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!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Orson Scott Card has written a long essay defending Intelligent Design.
Oy, but it is depressing.
It's a graceless hash, a cluttered and confusing mish-mash of poorly organized complaints about those darned wicked "Darwinists". He lists 7 arguments. Then he repeats his list, expanding on them.…
This is becoming a regular series, isn't it? It wasn't intended as such. Rusty's latest salvo deals with a couple of questions. It started with his post concerning the Understanding Evolution website, and one section of that site in particular, which advised teachers on how to answer the common…
How did Texas screw up public education? It's complicated. The rational members of the board managed to exclude the 'strengths and weaknesses' language, which would have invited an immediate assault by the ignorant on a well-established scientific principle, but at the same time the ignorant…
Along with the rest of my crew, I entered the theater. Not just any theater, mind you, but a special effects theater. This meant that at certain points during the film your seat would vibrate ominously and a small spritz of water would shoot out from the seat in front of you. More on that later…