Demagogic Ohio governor attacks critical analysis of Darwinism
An article in the Columbus Dispatch said,
Gov. Taft knows that all of the members of the last board publicly backed the teaching of evolution, even including Deborah Owens-Fink, who was one of the strongest supporters of keeping the "critical analysis of evolution" lesson plan. He also knows that this lesson plan expressly excluded intelligent design from the plan. Taft's statements were just demagogic pandering to Darwinist fanatics. Such demagoguery may backfire because public opinion polls have shown that a majority of the public wants the public schools to teach both the evidence for and against evolution (which is why Darwinism-only school board candidates don't always win).
Actually, though, it appears that Gov. Taft may just be blowing smoke. Richard Hoppe, an active member of the hardcore Darwinist "Ohio Citizens for Science," wrote on Ed Brayton's blog (Hoppe posts under the initials RBH),
Hoppe's above comment is borne out to a great extent by the OCS website. Of the three re-appointed school board members, Wick and Sheets voted at the Jan. 2006 meeting to keep the "critical analysis of evolution" lesson plan. These two switched sides at two later meetings ( Sheets was absent at the February meeting and both Sheets and Wick were present at the October meeting ), but that was after Gov. Taft came out against intelligent design (to hardcore Darwinists, ID and critical analysis of evolution are one and the same) on February 3. So maybe Wick and Sheets switched sides because they wanted to improve their chances of re-appointment. The re-appointments are good until the end of 2010.
Looking back yesterday on his eight years as governor, Bob Taft said one of the lessons he learned was to ensure that potential appointees to the state Board of Education don’t support teaching intelligent design in public-school science classes . . . . . .
Taft said he plans to appoint four new members to the board before he leaves office and that he will not name anyone who doesn’t back the teaching of evolution.
Gov. Taft knows that all of the members of the last board publicly backed the teaching of evolution, even including Deborah Owens-Fink, who was one of the strongest supporters of keeping the "critical analysis of evolution" lesson plan. He also knows that this lesson plan expressly excluded intelligent design from the plan. Taft's statements were just demagogic pandering to Darwinist fanatics. Such demagoguery may backfire because public opinion polls have shown that a majority of the public wants the public schools to teach both the evidence for and against evolution (which is why Darwinism-only school board candidates don't always win).
Actually, though, it appears that Gov. Taft may just be blowing smoke. Richard Hoppe, an active member of the hardcore Darwinist "Ohio Citizens for Science," wrote on Ed Brayton's blog (Hoppe posts under the initials RBH),
Note that three of those whom Taft re-appointed (Wick, Millet, and Sheets) pretty consistently voted in support of the various ID creationist motions over the years -- to adopt the "critical analysis of evolution" standard and benchmark and to adopt the "critical analysis of evolution" model lesson plan -- right up until the last motion to remove the matter from the Achievement Committee. They weren't rabid ID supporters like Cochran and Owens Fink, but they damn sure weren't strong supporters of honest science. They were wishy-washy throughout and in votes tended to vote on the ID creationist side. The fourth appointee, Gunlock, is new to the board and has no history except on the last motion when he voted with the majority.
I'm not persuaded that Taft learned anything that a parrot couldn't have learned quicker and with the same level of cognition that Taft used.
Hoppe's above comment is borne out to a great extent by the OCS website. Of the three re-appointed school board members, Wick and Sheets voted at the Jan. 2006 meeting to keep the "critical analysis of evolution" lesson plan. These two switched sides at two later meetings ( Sheets was absent at the February meeting and both Sheets and Wick were present at the October meeting ), but that was after Gov. Taft came out against intelligent design (to hardcore Darwinists, ID and critical analysis of evolution are one and the same) on February 3. So maybe Wick and Sheets switched sides because they wanted to improve their chances of re-appointment. The re-appointments are good until the end of 2010.
Labels: Ohio controversy
posted by Larry Fafarman | 12/10/2006 09:51:00 PM
8 Comments:
> Taft's statements were just demagogic pandering to Darwinist fanatics. <
Taft is just supporting the teaching of only science in science class. People are not demagogues because they disagree with you.
You seem to have no argument against evolution other than casting insults at its supporters. If you have any scientific arguments against evolution, why not bring them out?
You want superstition taught as science. ID should be taught as mythology.
I would like to see some of the early theories of the creation of the world added to science classes. Astronomy classes would be far more interesting if we were given the alternative view that the sky is a large hemisphere held up on the backs of giant elephants.
c. milquetoast said,
>>>>>> I would like to see some of the early theories of the creation of the world added to science classes. Astronomy classes would be far more interesting if we were given the alternative view that the sky is a large hemisphere held up on the backs of giant elephants. <<<<<<
And astronomy classes would be even more interesting if we were taught that considering what they had to work with, the technological achievements of the ancients who believed such myths put us to shame. A CNN article about an ancient astronomical calculating instrument says,
An ancient astronomical calculator made at the end of the 2nd century BC was amazingly accurate and more complex than any instrument for the next 1,000 years, scientists said . . . ..
"It could be described as the first known calculator," said Professor Mike Edmunds, a professor of astrophysics at Cardiff University in Wales . . . . .
The calculator could add, multiply, divide and subtract. It was also able to align the number of lunar months with years and display where the sun and the moon were in the zodiac.
Edmunds and his colleagues discovered it had a dial that predicted when there was likely to be a lunar or solar eclipse. It also took into account the elliptical orbit of the moon . . .
The model of the calculator shows 37 gear wheels housed in a wooden case with inscriptions on the cover that related to the planetary movements.
Actually, some people think that creationism should be taught as a historical subject in science classes. And historical subjects in science classes could include Lamarckism and intelligent design (modern history).
>>n ancient astronomical calculator made at the end of the 2nd century BC was amazingly accurate and more complex than any instrument for the next 1,000 years,
>>the technological achievements of the ancients who believed such myths put us to shame.
So a calculator that was surpassed about 1200 years ago somehow puts us to shame? I don't get your claim. Nor does it have anything to do with what was stated before. Nor have you responding to the criticisms leveled against your positions in the previous posts. That's three strikes, all in one post. As always, you're out (of your mind, evidently).
Friedrich Wilhelm
Anonymous said,
>>>>>>> So a calculator that was surpassed about 1200 years ago somehow puts us to shame? I don't get your claim. <<<<<<
I said, "considering what they had to work with." The calculator made the news because scientists consider it to be remarkable -- and I don't blame them.
Nor does it have anything to do with what was stated before. <<<<<
It has a hell of a lot to do with what was stated before. According to the reasoning of the Darwinists, the ancient Greeks -- or whoever built the calculator -- should have been incapable of building such a calculator because their technological competitiveness should have been destroyed by the myths that they were taught in school.
>>>>>> Nor have you responding to the criticisms leveled against your positions in the previous posts. <<<<<<
Please read the "About Me" subheading again: "My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer." When I think that it is appropriate for me to answer a comment and I have the time to answer, I will answer. Otherwise I won't.
> Please read the "About Me" subheading again: <
The "About Me" subheading begins with an inaccurate description of yourself. You have not lived up to a single part of what you claimed for this blog. Why should we take you seriously?
> "My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer." <
But it always has been when you had no ability to answer.
>>>>>It has a hell of a lot to do with what was stated before. According to the reasoning of the Darwinists, the ancient Greeks -- or whoever built the calculator -- should have been incapable of building such a calculator because their technological competitiveness should have been destroyed by the myths that they were taught in school.
Not necessarily; perhaps the inventors of the calculator did not believe such myths. Look at everything you can do despite the garbage you put out here: you maintain (I use this word loosely) a web site with posts that, while logically incoherent, others can read and at least follow your illogical or wrong claims.
Furthermore, you fail to address the most important part: how does this calcultor, given the context in which it was produced, put us to shame? Sure it's a quite remarkable invention. Who made the calculator, by the way? What were the specific beliefs of that civilization? Unless you can answer that with concrete examples, your statement is that much more hollow, given the apparently made-up beliefs you mention in the same response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nor have you responding to the criticisms leveled against your positions in the previous posts. <<<<<<
>>>Please read the "About Me" subheading again: "My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer." When I think that it is appropriate for me to answer a comment and I have the time to answer, I will answer. Otherwise I won't.
So you continue the discussion without responding to the counterarguments presented against yours? No wonder no one takes you seriously -- and suggests that you rush to the mental ward of the nearest hospital (or at least the nearest one covered by your insurance).
Friedrich Wilhelm
> Actually, some people think that creationism should be taught as a historical subject in science classes. <
History is not science. The early instrument is quite fascinating but a description of it belongs more properly in a history class. I was somewhat annoyed in astronomy classes when they spent so much of the limited time having us memorize dates of past events. The work of the early scholars is interesting but it isn't astronomy, or for that matter, science.
> and historical subjects in science classes could include Lamarckism <
A failed scientific theory.
> and intelligent design <
An unscientific theory. It doesn't even belong in the history of science. It should properly belong in a religion or mythology class.
Post a Comment
<< Home