I mentioned last week that the Discovery Institute misrepresented the Minnesota state science standards, pretending that they endorsed "teaching the controversy". Now Dave Thomas goes through the other 3 (or 4? The DI can't count) states that the Discovery Institute slandered, and guess what? They don't support creationism either.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
It is scandalous that any modern, intelligent, well- educated person should believe in Christianity.
[Delos B. McKown, Ph.D., U.S. professor, philosopher, author, Former clergyman]
Recent Posts
- You shoulda been here
- Friday Cephalopod: Squink!
- A contemptible pseudoscientific scam
- KKMS, always quick to defend the fools
- The problem of the oblivious white male atheist
- You've all forgotten about the Molly awards, haven't you?
- Skepticon II
- Did you get a copy of The Origin from Ray Comfort?
- I get email
- If I were called Rusty Thomas, I might overcompensate a bit, too
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- 'Tis Himself, OM on Escape from the planet of the cursed undead heart of the vengeful bride of the son of the thread that will not die!
- Noni Mausa on You shoulda been here
- Alan B on Escape from the planet of the cursed undead heart of the vengeful bride of the son of the thread that will not die!
- E.V. on You shoulda been here
- Alan B on Escape from the planet of the cursed undead heart of the vengeful bride of the son of the thread that will not die!
- blf on You shoulda been here
- Maggie Moo on Friday Cephalopod: Squink!
- beriukay on The problem of the oblivious white male atheist
- 'Tis Himself, OM on You shoulda been here
- SEF on Escape from the planet of the cursed undead heart of the vengeful bride of the son of the thread that will not die!
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- November 2001
Blogroll
Other Information
« I ♠ missionaries | Main | Pharyngula kindled? »
And then there were none
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 20, 2007 1:35 PM, by PZ Myers
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/56227
Sign in or register with TypePad. Sign up with Movable Type.
Comments
Posted by: Kristine | November 20, 2007 2:04 PM
I cannot see the logic in their 1)championing of so-called "teach the controversy" standards, and 2)incessant whining that teachers, activist judges, and scientists (also liberals, atheists, and invisible unicorns) won't "let" them teach the "controversy." Evolution is in "crisis" - and a monolithic, oppressive conspiracy; about to be "overthrown," and impossible to crack.
*Tiptoes away from violating Godwin's Law*
Posted by: Arcturus | November 20, 2007 2:18 PM
I just listened to Behe's interview at Point of Inquiry, http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=136 , and came to the conclusion that he's completely nuts.
He argues that evolutionary biologists have something to explain because they try to explain an illusion of design. But ID-ers don't, because God designed everything and we cannot know his thoughts, motivations. How is that for a scientific theory ?:))
Another funny point was that malaria could not have evolved, it was designed. So the question is, what kind of ethics does this designer have? To design this killing machine, whiping out humans ... His answer? A benign designer, because malaria might have some beneficial effect on the biosphere as a whole. :))
Behe is VERY inconsistent in his views. He wants to sneak in the "desginer" but not talk to much about that designer.
Maybe someone should write an essay about the implications of ID, just for fun, and talk about how cruel this designer must be. How can he create all this life that constantly fights for survival, kills, eats, and doesn't care about ethics? I wonder if the designer is inteligent, he surely is a very bad boy :))
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 20, 2007 2:29 PM
He's not nuts, he's lying for dollars.
Posted by: Moopheus | November 20, 2007 2:39 PM
"Maybe someone should write an essay about the implications of ID, just for fun, and talk about how cruel this designer must be."
Hey, two great tastes that taste great together. Since creationists are always misrepresenting since to "prove" the existence of the diety, one could extend the ID rhetoric along the lines of the old Gnostic ideas that the creator-diety was in fact blind and insane. Quote-mine some of the apocryphal material from Nag Hammadi and so on, and you're done.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2007 2:44 PM
You mean fulfilling it.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | November 20, 2007 2:46 PM
It seems...no, actually it is...highly illogical that such elaborate fools errands such as the DI continue forward and receive funding, in spite of their public legal rebukes. But, I guess the John Birch Society, American Enterprise Institute, and other fraudulent outfits have been trundling along for decades in spite of their vapid platforms.
Posted by: Kristine | November 20, 2007 3:31 PM
*winks at David Marjanović*
But you know what I mean! How can something "about to collapse" be so "dangerous" and strong in its "weakness"? I can't help it if it reminds me of another fearmongering ideology. Okay, I'll think of a better metaphor. The John Birch Society is a good one.
Posted by: AlanWCan | November 20, 2007 3:35 PM
"Maybe someone should write an essay about the implications of ID, just for fun, and talk about how cruel this designer must be."
Already been done:
All Things Dull and Ugly
(To the tune of 'All Things Bright and Beautiful')
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Posted by: Jesse | November 20, 2007 3:44 PM
A little off topic, but a question I have had for a very, very long time about the DI:
Why don't they allow comments on their posts/news items on their website?
It's 2007 and there is NOTHING on the interhighway that doesn't allow comments especially pertaining to blogs and "News" pages (Yes, the DI gets News in quotes since they seem to loathe honesty or facts).
ID proponents love to act like open-minded citizens. "Teach the controversy", they say. "Teach both sides!" "We need honest debate and discussion about the shortcomings of evolution!" So then, isn't it fecklessly hypocritical that on their own website, the DI refuses to hear what others say and is wholly one-sided? How can they expect discussion/debate if they can't even provide it on their own hallowed ground?
I think that if enough people flooded them with this question, their false notion of credibility and non-biased actions would fly out the window.
Posted by: Arcturus | November 20, 2007 4:31 PM
Thanks for the suggestions, I was actually sure that many before have thought about the vile ethics of this supposed "designer" :)
Posted by: dorid | November 20, 2007 5:33 PM
Dave and I disagree on the point of New Mexico. The science standards here relevant to the discussion are:
Standard I: Understand how scientific discoveries, inventions practices and knowledge influence and are influenced by, individuals and societies.
Benchmark I: Examine and analyze how scientific discoveries and their applications affect the world, and explain how societies influence scientific investigations and applications.
Performance Standard 16: Understand that reasonable people may disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion (e.g., the origin of life on Earth, the cause of the Big Bang, the future of Earth).
Performance Standard 17: Identify important questions that science cannot answer (e.g., questions that are beyond today's science, decisions that science can only help to make, questions that are inherently outside the realm of science).
These are exactly the standards that allowed ID to be brought into the Rio Rancho schools. As long as there is language in the standards which include both science AND religion, I don't think we're going to shake free of the spectre of ID in our schools.
Posted by: Cubist | November 20, 2007 10:51 PM
Quoth Arcturus: "Maybe someone should write an essay about the implications of ID, just for fun, and talk about how cruel this designer must be."
Your wish is WinAce's command. Rabies, guinea worms, tongue-eating isopods -- you'll find all of them, and many more, in the fun-fulled Organisms that Look Designed web page!
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 21, 2007 1:25 AM
Kristine - Personally, I think "teaching the controversy" is a swell idea. Really, how hard is it to put together a "teach the controversy" lesson plan that would make ID proponents wish they'd never brought the subject up?
You know that section mentioned in PZ's cited post from last week where Minnesota kids are expected to know the difference between a theory, hypothesis and law, acceptable criteria for scientific knowledge, etc? ID is a great example to use repeatedly in this context, as an example of what real science is not. After covering all that, maybe they could have a classroom discussion about exactly what kind of controversy ID is, since it's clearly not a scientific one.
The pressure to put ID in public schools is a teachable moment, and a controversy--just not the kind the Discovery Institute et al. think it is.