Now on ScienceBlogs: The Galaxy's Biggest Valentine

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Thoughts from Kansas

You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain

Search

Profile

Josh at work Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is formerly a doctoral candidate at the University of Kansas, in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not battling creationists or modeling species ranges, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive


Thanks!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Subscribe to TfK:

Accolades

Best of Kansas City

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Search Now:
Search Amazon.com
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

    follow me on Twitter

    « Terri Leo's revisionist history | Main | Texas liveblogging again »

    Textbook author

    Category: CreationismPolicy and Politics
    Posted on: March 25, 2009 10:43 AM, by Josh Rosenau

    Textbook author Juli Berwald is explaining why evolution rocks. Will she get any questions?

    The Board just spent 10 minutes questioning a teacher who happened to back S&W, even though she's got far fewer credentials.

    Yes! Dunbar asks who she writes for. Then wonders if the new "analyze and evaluate" language would allow S&W. Berwald doesn't think there's evidence against evolution, so she wouldn't know how to insert "weaknesses." Claims there's ambiguity.

    Mercer: Claims that S&W has been in the standards for 20 years in everything. Bogus.

    Leo: Gimme an example of nonscientific alternatives offered!

    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook

    TrackBacks

    TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/103970

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.