Colin White, a student, thinks textbooks suck because they don’t invent weaknesses of evolution.
Insulted by people who think high school students don’t know everything. Or something.
Mercer: Students are great.
Leo: “By presenting only one side, would you say that students out there might walk away not knowing that there are weaknesses?” Colin and Leo agree that some students learned bogus creationist nonsense at home, so it ought to be taught in school, too. Colin isn’t terribly cogent, which doesn’t really support his claim that students are sophisticated enough to handle the complex social debate over evolution.
Daniel Boone, no relation to the one who died in the Alamo, I suppose. He opposes S&W, philosophy of science should not interfere with science education. First amendment argument in favor of S&W is “vacuous.” Could just as easily lead to class disruption.
Various back and forth with people about philosophy of science.
Randy Guliuzza (ICR’s National Representative) thinks the TFN survey is bogus because it only surveyed scientists who work on evolution, not physicists and so forth. He also thinks we’re all about trying to restrict the freedom of speech of the Board of Ed. Not really, though we would kinda like it if actual scientists and educators would be given a voice.
Leo is on about a survey of students, but TFN never surveyed students. I don’t know what her deal is.
Dunbar: Science experts are an oligarchy. She and Guliuzza agree that experts actually don’t know anything.
Cargill: “Children belong to their parents.”
None of the conservatives like the survey. “Purports to represent all Texas scientists.” Guliuzza doesn’t understand statistical sampling.
Robert Rutford: S&W stinks, amendments added in January stink. They contradict definition of science in the same standards.