Minnesota is going to be revising their science standards this year. Last time we went through this, it was a circus, with our education commissioner (the notorious Cheri Pearson Yecke) trying to pack the review committees with creationists and doing last minute swaps of committee-approved drafts with drafts edited by creationists. We had John Calvert show up at hearings, along with a few other home-grown kooks, including a guy with a replica of a giant leg bone that he claimed proved there were giants in the earth in those days.
This time around, though, we have guidelines that will limit the nonsense, we hope.
In its call for volunteers, the department offered a list of assumptions that will guide the committee. The assumptions deal with topics ranging from increased science rigor to new graduation requirements.
One assumption stands out. Assumption number seven: “Science standards will reflect the scientific facts, laws, and theories of the natural and engineered world and will not include supernatural, occult or religious ideas.”
Of course, I can hear the ID crowd right now: “ID isn’t about the supernatural — teach the alternative theories! Teach the controversy!” In that article, we already have Dave Eaton (another infamous local creationist) saying he he has no problem with the restriction. You know he’s already planning to try and subvert the process.
Look for some creative interpretation of the “engineered world” bit.
Reading all this craziness makes me so happy I live in Europe! Even though the creationists start making their appearances here too … unsuccessfully though right now!
@snarki: Yeah, what exactly about the “engineered” world isn’t natural? Do we dare assume they mean “man-made” but didn’t want to say “man?”
Great handle, by the way… I go by “LadySnark” myself in chat. :)
I thought I smelled something nasty in that frigid air. With any luck we’ll get to slap them around a bit with the Dover Decision.
Ah, but I love the smell of burning creationists in the morning.
Is anyone even talking about “intelligent design anymore outside of the usual UD suspects? I keep seeing the word “Creationism” being used openly lately, as if ID were a husk that had been cast off by some molting cockroach instar.
Of course, I’ve been keeping an eye mainly on Florida. Things may be different down there; they usually are.
“Sudden emergence” is the new buzzword, and yoking it to punctuated equilibrium is the new tactic. Watch out. (Although the local cranks probably didn’t get the memo.)
I think a good point to make with the public is that scientists build on the work of past scientists, while creationists are always starting from (and ending on) square one.
Ha. If it’s one word we ought to be pinning on them as often as possible, it’s “supernatural”.
If they start talking about “intelligently engineered” world, we engineers will be very happy. Finally someone recognizes our contribution.
If they start talking about “intelligently engineered” world, we engineers will be very happy. Finally someone recognizes our contribution.
In that article, we already have Dave Eaton (another infamous local creationist) saying he he has no problem with the restriction.
As someone who has been a Christian for 30 years and been loving sciences for longer than that, I have had to discipline myself when talking to my science friends not to throw around very important words sometimes, like “proof.” I am also someone who is trying to help mend the rift between the God people and the scientists. So, if it helps anyone to hear it from a person in the God crowd, sorry about that! We can all blow it sometimes. I hope Dave Eaton uses wisdom and restraint.
Dave Briggs :~)
I was not surprised by the re-emergence of Eaton. I guess he’s been licking his wounds and plotting since his defeat in Minnetonka. I do wish my statement about global warming was clearer. I was caught a bit off guard there – no coffee and an early morning phone call on my way to class.
Melanie
James in Europe: The way to stop these clowns is to get your country’s legislative body to pass a law stating that religion or religious-based subjects cannot be taught as science. Use the Dover decision as your template.
Here in the UK we have the perfect place in our schools for ID, compulsory religious education. This is not proselytising, or shouldn’t be, they learn about lots of different religions. You can get your kid excused from any religious observations, but they have to do RE up until Age 15. Both of ours reported that when the teacher tried the creationist/ED schtick on them she got evolution arguments from pretty much everyone in the class. Our two of course had been well primed ;-)
Awwww, no Calvert this time? He turns just the cutest shade of magenta (dial 911!) when he gets steamed. And it isn’t that hard to do!
What will you do with yourselves without his non-stop pseudo-folksy prairie antics? It’s like the Man Behind the Curtain meets Gish Gallop.
Oh. Yes. Science.
Science standards are under review in Oregon this year. They have just begun work on the first draft.
I don’t expect any serious nonsense, but I plan to keep my eye on the website: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=1606
Anyone else from Oregon monitoring the standards review … or involved with it?
“You can get your kid excused from any religious observations, but they have to do RE up until Age 15.”
Actually, you can withdraw your child from religious education, as well as from religious worship. The ‘compulsory’ part means that schools are required to teach it, not that children are required to study it.
Incidentally, parents can withdraw their children, but children under 16 are not allowed to withdraw themselves. Until a recent court challenge (brought by older pupils of a Catholic school that locked pupils into the chapel for mass) even ‘children’ of 16, 17 and 18 could not choose to withdraw themselves from RE or worship.