Hank Fox reports that a pair of administrators who wasted the school's time and money on Intelligent Design creationism are losing their jobs:
The Wilkes-Barre, Penn., Times-Leader reports that the Dover school board has "decided not to guarantee contract renewals for two top administrators who helped implement an intelligent-design policy that a federal judge overturned last year."
"The Dover Area School Board voted Monday to open the jobs of Superintendent Richard Nilsen and Assistant Superintendent Michael Baksa to other applicants. Nilsen's contract expires June 30, 2007, and Baksa's contract expires July 1, 2007."
Awww. Here's the funny part, though.
Both men are allowed to reapply for their jobs, but Nilsen said after the board meeting that he is looking for another job and could leave before his contract expires. He said he had "no idea" why his contract was not being renewed.
The incompetent are often blissfully unaware of the reasons for their failure, that is true.
- Log in to post comments
Unfortunately, the Dover School Board has not given any reasons for the non-renewals, although the York paper reported that Baksa's DUI was not a factor. Some people suspect that these two could have done something to discourage the actions that resulted in the $1M cost of the K v. D trial, an unnecessary cost added to the school district's already mounting bills.
All this nonsense from a Nilsen. How humiliating.
But if these guys decide to believe that their contracts were not renewed because they supported intelligent design, the teaching of which the trial judge declared to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, are they going to sue the school board for religious discrimination?
I don't think that the school board ever forbade them to believe in ID on their own time, so no, they wouldn't have a case. But it would be amusing, since ID is supposed to not be a religion.
good riddance to bad rubbish.
i'm just glad there were no Garths involved.
Having a bad legal theory won't necessarily stop people from litigating, especially if you can find an attorney who can think of creative ways to massage the facts.
The incompetent are often blissfully unaware of the reasons for their failure, that is true.
The blindly pious often have the same problem.
Maybe not, but couldn't they just end up in front of Judge Jones again? (I'm beginning to like the idea...)
In today's York Dispatch school board member Phil Herman said the ID issue had no bearing on the board's decision not to renew. I rather suspect the reason (which may be released in days or weeks) may have to do with their relations with the teachers, and fostering an atmosphere where teachers' opinions on curriculum are listened to, rather than ignored.
Maybe the board thought they were doing Nilsen and Baksa a favor. Maybe the board just figured that Nilsen and Baksa might have more fun teaching Sunday School or something. I don't see what's so "political" about that. (I'm glad there were no 386sx's involved in this whole mess, by the way.)
What the heck is "Intelligent Design creationism?" Is that like a square circle?
In times when schools need to work hard to make fiscal ends meet, the LAST thing they need is yahoos like these guys running the show.
you might want to check out this relevant BBC article.
Jason asked, "What the heck is "Intelligent Design creationism?" Is that like a square circle?"
Nothing of the sort. It's actually the silly and utterly unsupported conjecture pimped by "cdesign proponentsists."
Jason:
Well, insofar as if you believe that ID isn't creationism by definition, you'll probably believe anything.
So I guess the best answer to your question is "did you know they took the word gullible out of the dictionary?"
"What the heck is 'Intelligent Design creationism'? Is that like a square circle?
No, a circle and a square are two different things. Whereas ID and Creationism are the same thing. ID logic goes like this:
1) Evolution is not a sufficient explanation for the diversity and complexity of life.
2) Therefore some or all life must have been designed instead (argument from false duality not withstanding).
3) If each living thing did not evolve from something before it, (as argued by ID), it must have been created (how else would it get here, besides the magic "poof" fairy?).
4) Therefore, rather than just saying things were "created", ID says they were "designed" and "created".
5) ID is a form of creationism. The proper name should be Intelligent Design Creationism.
What the heck is "Intelligent Design creationism?" Is that like a square circle?
I guess Intelligent Design creationism is something like what they call a "god of the gaps" "theory", or, as Mr. Michael Behe would say, a "black box" "theory". (Viz., the alleged gaps in our knowledge would be the "black box". You can stick the designer in the black box just like you can stick it in teh gaps.) So I would say Intelligent Design creationism somewhat more like a "gap box". More (ostensive) gaps = happiness and joy. :-) Fewer gaps = sadness and handwaving. :-(
"What the heck is "Intelligent Design creationism?" Is that like a square circle?"
It's akin to a "spherical globe"
No, no. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is more like a morbius strip. It's just the same argument going round and round on the same issue in which there is only one side.
Hey, Bruce--
What's white, unorientable, and lives in the ocean?
Möbius Dick.