Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Could be happening in California:
Butteville Union Elementary School District trustees, as well as school administrators, are considering adding "intelligent design" to the school's seventh-grade science curriculum.In a discussion on an information/action agenda item, "Evolution versus Intelligent Design Taught in the Classroom," during the district's board meeting last Wednesday, trustees agreed to seek legal counsel regarding the issue.
And then there's this interesting statement:
"I think this will be a big issue in the Supreme Court before long," said board president Stephen Darger, a practicing attorney and former police officer. "Maybe it will be with this school."
So is he pro-ID or not? Inquiring minds want to know.
BUESD trustee Steve Hart reported during the meeting that the subject would only be applied to the seventh-grade curriculum because it is the grade level at which Darwinian evolution is introduced."What we would like to do is include [in the curriculum] a way for students to look at evolution with critical minds and become aware of things (in evolution) that are no longer accepted," said Hart, who proposed the idea. "Science has always excluded supernatural phenomenon. Although there are risks, this is something that would benefit the entire school."
Oh goodie, another school board with ignorami occupying the seats.
Politics
Comments
I didn't see in the article any mention of Hart's list of things that are no longer accepted in evolution. Why do they never include those lists?
You have to wonder whether these edumacational people know any more about evolution and intelligent design than did the Krazy Kreationists of the Dover school board.
Don't say 'creatonism.' Don't say 'creationism.' Don't say 'creationism.' Don't say 'creationism.'
"CREATIONISM".
"D'oh!" (Deer-in-the-headlights)
Posted by: mark | August 24, 2008 9:36 AM
Wait.....are they doing this for the publicity?
If so, it's more like Dayton than Dover.
Posted by: Wes | August 24, 2008 9:47 AM
Wes:
"More Dayton than Dover."
Nice.
Posted by: flatlander100 | August 24, 2008 9:58 AM
"I think this will be a big issue in the Supreme Court before long," said board president Stephen Darger, a practicing attorney and former police officer. "Maybe it will be with this school."
It sounds like someone's thinking, We only need to win once.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 24, 2008 10:35 AM
"What we would like to do is include [in the curriculum] a way for students to look at evolution with critical minds and become aware of things (in evolution) that are no longer accepted," said Hart, who proposed the idea."
That's all well and good, but don't you have to have a sound scientific understanding of evolution FIRST in order to critically evaluvate any evidence that might contradict it? I say yes.
"Butteville Union Elementary School District trustees, as well as school administrators, are considering adding "intelligent design" to the school's seventh-grade science curriculum. "
Not that I think our children are mindless morons, but I do not believe that even the smartest 7th graders are sufficiently versed in evolutionary theory or even basic scientific methodology to be able to be "critical" of evidence, either for or against, evolution OR intelligent design theory. Therefore, inroducing ID into the 7th grade curriculum is useless = it will certainly not promote the goal they claim they are trying to reach, that is, getting students to "think critically".
You can give 'em all the blueprints you want, but ya gotta give 'em good, working tools too before you can expect 'em to build good strong buildings.
Have fun with my ... what is that, a metaphor? Whatever. Make of it what you will.
Posted by: Andrea | August 24, 2008 10:57 AM
This does not surprise me in the least.
Much of Shasta County is like rural Alabama, albeit with less humidity and nicer scenery.
The last time I drove up that way, I remember turning on the car radio when I was between Red Bluff and Redding. The AM tuner was able to lock in on four radio stations, all of them broadcasting Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: caerbannog | August 24, 2008 11:00 AM
As if a school district named "Butteville" didn't have to worry enough about being made fun of.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 24, 2008 12:20 PM
"As if a school district named "Butteville" didn't have to worry enough about being made fun of."
It's pronounced "byootville" / "beautville" - not "buttville."
And yeah, it sounds like the city fathers are looking for the income from the flocks of newsies who will come to town. Sad.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | August 24, 2008 12:30 PM
Obvious lies. If this really was their aim, there would be absolutely no reason to bring intelligent design into it. Why not just say "Evolutionary biologists used to believe X. Then evidence Y, which contradicts X, was discovered. Evolutionary biologists now believe Z, which fits nicely with Y."? If any cdesign propentsists had discovered any instances of Y, then it might be relevant, but that hasn't happened yet.
Posted by: Alex, FCD | August 24, 2008 1:42 PM
Andrea's absolutely right- and of course, the creos know this. The best way to recruit for the cause is to get them young, before they develop critical thinking skills.
More importantly, from the creo perspective: if you can prevent them from ever developing such skills, you've probably got them forever. They *know* this. It's precisely why they target children.
Remember that creos aren't generally concerned with going after atheist kids, or Hindu kids, or Buddhists. There aren't all that many of those in most of these places. They want Xian kids- the kind being raised by the *wrong kind* of Xian. If you can get that kid, who might go to some quiet, non-fundamentalist church, you can get them to not only question reality, but their competing home mythology as well.
The creos use the same techniques as tobacco companies: get them early, break their trust in the value of evidence, and above all, win market share from your competitors.
Posted by: DBC | August 24, 2008 2:11 PM
Arguing that science has bearing on supernatural phenomena is several steps beyond shooting themselves in the foot.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 24, 2008 3:24 PM
Only LA, San Diego and the Bay Area are the liberal parts of California. The rest of the state is practically the same as political views as the mid-west and the south. This does not surprise me.
Posted by: Fark-tard | August 24, 2008 3:37 PM
"Science has always excluded supernatural phenomenon."
Well, no. Not really. Once science is used to understand a phenomenon, the "phenomenon" is no longer "supernatural." Is he really suggesting that public school science be used to debunk supernatural phenomena ... aka religious beliefs?
Posted by: Gerry L | August 24, 2008 3:54 PM
When I first learned about evolution, I also learned about Lamarckism and "social darwinism," and how they are not scientifically sound, even though they were once thought to be. That's "becoming aware of things which are no longer accepted," and intelligent design was not even mentioned.
Posted by: Gretchen | August 24, 2008 5:26 PM
San Diego is not liberal.
Posted by: Barry Sweezey | August 24, 2008 6:07 PM
I wouldn't say that. It is true that, outside of Los Angeles and the Bay Area, the state is not the liberal haven that many people imagine it is, but to put California politically on par with the South is overstating the matter.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 24, 2008 6:45 PM
"What we would like to do is include [in the curriculum] a way for students to look at evolution with critical minds and become aware of things (in evolution) that are no longer accepted," said Hart, who proposed the idea. "Science has always excluded supernatural phenomenon. Although there are risks, this is something that would benefit the entire school."
Posted by: 386sx | August 24, 2008 7:15 PM
"What we would like to do is include [in the curriculum] a way for students to look at evolution with critical minds and become aware of things (in evolution) that are no longer accepted," said Hart, who proposed the idea. "Science has always excluded supernatural phenomenon. Although there are risks, this is something that would benefit the entire school."
So what happens if "supernatural phenomenon" are "no longer accepted" in evolution. Lol.
"Your logic is impeccable, Captain. We are in grave danger."
Posted by: 386sx | August 24, 2008 7:22 PM
The Supreme Court comment gave me chills. I always get those when I think about a creationism-in-the-schools case getting up to that level. That's the long-range goal some of the more scheming creationists have their eyes on. It's conceivable that the current court would give them a paradigm-shifting win, let alone the one McCain will likely shape if he wins in November.
Posted by: MPW | August 24, 2008 7:30 PM
"San Diego is not liberal." - Barry
What - did they close Black's Beach?
Posted by: Phred | August 24, 2008 10:41 PM
Interesting article in the link, but it seems to have separated a single case into two, where it talks about a case in Lebec, CA and then about a similar case at Frazier Mountain High School. Problem is, Frazier Mountain High School is in Lebec. So, unless there were separate cases in two schools in Lebec that were nearly simultaneous (which is always possible, but I certainly only heard about the one at the high school when the Lebec case was in the news), this was just one case.
Also, Frazier Mountain High is described as being "outside Fresno". Well, it's way, way outside Fresno, as it is located in the mountains between Bakersfield and Los Angeles and is at least a couple of hours drive from Fresno.
Oh, and for those amused by the name "Butteville", there's a whole county called Butte County, not too far south of Mount Shasta.
Posted by: Elaine | August 25, 2008 12:12 AM
I just read the piece and have mixed feelings. Yeah, a court battle may be in the offing, and a conservative court (if it gets that far) might side with ID, if the question of mentioning, and even discussing (briefly) teleology in biology (ID) in class is the basic contention, and not religious teaching. By the way, closely adjoining the Dover decesion, Lebec, CA and Frazier Mt. High et al are old cases, which would have involved Bible discourse, as well. My understanding is this would be a seventh grade intro-science type course. Entering students with Internet access (98 percent?) would already be familiar with the issue. I would guess that if not mentioned by the instructor, someone would bring it up nonetheless.
But regarding litigation, times have changed, and if the ID question were litigated, and if ID was properly defended this time, it could easily be shown to be a viable hypothesis, and that 'adaptive evolution' and genetic research as practiced would not be disparaged. The current ID synthesis is nearly consonant with NDE; it just adds another hypothesis to it, i.e. intervention at certain points in the taxonomic progression, a form of 'genetic engineering' on a molecular level. Further, I predict that design inferences will at some point be testable and quantifiable .
The article didn't impress me, though. Also, Hart needs to be informed about 'supernaturality', and why it's not a requisite of ID. It will be shown that the ID concept is no longer religion based, if it ever was (in essence), by chronicling how religionists have co-opted the term to further an agenda. I feel that IC may at some point be validated as a falsification of components of the current theory.
From the Mt. Shasta piece:
"The following month, two rural California public high schools contended that the Pennsylvania ruling by Judge John E. Jones, an appointee of President Bush, opened the door to the possibility of teaching intelligent design in philosophy or religion classes."
First, Bush is no conservative, and I wouldn't doubt the he and Jones are drinking buds. Also, the 'ID in religion class' statement seems inappropriate, since that it is not. But if so, I can't imagine the ACLU/ NCSE/ AU for SCS caring.
"Hart also reported that he has been in contact with an attorney from Redding and suggested that board members seek advise [sic] as to legal ramifications. It was also reported that school funds could not fund either legal counsel or the proposed program."
I'm not necessarily siding with Butteville Elementary, since their motives may be misplaced. But if legit, and if it's merely a presentation of an alternate hypothesis and nothing more, I may agree with the new policy, since I feel that ID can be shown to be evidentiary. If a policy change that is properlly structured to remain science is challenged in court, I would consider working to aid in its defense, and funding shouldn't be a problem this time. Hey, it might just be another Dover, but rather than simply a 'replay', a more tenable presentation of validating evidences and supporting arguments, and perhaps a kind of 'precedent reversal'.
I lament the fact, however, that courts need be the ones put in place to decide these things.
Posted by: Lee Bowman | August 25, 2008 8:03 AM
It sounds like someone's thinking, We only need to win once.
I think that's exactly what they're thinking. I think part of the reason Dover went the way it did is because the Defense fully expected an appeal (which of course never happened following the ousting of the creationists on the board) and defended the case with that in mind.
Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2008 8:21 AM
Lee Bowman, thanks for all your neato predictions dude. Those sounds really cool, man.
Posted by: 386sx | August 25, 2008 8:50 AM
"What we would like to do is include [in the curriculum] a way for students to look at evolution with critical minds and become aware of things (in evolution) that are no longer accepted," said Hart, who proposed the idea. "Science has always excluded supernatural phenomenon. Although there are risks, this is something that would benefit the entire school."
I'm starting to think we simply need to purge about half of the nation's secondary school officials. They are either so ignorant of science that they should be immediately removed from their positions, or they are lying to American school kids, which one might think should probably result in dismissal as well.
We talk about things in evolution that are no longer accepted all the time. It's called HISTORICAL GEOLOGY. And science has not always excluded supernatural phenomena. Science evolved to exclude supernatural phenomena because include them didn't work.
In one short paragraph, Hart makes two points which are inaccurate. AND, what is in between the lines of that paragraph is that these "things we no longer accept about evolution" constitute those fucking GAPS and weaknesses in the theory that these people are always lying about.
Seriously, most people who somehow get into applicant pools without knowing the first things about the fields they're applying for tend to get selected out of the job market. Why do we have such a hard time getting school officials who are competent? How is it that so many school officials seem to not know the first bloody thing about how science works and yet are in positions to make authoritative decisions about the science education of the next generation?
Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2008 8:59 AM
The current version of ID cannot decouple itself from its Creationist roots. No matter how many times people click their heels and say 'It's not religious'.
Maybe.
Except that the arguments for ID depend on disparaging evolution. Not only is ID not a viable hypothesis, it's not a scientific hypotheis at all.
I always get a kick out of the assertion that ID somehow really helps science. I liken it to the idea of taking the chain of your bicycle off the sprockets to 'help' you peddle. The peddling is easier alright, but you can't go anywhere.
Such negetive arguments like ID actually do the opposite, wherever an ID conclusion resides, there no more science can be done. The fact that it is not already "testable and quantifiable" is what makes it not a scientific hypothesis.
I think you need to first make this clear to the ID supporters. They seem to think otherwise.
First you need to have a positive testable theory of ID from which to draw hypotheses in the first place...then you need to make the tests..then the results of the tests have to support the theory...then those results have to be made available to the entire scientific community for critique...then the critiques must be answered...then this process needs to be done over and over again with more tests...and only then would it earn a right to argue for inclusion in public schools.
I seem to recall that the term ID was used to co-opt the Creationist agenda. That's what was clearly shown in the 'evolution' of the Pandas "tesxtbook" anyway. Who could blame the religionists. Especially when the leading lights in the ID movement made so many religious claims for it.
He's a liberal?
The ACLU propbably wouldn't mind teachers teaching about religion (like ID) in religion class. As long as they don't advocate for any particular set of beliefs. Heck, I wouldn't mind ID mentioned as another one of those non-scientific creationist models for the natural history of life or the Earth or whatever in a science class. As long as its clear that these are not scientific models.
Maybe they could get some of that free representation from a Christian law firm (even though ID has nothing to do with religion) like Dover did...said free representation only costing them a million bucks.
Maybe next time is the charm. Too bad for the school district if it isn't though, huh. You gotta break some eggs to make a cake.
If only clueless school administrators wouldn't insist on violating the Constitution and instead teach supported science, there'd be no need.
Posted by: Dave S. | August 25, 2008 9:39 AM
But if legit, and if it's merely a presentation of an alternate hypothesis and nothing more, I may agree with the new policy, since I feel that ID can be shown to be evidentiary.
Hello, Mr. Bowman, remember me? I know you from Panda's Thumb, where just about all of your assertions get refuted as soon as they're posted. Including the sophistry you posted here. You only prove your dishonesty by repeating the same nonsense here.
First, ID is not an "alternative hypothesis," never was, and probably never will be. All it is is a jumble of lame attacks on evolution and a thinly disguised religions creation story. You can't call it a "hypothesis" unless and until it includes a set of specific testable claims. And "It looks designed according to criteria I don't have to describe" doesn't count.
Second, ID cannot be "shown to be evidentiary," for the simple reason that it IGNORES mountains of evidence.
Whassamatter, creo-crybabies? You can't convince the grownups, so now you're down to manipulating SEVENTH-GRADERS?! That's pathetic.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 25, 2008 10:04 AM
Simple way to solve this:
DEMAND TO TEACH MARXISM IN THE SCHOOLS, in the economics classes. Demand that it be taught by real Marxists too.
After all, it's an alternative theory to capitalism, isn't it?
Meanwhile, some other brave souls need to call out the YECies for what they are:
"Sir, in order to believe that nonsense you either have to be downright stupid, or out of your mind!" Give them no quarter, call them stupid and crazy to their faces. Talk to them the same way you'd talk to someone who was proposing to teach kids that the Earth is flat and it's OK for grownups to have sex with children.
Better yet, do it in subtle enough language and a polite tone that's downright patronizing & condescending, that it makes them explode in rage or start sputtering religious dogma in front of the school boards etc.
No more Mister Nice Guy about this crap. Enough is enough.
Posted by: T. Malthus | August 25, 2008 10:57 AM
"Hello, Mr. Bowman, remember me?"
How could I not ...
"First, ID is not an "alternative hypothesis," never was, and probably never will be. All it is a jumble of lame attacks on evolution and a thinly disguised religions creation story."
Creation story? You don't know me very well, do yuh?
"You can't call it a "hypothesis" unless and until it includes a set of specific testable claims. And "It looks designed according to criteria I don't have to describe" doesn't count."
There are design inferences that are under study but not yet published. Also, criteria for what constitute 'design inferences' may need to be agreed upon. Admittedly, there's ground work to be done.
You know of course, there are aspects of evolutionary theory that are not empirically testable as well. By the way, are you keeping up with Altenberg? Check out Mazur's interview with Stuart Newman.
"Second, ID cannot be "shown to be evidentiary," for the simple reason that it IGNORES mountains of evidence."
Correction: Some Creationists may ignore certain evidences, or interpret it based on their theological orientation, but neoID holds to scientific verifications, falsifications, and statistical analyses. There will be peer review papers within a few years, I predict.
Posted by: Lee Bowman | August 25, 2008 12:21 PM
There will be peer review papers within a few years, I predict.
If it's not published, it doesn't exist. EVEN IF ID somehow turns out to be a valid scientific idea in it's own right (you're all going to have to go through a lot of work to demonstrate to me that this isn't just re-packaged creationism), as it stands right now it is absolutely inappropriate to be even thinking about talking about it in a secondary school science class.
Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2008 12:50 PM
There will be peer review papers within a few years, I predict.
If it's not published, it doesn't exist. EVEN IF ID somehow turns out to be a valid scientific idea in it's own right (you're all going to have to go through a lot of work to demonstrate to me that this isn't just re-packaged creationism), as it stands right now it is absolutely inappropriate to be even thinking about talking about it in a secondary school science class.
Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2008 12:51 PM
Mr. Bowman,
I don't know you at all so I'm working only with what you present in your comments here. Assuming you've come to your positions honestly and with sufficient scrutiny and understanding of the TOE and scientific methodolgy, I have some questions for you I'd appreciate your responding to here.
Do you believe the peer-accepted aspects of evolution should be taught in elementary through public high school in the same manner we teach the Big Bang, relativity, gravity, or germ disease (as opposed to those disciplines who have controversial or yet to be validated results like origins of life, string theory or some aspects of quantum mechanics where everyone agrees some reportage on alternative scientific hypotheses or theories should be presented).
Given that you appear to agree that ID has yet to fully develop hypotheses to test (given your groundwork comment), do you agree that ID doesn't belong in public school science classrooms given it has yet to make it through the scientific methodology grinder to even present a scientific challenge to to the TOE, a theory which has successfully accomplished and continues to accomplish it enjoying peer-accepted status based on its empirical findings?
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 25, 2008 12:56 PM
There are design inferences that are under study but not yet published. Also, criteria for what constitute 'design inferences' may need to be agreed upon. Admittedly, there's ground work to be done.
Thank you for admitting I was right. (The first bit of "ground work" you need to do, of course, is find some ground to build on.)
...but neoID holds to scientific verifications, falsifications, and statistical analyses.
Really? Show us the peer-reviewed papers from the "neoID" "scientists" where such things have been done. What specific conclusions are they able to support with such rigorous analyses?
There will be peer review papers within a few years, I predict.
You've had about 150+ YEARS to disprove evolution. How much longer should we have to wait (if we were indeed dumb enough to wait)? And since you seem to confident in this prediction, perhaps you could tell us who you know is actually working on such papers?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 25, 2008 1:03 PM
Lee, I guess it's also appropriate to ask you the question that I normally ask ID proponents, which is:
how do you falsify the designer?
Posted by: Josh | August 25, 2008 1:08 PM
When classic young-Earth creationism got discredited, the creationists renamed it "creation science;" when that got proven false, they called it "intelligent design;" now I notice Bowman shifting to a new name, "neoID," in the desperate hope that enough rubes will automatically think that "new name = new science." The fact that Bowman understands the need for a new name, proves that he knows how vacuous the whole thing really is.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 25, 2008 1:09 PM
Such as?
If they are not empirically testable, then those aspects, if they exist, are not scientific either.
What's the difference between "neoID" and regular ID? Name some of the practicioners of neoID, and describe the scientific work they are doing.
Are you betting a bottle of single-malt scotch?
State the scientific theory of ID (or neoID if you prefer).
Posted by: Dave S. | August 25, 2008 1:47 PM
It may be possible that in the future, the scarcity of fossil fuels may lead us to get around on giant genetically engineered winged swine. I hope you would agree with me that until there is some tangible indication that this scenario might actually play out, it would be wildly inappropriate (not to mention futile) to include the care and riding of flying pigs as part of the Driver's Ed curriculum.
Your predictions (to be charitable, "wishful thinking" would seem a better fit) are all well and good, but let's not forget the actual current state of the Intelligent Design movement. Despite being a large and well-funded movement, it has produced virtually no research and exactly zero new experimental results to support its validity. Indeed, it seems very little has been spent on research, with millions upon millions of dollars being spent instead on a massive political propaganda campaign. If any of its supporters arrived at their conclusions absent a religious axe to grind, they are few and far between. Its arguments remain a rehashing of old, discredited creationist talking points, with the thinnest of scientific veneers.
You can believe what you want about the future of ID, but I for one wouldn't saddle up the pig just yet.
Posted by: DaveL | August 25, 2008 5:01 PM