his organization would sue if the bill became law and teachers began proselytizing in class.
Forget the fact ID can't even be scientifically tested. I'm all for freedom of speech but science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Keyword is experimentation. Shall I begin my ID experiments by praying for rain to the "greater being"? Or perhaps we should all convert to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Get with it legislators, ID was shot down by a federal court already, stop trying to slip it in through the back door. There are more pressing matters to consider, like fixing our shitty educational system. There's a start for ya.
3 comment(s)

There are 3 comments about this post:

As a professor, I have no problem with the mentioning of creationism and ID in my classroom. Only b/c all angles should be heard, even those which aren't supported by objective fact-based analysis. It's also the instructor's responsiblilty to explain , fully, all academic assertions, including scientific theories, and further more, be able to defend the correct ones. There is no way that ID can be scientifically based, as B.A.C. has mentioned , due to the lack of "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Posing ID next to Darwin's 'theory' of Evolution through Natural Selection (note 'theory' b/c science is always open to interpretation,which is admirable...though no one, for instance, has come up with a better answer for the theory of gravity!)is like one Herald commentator pointed out is like teaching 'astrology next to Astronomy."More the reason to present it. Point out the Flaws. It ILLUSTRATES (lI won't say 'proves' because we can't prove a negative of the existence or non-existence of the flying spaghetti monster either) how illogical and fundamentally contradictory the ID theory is to all of what we consider to be fact-based , objective, information-the premise of which the educational system is founded on. I say bring it on! By shutting out one angle of the debate, these pundits and legislators actually cripple the quest for the masses to obtain proper knowledge.

AMEN

People Should Quote Themselves...
The problem I have CNTRL is that unfortunately not all educators are like yourself. There are those in the system who are religious zealots and would use this opening as an excuse to elaborate on ID and creationism not bothering to
ILLUSTRATE(S).... how illogical and fundamentally contradictory the ID theory is to all of what we consider to be fact-based , objective, information-the premise of which the educational system is founded on

My argument is that if the religious right and their contemporaries are capable hiding creationism under the guise of ID then once you give them the protection of academic freedom they will feel vindicated in their views and efforts and run rampant on scientific fact (or theory).
I am the eggman
"I'm not a monkey! I'm a woman!"
Rocking the balls and ass of the blogging world.

 



Hint: You can signup for an account or login to your account to make your life easier.

Enter your comment: (IMPORTANT: review our comment policy before writing)

Powered by Elephant