Friday, December 23, 2005

Tidbits from the Decision, Part Three

From page 121-122 (citations omitted):


In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID. To illustrate, consider that Geesey testified she did not understand the substance of the curriculum change, yet she voted for it. Moreover, as she indicated on multiple occasions, in voting for the curriculum change, Gesey deferred completely to Bonsell and Buckingham. Second, Buckingham, Chair of the Curriculum Committee at the time admitted that he had no basis to know whether ID amounted to good science as of the time of his first deposition which was two and a half months after the ID policy was approved, yet he voted for the curriculum change. Third, Cleaver voted for the curriculum change despite the teachers' objections, based upon assurances from Bonsell. Cleaver admittedly knew nothing about ID, including the words comprising the phrase, as she consistently referred to ID as “intelligence design” throughout her testimony. In addition, Cleaver was bereft of any understanding of Pandas except that Spahr had said it was not a good science book which should not be used in high school. In addition, Superintendant Nilsen's entire understanding of ID was that “evolution has a design.”

Despite this collective failure to understand the concept of ID, which six Board members nonetheless felt was appropriate to add to ninth grade biology class to improve science education, the Board never heard from any person or ogranization with scientific expertise about the curriculum change, save for consistent but unwelcome advices from the District's science teachers who uniformly opposed the change. In disregarding the teachers' views, the Board ignored undeviating opposition to the curriculum change by the one resource with scientific expertise immediately at its disposal.


I have often written that the only thing creationists know about evolution is that someone told them once that it contradicts the Bible. Now it seems they know scarcely more about ID. The unbelievable arrogance of thinking that major changes to science curricula should be made without any input from scientifically knowledgable people, or in voting for such changes wihtout actually understanding what they entail, pretty much defies comment.

7 Comments:

At 9:47 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

wow that I missed . . . gee I wonder why they voted for something they knew nothing about...hmmmm

 
At 8:03 PM, Anonymous John M said...

Unfortunately, it seems that school boards are filled with politicians (and political hacks) who care little about educating students. Instead the concern is various political payoffs, power, and personal advancement.

 
At 6:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact that the born agains on the Dover school board were ignorant of the theory of ID is not at all supprising. To the born again mentality, knowledge of issues is irrelevent. The only thing that counts is their beliefs which are inviolate.

 
At 4:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First, God invented the idiot. That was for practice, then He invented the school board"
Mark Twain

 
At 12:03 PM, Anonymous Dick Lessard said...

As the old saying goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". I think that was the mindset of the school board members who voted for the ID policy. They knew that ID was opposed to evolution, and that's all they cared to know.

 
At 3:38 PM, Anonymous gary said...

The thing that bothers me more than anything is that all these people know they have no chance of getting this into the curriculum without lying under oath, which is in my mind, pretty damned unchristian. I guess God will forgive your lies because He knows you're doing it for Him. What a crock!

 
At 8:28 AM, Blogger BernieMKMD said...

Biblical Literalists, notice I didn't say religious people, see science in Intelligent Design because they want to and, more importatntly, need to see it so. Their thinking about the matter is captured by the phrase, "I'll see it when I believe it."

 

Post a Comment

<< Home