A Possible Way to Strike Back at Creationist Politicians

No, I'm not talking about voting them out of office (fat chance of that happening in some places). By now, you've probably heard about the firing of the Texas Education Agency's director of science curriculum. There's not much to add to what others have already said about how stupid this is, so, instead, I want to propose one possible way to strike back at these bozos: federalize the issue.

This latest front in the Republican* War on Science illustrates how this is a political issue that revolves around power, not framing. One way pro-science citizens can influence what local and state governments do is through federal funding. The next time any educational legislation is proposed, a key component should be the release of federal support for educational programs contingent upon the adoption of educational standards that do not accept intelligent design creationism as science and that also support the study of evolution. If phrased properly (and I have to give more thought about how to do that), the Republicans would tie themselves in knots trying to figure out how to stop this legislation. Much legislation begins with 'findings of facts' and this would be a perfect opportunity to make the pro-science case.

*You don't see Democrats doing this shit, do you?

More like this

Mike the Mad Biologist suggests this: One way pro-science citizens can influence what local and state governments do is through federal funding. The next time any educational legislation is proposed, a key component should be the release of federal support for educational programs contingent upon…
On Neurophilosopher's blog, I saw this, one of the winning cartoons from the 2006 Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest, drawn by Reva Sharp from Warren, PA (btw, you have only about a month to send in your entries for the 2007 contest): The image obviously mocks the relationship between…
Dear Texas, Let me first of all say that despite our differences, I still consider you my home, even if I only get to visit a couple of times a year these days. Friends, family, football: you have it all for me. And, as I watched it get dark here in Oxford around 4 pm this afternoon, I have to…
Candidate's promises and positions do not always match what is constitutionally or procedurally possible. It is possible to wrap oneself in the Constitution and hide behind it at the same time. Several years ago, a child died when a string attached to his 'hoodie' was caught in the frame of…

To avoid discrimination accusations, make the wording based on "teaching curriculum approved by the National Academy Of Science" or whatever the federal level science grant vetting organization may be.

Personally, I love to tweak ID advocates by pointing out that real Intelligent Design is perfectly scientific, namely 2001 (the black monolith) and Brin's Uplift series. The reason scientists don't support it is that a) it doesn't explain where the monolith/uplift aliens came from and b) there is no evidence to support it. They get all huffy at that point. Hee hee.

By Nathan Wallace (not verified) on 01 Dec 2007 #permalink

Me I think the state of Texas is going to be on the hook for a wrongful termination suit based on religious discrimination. The reason being is that Chris Comer was essentially fired for failing to equate 'intelligent design' is a religious belief and the theory of evolution which is science. Which means she was fired for failing to promote the personal religious beliefs of the board of education. Hell even worse intelligent design isn't even religion, it's pure superstition.

Yeah, you really don't want to set the precedent of Congress making educational policy. Google "Santorum amendment" for one instance where that could have gone wrong.

Alas and alack, state and local control of education are so ingrained that there would be outcry against giving the NAS that sort of power, even though it makes copious sense.