more Intelligent Design (Ignorant Denial) bitching
From the ACLU Pennsylvania blog:
In the closing argument of the defendants, the Dover Area School Board, their lead attorney Gillen stated that "the science teachers were not trained in intelligent design," so it "doesn't make sense" that they were qualified to say that it wasn't science. He went on to say that they should rely on someone with a PhD, like Michael Behe, who believes that intelligent design is science. He also pointed out that the school board, whose members were elected by the community, had the final say in a dispute with teachers over curriculum. The board has "the right and the duty to exercise its judgment."
Pardon me while I disagree with everything that comes out of the man's mouth.
First off, science teachers aren't trained in intelligent design? He just admitted, even if he didn't mean to, that intelligent design is not science. Science teachers are trained in scientific method, which is a process. If you can hypothesize about something and then test that hypothesis, you've got science. It doesn't really matter what that something is. So if science teachers cannot apply this method to intelligent design, guess what? Intelligent design is not science. How do you test for the presence of a "designer?" What experiment can you do to prove that evolution could not have happened? The answer is that you can't, you don't. Intelligent design is simply not scientific.
Second, science teachers aren't qualified to say something isn't science. This is exactly like saying that someone trained in modern art isn't qualified to say that a piece isn't modern art. Or a novelist isn't qualified to say that a pamphlet isn't a novel. It's patently ridiculous when you put it in other terms, but today, so many people are afraid of and undereducated in science, the ID nutjobs can imply that scientists either don't understand their own subject or are too specialized to correctly identify junk science, and the general population will believe it.
He went on to say that they should rely on someone with a PhD, like Michael Behe, who believes that intelligent design is science.
So all those millions of scientists all over the world with PhDs who think that intelligent design is bunk are .... what? Wrong? Stupid? Under too much peer pressure to feel comfortable stating their belief?
one with a PhD, like Michael Behe, who believes that intelligent design is science. He also pointed out that the school board, whose members were elected by the community, had the final say in a dispute with teachers over curriculum.
That right there is fucking scary. So if the school board experiences some collective insanity and decides to teach the flat-earth theory to the schoolchildren, that's okay? What if they decide that black people are, in fact, inferior to whites, and decide to teach that in social studies? That's their right? Something is wrong here, when laypeople can impose their beliefs on teachers and students, rather than giving the teachers, you know, the people who actually bothered to learn things, the final say.
When intelligent design is reduced to its basic principle, we are left with this: "We can't figure this stuff out; we give up; God/the creator/the designer must have done it." And that attitude is the antithesis of science.
In the closing argument of the defendants, the Dover Area School Board, their lead attorney Gillen stated that "the science teachers were not trained in intelligent design," so it "doesn't make sense" that they were qualified to say that it wasn't science. He went on to say that they should rely on someone with a PhD, like Michael Behe, who believes that intelligent design is science. He also pointed out that the school board, whose members were elected by the community, had the final say in a dispute with teachers over curriculum. The board has "the right and the duty to exercise its judgment."
Pardon me while I disagree with everything that comes out of the man's mouth.
First off, science teachers aren't trained in intelligent design? He just admitted, even if he didn't mean to, that intelligent design is not science. Science teachers are trained in scientific method, which is a process. If you can hypothesize about something and then test that hypothesis, you've got science. It doesn't really matter what that something is. So if science teachers cannot apply this method to intelligent design, guess what? Intelligent design is not science. How do you test for the presence of a "designer?" What experiment can you do to prove that evolution could not have happened? The answer is that you can't, you don't. Intelligent design is simply not scientific.
Second, science teachers aren't qualified to say something isn't science. This is exactly like saying that someone trained in modern art isn't qualified to say that a piece isn't modern art. Or a novelist isn't qualified to say that a pamphlet isn't a novel. It's patently ridiculous when you put it in other terms, but today, so many people are afraid of and undereducated in science, the ID nutjobs can imply that scientists either don't understand their own subject or are too specialized to correctly identify junk science, and the general population will believe it.
He went on to say that they should rely on someone with a PhD, like Michael Behe, who believes that intelligent design is science.
So all those millions of scientists all over the world with PhDs who think that intelligent design is bunk are .... what? Wrong? Stupid? Under too much peer pressure to feel comfortable stating their belief?
one with a PhD, like Michael Behe, who believes that intelligent design is science. He also pointed out that the school board, whose members were elected by the community, had the final say in a dispute with teachers over curriculum.
That right there is fucking scary. So if the school board experiences some collective insanity and decides to teach the flat-earth theory to the schoolchildren, that's okay? What if they decide that black people are, in fact, inferior to whites, and decide to teach that in social studies? That's their right? Something is wrong here, when laypeople can impose their beliefs on teachers and students, rather than giving the teachers, you know, the people who actually bothered to learn things, the final say.
When intelligent design is reduced to its basic principle, we are left with this: "We can't figure this stuff out; we give up; God/the creator/the designer must have done it." And that attitude is the antithesis of science.