Nebraska faces limited choices

If I ever find out that some creotard is running for the county School Board where I live, I already decided I would oppose them.

Gregory Wiltshire, a candidate for the District 1 seat, said he doesn't believe creationism should be taught in science classes, but schools should give students the chance to explore their interest in creationism.

What an odd statement. Students already have the chance to explore their interest in creationism, assuming they are ever allowed to chose their own topics in English, history, civics, and so on. I got to pick my own topics for numerous essays and small research projects in high school, and had I been interested in creationism in any way* I probably would have written about it at some point.

*I lived a far too sheltered life - I knew one creationist as a teenager, and he was seen as a bizarre aberration among my friends. It literally never occurred to me that teaching creationism in science would ever be taken remotely seriously. Such innocence.

Lanny Boswell, a candidate for the District 5 seat, said creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, but those classes should teach students to be critical thinkers and consider divergent viewpoints.

Not sure what you think is wrong with that. I understand that the creationists use a lot of dog whistle language, but on the face of it, that seems an unexceptionable statement. I certainly can't say I disagree with it. Do you?

Thanks for sharing this, PZ. Sad that I have to worry about this, especially in this more enlightened day and age. Stupid conservative state I live in....

This Wiltshire guy seems like the lesser of 6 evils. His position doesn't seem a million miles from those that want creationism taught in philosophy or literature classes.

Hmm. I followed the link to be a bit clearer on the objection to Lanny Boswell. While it seems like Boswell is trying to make an "under-the-radar" statement (especially given the current "academic freedom" tactic), I have my doubts. Teaching critical thinking is exactly what we need, particularly about divergent viewpoints. That statement could go either way. Playing it cautiously, I can see where one would err against voting for Boswell. However, Boswell could just be trying to sneak in using the current crop of creationist language against itself. He/she is trying to get elected in a conservative area, and that waffly statement is applicable with either side.

That's one where a voter would need to hear more to make an informed decision.

Lanny Boswell, a candidate for the District 5 seat, said creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, but those classes should teach students to be critical thinkers and consider divergent viewpoints.

It sounds like maybe--MAYBE--this language means, I oppose the teaching of creationism, but I'm going to use code language to suggest otherwise to creationists. Maybe? One can hope.

Ringsmuth said, at the high school level, evolution should be taught as a theory that many the vast majority of practicing actual scientists in the fields associated, but not all, scientists support. There are a few delusional scientists who cling to their irrational faith that do not.

Fixed

Anyone know where we can contribute to the saner candidates? Money talks. It's the only thing that makes a difference in our money-soaked elections system. I find the best way to combat this philosophy is to donate to its detractors; not to wait until some creationist loon comes to my particular school board. Money floats freely across legislative and school board boundaries. May as well put that power to good use.

Hmm. I followed the link to be a bit clearer on the objection to Lanny Boswell. While it seems like Boswell is trying to make an "under-the-radar" statement (especially given the current "academic freedom" tactic), I have my doubts. Teaching critical thinking is exactly what we need, particularly about divergent viewpoints. That statement could go either way. Playing it cautiously, I can see where one would err against voting for Boswell. However, Boswell could just be trying to sneak in using the current crop of creationist language against itself. He/she is trying to get elected in a conservative area, and that waffly statement is applicable with either side.

Ranson it's classic creationist technobabble. Students are already being taught critical thinking skills (at least on paper) about many subjects. They just want to pick on this one. Why not say it about history? Or physics? or Civics?

Whut? Three people gave good answers?
The only reasonable answer I see here is the one given by Don Mayhew.

I think all science classes need to teach critical thinking and avoid accepting scientific theories as if they were facts.

I know there tends to be a focus on evolution vs. IntelCreationigent IsmDesign. But, what about others??? I'm particularly concerned about this area: http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/04/01/in-critique-of-newtonism/

The only good Newton is a Fig Newton!

"First, God created idiots. This, he did for practice. Then, he created school boards." ~ Marl Twain

And to think I was just in Lincoln for the Midwest Ecology and Evolution Conference. No wonder why the city seemed so empty - the evolutionists were coming! Run away!

Though, UNL has a pretty awesome natural history museum on campus. It was neat having our poster presentations in there:
http://blaghag.blogspot.com/2009/03/nebraska-trip-mini-recap.html

@Audray:
You might want to look up the meaning of "scientific theory."
You will probably be surprised.

"Norman Dority, seeking the District 5 seat, said schools should present theories just so stories of creationism and evolution but should not dictate how they are taught creationism as long as students are encourage to think crtically and decide that goddidit.

Another one fixed.

*wide-eyed innocent look*

Pray tell, good candidates, which creation story would you have the teachers teach? How are they supposed to choose which from among the many possibilities? They, after all, have limited classroom time. Which flavor of creationism should they select for inclusion?

http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/creationmyths.htm

What? What was that? Oh. Right.
You only want to teach them True Christian CreationismTM.

How silly of me. Carry on. Assholes.

@Chris:

I think you might have missed the sarcastic essence of my post.

I have to say, I am kind of surprised. Nebraska is considered to be a conservative state, but I felt that my science education was much more progressive than a lot of the other midwestern states. I had a few creationist substitute teachers, but that's all.

Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully Nebraska's constituents don't let their students down by allowing dogma to control our education system. I mean, what are we, Kansas, or worse yet, Oklahoma. Ugh, I shutter at the thought.

@Audrey:
Given the lack of smilies, blinkies, smell and sound... yes, I may have.

I've never quite understood why Americans elect school boards. It ensures politicisation of them, and there seems no evidence that putting uneducated people in positions of power ever improves the lot of the pupils.

@ Rev

I'll grant you that. However, it's also the same kind of language I could see myself using if I'm surrounded by babbling idiots and might not stand a chance if I spoke the truth outright. Hell, we both live in the south -- you know as well as I do that what Boswell said stands a chance of being the most pro-science statement we'd see in such an election. I'm not saying I'm right about Boswell, because I frankly don't have enough information. I'm just saying it's not as clear-cut as it may appear to a hypersensitive group such as gathers here.

You do have a fair point in that science shouldn't be singled out for the "critical thinking" treatment. However, given the context of the question (specifically about science classes, it appears), it makes some sense. Also, where better to teach the scientific method, one of the keys of critical thinking? It can be initiated in science at an early point and diffused from there. I know exactly one English teacher that uses real critical thinking exercises in her classroom. I can't point to anyone else in my experience outside of science classes. It's going to have to start somewhere, and without an integrated critical thinking curriculum, that leaves it to science education.

The ability to ask the right questions is nothing to be sneezed at in any subject, I admit. Let's face it, though; school boards don't make a lot of controversial decisions about math. It's about the science, and will almost always be about the science. Boswell may be trying to avoid the controversy at the election phase. Which direction that person would break after election is, in my opinion, still in question.

Cervantes, in my experience phrases like "critical thinking" and "divergent theories" in the context of evolution is code for "question science, bring up religion, but never question religion".

I find it amusing that people who want "alternate theories" to evolution always pick creationism. Not only is it one alternative (even though "theories" is plural) but they are quick to discount the ideas presented by the Matrix movies and the FSM. Both of which have just as much credibility as creationism.

I ran for town board a couple of times, partly to counteract the influence of government-sponsored fundamentalist segregationists, but after it was all over, I was kind of glad I lost. I can't imagine having to spend all my free time in meetings with stupid people.

"It sounds like at least one useless dingleberry is going to get a voice in Nebraska education."

don't you think that is a little harsh? c'mon. the dingleberries aren't entirely useless. they can always be used as a bad example.

You do have a fair point in that science shouldn't be singled out for the "critical thinking" treatment. However, given the context of the question (specifically about science classes, it appears), it makes some sense. Also, where better to teach the scientific method, one of the keys of critical thinking?

I'm not arguing against your points except that critical thinking is already a built in part of science curiculum.

Given the question sure but its always about this question. It's classic Creationist tactics. Critical thinking is part of any school curriculum (again, on paper). The use of the term suggests that schools are avoiding teaching it when they exclude creationism from science class. The truth is there isn't time to critically assess every alternate theory let alone psuedoscientific opinion (creationism fits here) in high-school or middle-school classes. They need to learn the basics, part of that includes critical thinking. However they don't need every hair brained idea introduced to take up the already minimal time allotted to learn critical thinking. There are plenty of opportunities in the things they need to learn to move to the next level.

High school science classes (or any class for that matter) are there to give the students the skills they will need at the next level. The critical thinking skills ploy is merely a tactic to try and legitimize creationism. It is not about critical thinking.

Wonder if these Creos send their kids to special Sunday Schools where they teach the controversy about the existence of a deity...

"those classes should teach students to be critical thinkers and consider divergent viewpoints"
Translation: those classes should teach students to be critical of science but not critical of religion, and consider divergent viewpoints, but not consider their shortcomings.

One wonders what answer Keller gives to creationists who ask him the same question.

Maybe a stupid question and it could open a can of worms. I definantly believe that ID and it's ilk should not be taught in school but should the discussion of why it's bad science be taught?

Instead of just telling the students "No" perhaps they'll come to a better understanding of why ID is not science and what it would take for any concept to become an accepted scientific position.

Like I said perhaps it's a bad idea as that could open the doors for the "let them talk about the controversy", which opens the door for ID to get into the cirriculum. But I think an emphasis on the education of scientific theory and it's process may need to be turned up a notch these days.

Allowing students to "explore creationism" is one of the most bizarre ways of weaseling. It takes what, five minutes to read Genesis? And there's nothing to "creation science," hence it should not be a part of the students' science study.

Obviously they can read as much AiG nonsense as they wish, and I don't care if they want to compare and contrast creationism and evolution in a report. But they'd better learn the science in order to do so, and no "nice try" for passing off creationist garbage as if it were science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

No problem PZ. I plan to run for some sort of election in less than 4 years.

I don't find Lanny Boswell's answer disturbing. He seems like a reasonable #4...at a minimum, he is better than the others in his heat.

Lanny Boswell, a candidate for the District 5 seat, said creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, but those classes should teach students to be critical thinkers and consider divergent viewpoints.

Not sure what you think is wrong with that. I understand that the creationists use a lot of dog whistle language, but on the face of it, that seems an unexceptionable statement. I certainly can't say I disagree with it. Do you?

Actually, regarding science I would find problems with it even outside of a creationist context. "Divergent viewpoints" is often a cover for woo, including non-theistic woo. And "critical thinking" along with "divergent viewpoints" are broad terms, frequently used in order to say that, for instance, various political or cultural viewpoints should be considered. Which is fine, but science does not boil down to being simply either political or cultural viewpoints.

Science is not just "critical thinking," nor are "divergent viewpoints" valued in and of themselves. One should use critical thinking in science, but according to known empirical standards. "Critical thinking" in science means something quite different from "critical thinking" in philosophy, and any statement promoting "critical thinking" in science ought to reflect that fact.

Divergent viewpoints also ought to be considered within science, yet divergent viewpoints are essentially meaningless in science if they do not amount to scientific hypotheses.

Above all, creationists typically use such terms to suggest that "all ideas should be considered," even the ones that have failed to show any scientific merit. And they aren't in the slightest bit interested in allowing "all ideas to be considered," they want their viewpoint taught alongside genuine science, and worse, they want it to be taught as genuine science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Kevin Keller....although now that he has been exposed, he is frantically backtracking.

Oh, I just bet he is. Like a wild wombat.

Kirby Young....said creationism should be taught as a theory alongside evolution.

In spite of creationism not being, you know, a theory.

Gregory Wiltshire....schools should give students the chance to explore their interest in creationism.

And here I thought that that "exploration" was provided by the Internet, school libraries and public libraries. Define "explore" for me, Mr. Wiltshire.

Lanny Boswell....[science] classes should teach students to be critical thinkers and consider divergent viewpoints.

Man! I always thought science was all about critical thinking. Who knew? Please define "consider" and "divergent viewpoints" for me, Mr. Boswell. Is teaching Panspermia okay with you? If not, why not?

Norman Dority....said schools should present theories of creationism and evolution but should not dictate how they are taught.

So I guess we don't need those silly little standardized tests to ascertain the students mastery of a subject, eh? If the schools/school board/state aren't determining...excuse me, "dictating" how they're taught, are you leaving it up to each individual teacher? Can a teacher teach, "Creationism and it's bastard step-child Intelligent Design are complete and total horseshit"? You wouldn't have a problem with that, would you Mr. Dority? And, once again, creationism is not a theory.

Andrew Ringsmuth....teachers should be allowed to give students a chance to explore creationism, intelligent design and evolution and decide for themselves which theory they support.

Once again we see the use of that slippery little "explore". Definition, please? Is that like the new "Teach the Controversy"? Also, science doesn't determine things by popular vote. If it did, most of our hospitals and labs in the US would be replaced with "prayer centers" since you-know-who would take care of everything. And for the last fucking time, neither creationism or ID are theories!! Would you people try to do something I know you've never done before and read a book??!? One that isn't the Bible or an apologetic thereof? Just once?

Again there is rampant misuse of the word Theory. I read the plural many times, but only saw 1 theory in any of the discussion. Also, I find it amazing that casual observers don't see the desperate attempts to gain control by fiat or vote on issues of fact by religionists. How can facts be voted or legislated untrue? The Creationists are so eager to change information by simply "willing" it away instead of doing the science to support it. I wonder why.

If we took these creationists and put their bodies through a shredding machine then their rotting flesh would make good compost. At least that way they'd be some benefit to humanity.

Explain to me how
"Gregory Wiltshire, a candidate for the District 1 seat, said he doesn't believe creationism should be taught in science classes, but schools should give students the chance to explore their interest in creationism."

is qualitatively different from

"Barb Baier: candidate for District 3 seat: Baier said creationism should not be taught in science classes. She said she considers it a philosophy, not a form of science, but could see it being taught in a philosophy or literature course."

The only difference I see is quantitative. Bair gave 2 domains in which creationism could be taught, whereas Wiltshire gave zero.

In fact, every person here has "explored" their interest in Creationism. The only difference between their explorations and those of creationists is that the formers' led to disdain and disagreement and the latters' did not.

PZ's threads are chock full of vitriol, huh?

Also, and what makes the creotards think that students in a high school class even have the knowledge or skills to "consider divergent viewpoints" on a topic such as Evolution - with its breadth and depth of decades eons of information?

I encourage any creobot to explore divergent viewpoints themselves, and maybe even do the work to move their idea about origins from hypothesis to theory. Oh wait, but they would actually need facts and evidence for that. Oh now I see, that's the reason for the dishonesty and subterfuge.

Off topic.

Someone just posted a flyer for a local church through my letter box*. It begins...

Trusting Jesus does not mean switching off your brain.

Okaaay. Then it continues...

It is very fashionable in our society to say there is no God. If that were true it would mean that life has no meaning.

D'oh! It ends...

We think the reason that the message of Jesus has a positive impact on our lives is because it is true.

FAIL

*the first one I've ever received; one of the perks of living in the UK.

"Gregory Wiltshire, a candidate for the District 1 seat, said he doesn't believe creationism should be taught in science classes, but schools should give students the chance to explore their interest in creationism."

At my high school (in relaxingly unreligious New Hampshire), students were definitely given the opportunity to explore their interest in creationism outside of science classes. By taking Mythology to fill one of their English requirement credits. Unfortunately, I don't think they told any myths about YHWH in there, but that does seem like the appropriate place and viewpoint for exploring creationism.

We've seen too many crazies use this whole 'different viewpoints' schtick as code for "tell 'em god did it!" to trust Boswell without looking into his record.

On the other hand, Wiltshire completely severs creationism from science. Where Boswell ambiguously claims that science classes should promote divergent viewpoints, Wiltshire says that schools should allow to students to look at creationism outside of science classes. He seems more trustworthy.

@#38 dhipp
"PZ's threads are chock full of vitriol, huh?"
Vitriol is appropriate when there are those people who do not deserve respect.

lolwut? How do you "explore" creationism?

"Norman Dority, seeking the District 5 seat, said schools should present theories of creationism and evolution but should not dictate how they are taught."

Did he mean that the teacher gets to say: "Some religious people claim that there is a theory of creationism, but there isn't one. No evidence at all supports creation and it had nothing at all to do with science"?

Gregory Wiltshire, a candidate for the District 1 seat, said he doesn't believe creationism should be taught in science classes, but schools should give students the chance to explore their interest in creationism.

The reason IMO this statement is suspect, is the second part. The "but" is the first trigger after the initial qualification. However, the part about giving students a chance to explore is the clincher. Students, and non-students everywhere in America, already have the "chance to explore". By phrasing it the way he did, it gives me the impression that he would like to formalize the way students explore it, but did not say exactly how. The other candidates did, by qualifying the class curricula for such studies explorations - debate class, philosophy, or literature.

It takes what, five minutes to read Genesis?

I mean, of course, chapters 1 and 2, and 3 if one wishes.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

The question that every political proponent of critical thinking should have to answer on television: "Do you support teaching children how to apply their critical thinking skills to religious doctrines?"

I want to know if these knuckleheads even understand the difference between Evolution and Darwin's theory.

I am sure that they don't.

I do believe that some promising pre-theories (is that a word) might be brought up, or why the notions of creationism and id are not taught.

A few minutes demonstrating that id is NOT a theory and how id can be demolished would be a beautiful thing.

Well, to me that just seems like it was intended to calm the ignorant ("We're not going to tell your kids outright that the bible is crap"). Still preferable to that 'divergent viewpoints' bollocks.

I mean, I'm glad I don't live in Nebraska right now, but I don't think he'd be too fantastically bad.

"Gregory Wiltshire, a candidate for the District 1 seat, said he doesn't believe creationism should be taught in science classes, but schools should give students the chance to explore their interest in creationism."

What an odd statement. Students already have the chance to explore their interest in creationism,

Nah, it's not such an odd statement. Think about it for a minute! How's come creationists are saying "explore" a lot all of a sudden...

"Explore" is a bit of an odd word for it. Perhaps it would have been closer to the truth if he had said "students should be allowed to splash inch-deep in the tiny puddle of an idea that is creationism".

In agreement with others: science SHOULD teach critical thinking skills. The creationist argument, however, is that students should be taught to think critically specifically about the merits for and AGAINST evolution. It is the singling out of evolution that demonstrates their agenda. Furthermore, many of the areas of "criticism," to be examined appropriately, need to be done at the college, or even graduate level. There are a lot of basics to be taught in high school biology classes. For a biologist, evolution is intertwined with all of those basics, but in teaching high school, it is important to note that you rarely spend months on evolution. Generally, it occupies 1-2 weeks: enough to convey the basics. Desiring to students to think critically about evolution would be fine IF, for example, you also teach students to be critical of the inverse square law for gravity in physics in favor of general relativity. You can't do that, of course, because relativity is too advanced for the high school level.

"Explore" is a bit of an odd word for it.

"Explore" is definitely not a bit of an odd word for it! Wake up people...

Hm. I have a paleontological field site in Nebraska that I've been working for the past 5 years or so. I should perhaps write something and send it to one or more of the newspapers in the state.

For creationists "critical thinking" means rationalizing. In science it means applying formal reasoning skills to established scientific principles.

Details here

said creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, but those classes should teach students to be critical thinkers and consider divergent viewpoints

doesn't support incorporating creationism, which she considers a religious belief, in science curriculum. She said she could see creationism being used as a topic in a student debate class or activity....

In the second part of The Origin of Species, Darwin raises a critical question: Can his theory be proved false by any known facts or arguments? Can anyone raise a serious objection to it that cannot be satisfactorily explained away? One by one, Darwin himself raises objections to his theory. Some are long-standing arguments against evolution; some of them he had thought of himself. One by one he overcomes them. (p. 109)

He first tackles the problem of so-called transitional forms...According to creationists, if living things had gradually evolved from more ancient species, then there must have existed at one time "transitional" ancestors that looked almost like these species. (p. 109)

Another serious objection to the theory concerns the evolution of highly complex organs...Here, Darwin neatly turns the table on the creationists by asking how they would explain this marvelous gradation in the means of seeing. Since, by their theory, each species was created separately, why should God have created, for example, a species with an optic nerve ending in a useless bulge? On the other hand, if the eye had evolved over millions of years...(p.111)

Another fact that the creationists cannot explain is that the more ancient a species is, the less it resembles a modern species. If God created each species separately, there is no reason why they should resemble each other at all. An all-powerful Creator can design any kind of species He chooses. p.112

Karp, Walter (1968). Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species. American Heritage Publishing Co.

Explore Evolution

I'm a biochemistry student at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. I'm definitely going to find time to go out and vote now

@57

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFXH3VqcCM

Why can't these people get over the whole 'teach the controversy, let the kids decide' angle? Science doesn't care about your opinion, science doesn't care about your philosophy, science doesn't care about your feelings. Science only cares about testable, repeatable, evidence based reality.

The prevalence of creationists in school-board elections is not happenstance. Christian fundamentalists have a deliberate campaign to pack American school boards with creationists. The effort has been going for about ten years, and seems to be working well for them. The agenda doesn't get much publicity, as the campaign has been conducted at a very grass-roots level.

The "teach the controversy" angle is odd, considering how worked-up these same people get at the idea of teaching other religions, other lifestyles or other political views.

Barb Baier: candidate for District 3 seat: Baier said creationism should not be taught in science classes. She said she considers it a philosophy, not a form of science, but could see it being taught in a philosophy or literature course."

Some people seem to be OK with this. I'm not. Notwithstanding the bad reputation of philosophy with some commentators here and on other pro-science websites, philosophy should not be a clearing-house for unscientific garbage. While the most abstract sense of 'creationism' might be a reasonable topic for philosophy, the mainsteam of Anglo-American philosophy does not endorse the rejection of scientific theories (i.e., evolution) having overwelming empirical support.

Forwarded by LotStreetWiz: Colby Cosh on misquoting Darwin—six famous things Darwin never said.

Two of the pro-science candidates, Kathy Danek and Barb Baier, suck up to Christian idiots with "she could see creationism being used as a topic in a student debate class or activity" and "She said she considers it a philosophy, not a form of science, but could see it being taught in a philosophy or literature course."

Creationism, also known as magic, is a religious idea, and religious ideas don't belong in any public school classroom.

Kevin Keller, who wants to force biology teachers to teach magic instead of science, will have no problem getting elected to a school board in god-soaked Nebraska.

We aren't all ignorant in Nebraska.

Kevin Keller, who wants to force biology teachers to teach magic instead of science, will have no problem getting elected to a school board in god-soaked Nebraska.

But this is Lincoln, the wicked city full of godless university folks and liberal government employees. It's practically Madison or Berkeley by Nebraska standards.

These folks need to read up on Edwards v. Aguillard, for starters.

"Creationists?
On my school board?"
It's more likely than you think.
[Free PZ check!]

@#3: "(Lanny Boswell, a candidate for the District 5 seat, said creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, but those classes should teach students to be critical thinkers and consider divergent viewpoints.)

Not sure what you think is wrong with that. I understand that the creationists use a lot of dog whistle language, but on the face of it, that seems an unexceptionable statement. I certainly can't say I disagree with it. Do you?"

Not at all! As long as in history class, the "divergent viewpoints" of holocaust deniers are "considered" when studying WW2. Oh, and in health class, the "divergent viewpoint" that the pope has regarding condoms also be "considered".

Well, I'm just glad I live and vote in district #4 where the rational yet wonderfully wacky Ed Zimmer is not up for re-election. Still have to deal with the at-large debacle, though.

P.S. - hi everyone. Longtime reader, now I'm posting. Horray!

Creationism should be taught in churches.

Intelligent Design should be taught in a Political Science classes. Because this is what ID is... a tactic of politics.

Science should be taught in science class.

I live in district #5 and my child begins school this fall at LPS. I did not see an answer I really liked from any of the candidates running in my district. I must say I was very appreciative of the Lincoln Journal for running this article because it really exposed the kind of problem that exists in our education system.

Keller belongs to the Lincoln Education Association's PAC, where they believe in God.

Your beliefs are dangerous, PZ! You don't believe in anything - you believe in DESTROYING! How DARE you try to subvert and defile our children!

*choir of old-man "Amens!" in place of rationed, academic concern*

Creationism is not philosophy and should not be taught in philosophy classes. That's as bad as bull like saying "creation science". Philosophy is about arguments and trying to logically and thourougly prove one's argument (formal logic is, in fact, a branch of philosophy). Everything you now call science was origonally called Natural Philosophy (the word science was brought into use by a philosopher). Philosophy of religion is about critically examining theories as to the nature, existence, or non existence of god. It is not about spouting random crap, which is what creationism is.

"Norman Dority, seeking the District 5 seat, said schools should present theories of creationism and evolution but should not dictate how they are taught."

I'm confused.
Presenting theories without dictating how they are taught-what the fuck does that even mean? Schools shouldn't dictate how courses are taught? Who should, then? Jesus? A ouija board? Should they allow every teacher to teach whatever they feel like, or let students pick what they feel like learning, cafeteria style? Does he think students learn by osmosis, just sitting there at their desks? Does he recommend pounding students' heads with textbooks and bibles, as seems to have happened to him?

How can a moron spout obviously absurd, meaningless horseshit and not be laughed out of the race? He wasn't just throwing out an empty platitude- what he said made no kind of sense at all, even from an anti-science perspective.

Feckin' idjit.

Keep that pseudoscience bs OUT of the schools!

I'd be ok with a elective world religions class, however. Delving into the myths(seeing the atrocities that are skipped over in bible class) as well as how the myths are connected(seeing where Judaism stole it's ideas) helped me become an atheist.

My worry for the above though, as always, is abuse. teachers who rush through the non bible stuff in minimal detail to meet requirements, and spend the rest of the time on cherry picked bible verses.

So, you have to vote for 4. Hmmm. What should be the tactic, then? Which of the dingleberries should people vote for?

Here's my thinking: Vote for the most-dingleberry one. That way, everyone will shake their heads at his ideas, and nothing he ever says will even get voted on, much less pass.

Sounds like Ringsmuth to me.

Creationism should be taught in churches.

No, it shouldn't be taught anywhere because lying to children is child abuse.

An angry Grinch standing on dirty, snow-strewn ledge screams into the howling wind,

"Lanny Boswell- I HAAAATE YOU!"

Then runs his index finger down to the next entry,

"Norman Dority hoo- IIIIII HATE YOU!"

With a snarl and a sneer he growls out,

"Kevin Keller- I haate you."

Gregory Wiltshire and Lanny Boswell both oppose teaching creationism in science classes. Why is it that they can make the shit list but people like Kathy Danek and Barb Baier (who suggest that creationism can be taught as a philosophy) do not?

I fundamentally cannot see the problem here. Unless there is other information about them (which is not reprinted here) which can explain why there is a difference.

They argue to teach the controversy in science class?

Fine, do it - provided the religious then agree to teach "the controversy" in church.

I'm from Lincoln, and I must admit I'm quite surprised that this has come up. I can't remember anything else like it in the 11 years I attended public school there. Creationism was just not an issue.

For the record: Norman Dority is a perennial candidate who has never been elected to anything. The last time he ran, I interviewed him for an article in my school paper.

He has essentially no grasp of what is reasonable in the context of education policy: For example, he suggested using student labor on some aspects of school renovation, such as replacing tiles. Yes, we'll let the kids use blow torches, I thought.

Dority also proposed that instead of constructing conventional school buildings, Lincoln Public Schools should just buy up blocks of houses to use as schools. Really. He's that silly.

In sum, I do not expect Dority to be elected or, if he is, to be much of a threat. In that worst-case scenario, he would most likely become an ineffectual laughing stock.

Can't speak to the other candidates, though. Will be watching this issue with interest.

Sick of this whole thing. LJS twisted the entire comment I gave them. I believe in creationism, but did not say it should be taught in schools. I said that it is not legal, and students have other priorities like diversity education. I did not say "schools should allow students to explore creationism." I said that "there are plenty of other programs in which students to express thier interest in creationism" with no reference to using schools or taxpayer dollars.

As adults, I think we know by now that the media will say what they want to say. I have asked LJS to correct my story.

Sincerely,

Greg Wiltshire

Dear Mr. Wiltshire:

First, thank you for responding directly here at Pharyngula, that takes some courage.

I applaud your firm stance against teaching creationism in public schools, but I must take you to task for your statement that you "believe in creationism." If you mean that God is the author of all natural processes - a stance shared by scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins - I have no issue whatsoever with your views.

If, however, you mean that evolution is false (or, worse, that the universe was created in six days roughly 6,000 years ago), then I must ask you this: since evidence against evolution and in favor of creationism is absent from peer-reviewed scientific literature, do you think that scientists around the world are incompetent or engaged in a vast conspiracy? If you feel that we scientists are fools or frauds, you really have no business serving on a school board and should rethink your candidacy.

I am writing as a follow up to our phone call, and to clarify any confusion regarding my position on teaching creationism in Lincoln Public Schools (LPS). When I saw your website, I was very surprised to see my name on your list. As a graduate of Caltech, I am pro-science, strongly support teaching evolution in LPS, and oppose teaching creationism or intelligent design. Based on our conversation and some of the 85 posts on your site, it seems the confusion is about specific words in the news article (which was a paraphrase), and whether I was using "code language".

Let me clear up any remaining confusion: I believe science classes should teach science. Evolution is science; creationism and intelligent design are not. I will oppose any proposal to include creationism or ID in the LPS science curriculum.

The exact text of my answer and links to LPS policies and curriculum information are on my website at http://www.lannyboswell.com/science.htm

Please keep in mind that my answer was intented to address more than just what materials are used in a science class. Teaching science is much more than teaching students about facts, it's teaching students about how to examine facts and draw intelligent conclusions - critical thinking skills.

We also need to "encourage students to express their own views, assuring that it be done in a manner that gives due respect to one another’s rights and opinions." (the quote is from LPS policy) Unlike political campaigns, schools can provide a non-hostile environment for discussing (politically) controversial issues in a respectful way. For me, "respecting the divergent points of view of others" is about protecting students, not code language for a hidden curriculum.

I hope that clears up the confusion. If not, I'll try to check back here in a few days. Please keep in mind the election is only three days away, so I am a bit busy. If you are a voter in Lincoln's 5th district looking for a pro-science candidate, I would appreciate your vote on April 7 and May 5.

Sincerely,
Lanny Boswell
www.lannyboswell.com

James -

Thank you for your comments. I believe in both creationism and evolution. I know that there are many events that favor each or both together, and I am interested in every answer I can find. The problem I have is that we are probably not supposed to know the answer.

If you believe in God, or a higher power, then that is why I answered your question that way. If you don't believe, then we have not reached a point where we need to know the answers yet. My explanation is that I believe that at one point in life, living or dead, we will find that we beleive in God. Only then will we have the answers.

I am not a holey rolling church goer, and as a matter of fact, I have not found a place of worship to date.