I would completely and utterly support a law that mandated that all theories had to be taught.

Seeing as how Intelligent Design isn't a theory (and hasn't even formulated a testable hypothesis, to my knowledge), that doesn't really help out the anti-evolution morons, though, does it?

I really wish people would stop using "theory" when they really mean "guess".

McGavick is so afraid to speak his mind because he knows that if he does, he is toast, because his constituency doesn't see things his way, because his way is nonsense.

He is so toast in November. You have to be able to speak your mind or no one's gonna get on your side.

He is so toast in November. You have to be able to speak your mind or no one's gonna get on your side.

Dino Rossi had great success with this approach in 2004.

This time, however, the press isn't willing to play along.

Mmm, all the different theories that could be. [lipsmack]

Cantwell should hit this HARD. It should be on a TV commercial: "Mike McGavick wants your children to learn Creationism in school. He's the anti-science candidate, and we cannot afford an anti-science Senate". Because that's what it boils down to.

I think they should be able to teach intelligent design in public schools - in comparitive religion and philosophy classes. My High School had these courses, we also had science courses, where we learned about evolution. Even in a fairly conservative town in Iowa, no one questioned it at all. People who were creationists were considered whack jobs.

And yes, I agree - this should be a big campaign issue. This is a sciencey state - at least in the metro areas - and the pro-science crowd will vote on this issue.

Jean hit it on the head. A "theory" in science class isn't the same thing as some schmoe literalist's theory regarding The Origin of Man.

But just try explaining such a concept to a "values voter."

Although I firmly believe the creationists are off their rocker, there's a significant enough percentage of them that I think it's worth a mention in a class studying the creation of the universe (even if it's science class). Ie, something along the lines of, "There are some who believe the Earth was created by God according to religious scriptures and doctrine. However, the more scientifically accepted theory is..."

I think it does our children a disservice to pretend that creationists don't exist or totally ignore their idea. Students should hear that idea in the context of their instruction so they are better prepared to understand the world in which we live. But I'm not saying spend a whole week on it, just mention it for contextual purposes.

Why does Mike hate science so and want America to become weak and second-rate, while our competitors in other nations are educating children and young adults in record numbers?

Does he just despise America - or is he working for Red China?

Him, as I recall - and it's been a while - our textbook in science class did just that: A politely worded paragraph about creationism. It also mentioned other cultural therories about the beginning of time.

But then it said that all of those were best discussed in the context of philosophy or religion courses.

Which, as I pointed out, is the best way to handle it.

Him said:
I think it's worth a mention in a class studying the creation of the universe (even if it's science class). Ie, something along the lines of, "There are some who believe the Earth was created by God according to religious scriptures and doctrine. However, the more scientifically accepted theory is..."

That's a misleading statement, though. It implies that creationism is a scientific theory, though not as well supported, when in fact evolution is the ONLY scientifically accepted theory. Period. However, I have no problem with your statement if you replace "more" with "only".

I grew up in KS, before this KS school board nuttiness ever happened, and we spent only 1 biology class on creationism, and that was just watching a video of pro- and anti- evolution speakers and writing a 1 page report on what we thought of the debate. It was never mentioned again. I thought that was fine, but not necessary. My university evolution text mentioned creationism but only to say that their book dealt with science and science alone and they refused to debate creationism in their book because it was a matter of faith, and as such was beyond the realm of science and not appropriate for them to discuss.

I have to admit, I liked SNL's comment about Alabama (?) changing their science books to replace the word "dinosaurs" with "Jesus Horses". :)

Pardon my vehemence, but I think you guys are being extremely naive. Any gesture toward "compet[ing]" beliefs, or teaching "all the different theories" on a national level will—and has been—taken by local school boards as an OK to teach intelligent design as a scientific theory that undermines evolution. This it is not. No reference to creationism belongs in the high school science classroom, except possibly as an outdated point of view that Lamarck, Darwin, et al, had to confront when introducing their explanations of how species change over time. ID is an obfuscating trick, and any discussion of its merit (or decided lack thereof) entails the use of concepts in information theory, biochemistry, etc. High school students are not equipped to deal in that kind of critique, and they shouldn't be invited to.

Let me remind you that Santorum's infamous amendment to No Child Left Behind used conciliatory language too: "that good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science. Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and prepare them to be informed participants in public discussions.�

The effect of this kind of legislation, were it mandated rather than being expressed as the "sense of the Senate," would be to present evolution as a theory in crisis--which it is not. As a theory that "generates so much continuing controversy" within the scientific community--which it does not.

My standard high school biology text—mid '90s, Catholic school—did not even touch on creationism. There's no reason why it should have. It would have been a distraction from learning the scientific method (which ID blatantly flouts) and the current understanding of Darwin's theory of natural selection, which was what I was there to do.

It's the business of churches to teach intelligent design, not public schools.

Annie - I totally agree.

Also, with science education being really bad nowadays in this country, ID is even more offensive. It is easy and simple-minded, like the stork who drops off babies. Hard science is being excluded from public schools and that is really sad, because hard sciences add to kids' logic and reasoning abilities in ways that nothing else can, let alone brainwashing strategies like ID. give me a break. if the kids had had a reasonable science education, they would dismantle ID themselves.

McGavick is right.

Rather than dance around with a mere "politely worded" paragraph about creationism, he wants a "full measure of support and opposition to these ideas" and "fully disclosing of the comparative support and the comparative ideas."

Of course, we would expect in a science class to only cover the scientific support and opposition to an idea, and leave the religious support to some other venue.

So Mike wants kids to hear all of the scientific reasons why intelligent design and other creationist theories have been scientifically rejected.

A full catalog of those reasons can be found in just about any book you pick up by Carl Sagan or Stephen Gould, among others. They should teach exactly that.

Probably have to extend the school year, but I'm all for that too.

Christians don't believe in evolution and Jews believe god gave them Israel. All religious people are idiots.

Elenchos: You're wrong. As a first term legislator, McGavick would not have the power to get his preferred wording instituted. As a Republican, he would vote with all the pro-IDers on whatever they liked. Until McGavick grows a pair and utters the phrase "There is no scientific support for the movement known as intelligent design," then you should not read into his wishy-washy statements any sort of rational approach to the issue.

McGavick grow a pair? Not likely to happen. The guy is testosterone-free.

Well I can't read the dude's mind.

I just looked at his words and what he said was perfectly reasonable.

Why does it matter if he is first term or whatever? There won't be a Senate vote on this because as he also is always at pains to point out, he isn't running for school board.

They just asked him an opinion and he gave one.

If the reason you disagree with what he said is because he is a Republican, then why waste time reading his words? Just skip to the end and say "Wrong!"

Elenchos:

Because absent a clear statement saying intelligent design is in no way comparable to the theory of natural selection, all we have to fall back on are the Republican talking points that the questioner him/herself invited McGavick to comment on. McGavick declined to do so in any substantive way, and by using phrases like "teach all the theories," he's already undermining science education. There are Republicans who won't sign onto ID, and I'd be relieved if McGavick proved himself to be one of those people.

Did you people even READ what Mike McGavick said?

HE said this isnt a federal issue. And hes right.

Hes not the "anti-sicence" nominee since this isnt part of what his job is. He even says that!

If it's not a federal issue, then why has the Senate passed a "Sense of the Senate" statement in support of ID? If McGavick could ever, ever have a chance to weigh in in an official capacity on ID, much less cast a vote on the floor of the Senate, then pardon me, but I think it's a federal issue. Moreover, one's stance on ID may correlate with one's stance on other controversial-in-politics-only issues such as global warming, over-the-counter status for medications that have been proven safe, etc. There is such a thing as being anti-science on a federal level, and McGavick has the burden of proof to demonstrate that isn't his general orientation.

lose wieght lose wieght