As I reported awhile ago, the Discovery Institute's attempts to add "critical analysis" language to the parts of the South Carolina biology curriculum that deal with evolution have failed. The Board of Education did not add those changes, and the Educational Oversight Committee, led by creationist Sen. Mike Fair, finally conceded on that front and decided to accept the standards without the creationist language. Fair and his ally Bob Walker, who is a representative in the lower house, are apparently banking on a budget proviso requiring all textbooks adopted by the state to Back here on Planet Earth, the Board of Education did not add the "critical analysis" language to the curriculum standards, and the EOC cannot accept standards containing that language without the Board of Education adding them first. But when declaring victory, why let a little thing like defeat get in your way? Edited to add: It was brought to my attention that the science curriculum does actually contain one sentence about "critical analysis" that was added a year ago, so the DI press release isn't technically untrue. It is, however, grossly misleading in that the changes they lobbied for all throughout the first half of this year, which included adding "critical analysis" language to each and every indicator dealing with evolution, were rejected. It was these changes, not the one from last year, that created the impasse between the EOC and BOE. The EOC's June 12th vote is noteworthy in that it will end this impasse with the Discovery Institute failing to get the changes they wanted.South Carolina Set to Join Four Other States Calling for Critical Analysis of Evolution. Columbia, SC -- The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee (EOC) will vote Monday, June 12, on whether to give final approval to science standards for biology that require students to summarize how scientists "investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards were approved unanimously by the South Carolina Board of Education on May 31. Four other states (Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and New Mexico) already have science education standards encouraging critical analysis of evolution.
46 Comments
steveroni · 9 June 2006
Wow.
And all these years I thought that the entire purpose of schools and textbooks in general was, and had always been, to promote and nurture "higher-order thinking skills".
Then again, I myself am the product of the American public education system, so you have to take anything I say with a grain of salt, since I apparently didn't get any of those newfangled thinking skills back when I went to school.
Dave Thomas · 9 June 2006
The DI has been telling the same Lie about New Mexico.
All the gory details can be found here and here.
Dave
fnxtr · 9 June 2006
So... the individuals who doubt the evidence because it conflicts with their >2000 year old superstition are promoting critical thinking?
Irony factor 10, Mr. Sulu.
a maine yankee · 9 June 2006
Are we on a planet terraformed by Bizarro into the shape of a cube? Yes, a cube. Because ours is a sphere, or is it?, and on the Bizarro World, everything am backswards. I guess that means we devolve, the double helix is a quadralateral, and disinformation theory rules in simplicity! I get it now--won ti teg I.
gwangung · 9 June 2006
I get it now---won ti teg I.
Sorry, that'll only get a leggy brunette magician in fishnet stock---
Oh.
Never mind.
mark · 9 June 2006
Steve Reuland · 9 June 2006
J-Dog · 9 June 2006
Goodbye to all of you too! I guess me win the Critical Thinking Contest - and you call yourselves scientists! HAH! All you have to do to be street-legal under the new law is:
1. Weigh book
2. Tear out pages that deal with critical thinking and weigh them.
3. If book weighs 10 lbs, critical thinking sections = 1 lb!
4. Glue pages back in book and hand out to gratefull kiddies!
Helloto you all
Keanus · 9 June 2006
You know I hadn't thought of it before, but when the old Soviet Union collapsed in the early '90's their political propaganda staffs lost their jobs, you know the ones who said it was hot when it was cold and the sky was yellow when it was blue. Well, I think I know where they found work---as the public relations experts for the Discovery Institute. Everything the DI puts out, from the Wedge Document to this press release on South Carolina's actions reads like something from the old Tass news agency. I wonder if our friends in Seattle speak Russian or have to use a translator.
David · 9 June 2006
There actually is a way of working with the "higher-order thinking skills" criterion. You pull out your cheat-sheet based on Bloom's taxonomy and look for the key words that indicate the "anaysis" and "synthesis" levels. If these represent ten percent of the activites, or perhaps could fill ten percent of the contact time, you have met the standard. Please don't tell me that this evaluation can be performed without using any higher-order thinking skills. I am merely reporting how I have seen such things done.
Zohn · 9 June 2006
Not really off-topic since this talk is about bizarro happenings...over at dembski's blog, there's a movement going on to rename ID to IE (Intelligent Evolution)!!! Didn't take them long to consider another name change, eh?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 June 2006
Sir_Toejam · 9 June 2006
steve s · 9 June 2006
Andrew McClure · 9 June 2006
bill Farrell · 9 June 2006
Ah, we've seen this before.
Creationism, if they rule against it retitle it "scientific creationism."
Scientific creationism, if they rule against it retitle it "intelligent design."
Intelligent design, if they rule against it retitle it "intelligent evolution."
or special creation, or special design or special evolution or Bob's Theory...
Hello, dim wits. Here's a clue. It's not the title. Trust me.
Beemer · 9 June 2006
Sir_Toejam · 9 June 2006
Shalini, BBWAD · 10 June 2006
[Dembski asks:
What would happen if the courts rule against ID, declaring it religion?]
Dembski has hit his head AGAIN with his Bib...er, the Incredible Dumbness missal.
It all falls into place nicely.
DON · 10 June 2006
Hold on! In your title you say they LIED, but in your edit you say it wasn't technically a lie, but "misleading".
YOU are the misleading LIAR!
k.e. · 10 June 2006
Don projects:
YOU are the misleading LIAR!
Oh the ignominity,, the pain,,,the pain!!!
Please jog cast out these Freudian demons.
You know if you just embraced your unconcious (giggle) Freud Don, you wouldn't have to lie to yourself.
Frank J · 10 June 2006
Has anyone heard of any of these anti-science activists endorsing this critical analysis of "Of Panda's and People"?
Frank J · 10 June 2006
C'mon people, Dembski was obviously being tongue-in-cheek with "Intelligent Evolution." IDers know that theirs is a rhetorical scam, and that the word "evolution" cannot appear anywhere near the title of their "theory." Sure, they'll still slip in the usual disclaimer of "we have no problem with 'microevolution'," but the bulk of their argumentation needs to be against all of evolution if they are going to pretend that it is responsible for atheism, liberalism, communism, etc. Although some of them probably wish that they could erase the past and make "Teach the Controversy" catch on, they know that "Intelligent Design" is the meme they are stuck with.
Red Right Hand · 10 June 2006
Dave Scot:
Next consider the current occupant of the Whitehouse who is likely to nominate at least two USSC justices over the next 3.5 years and certainly including the appointment of a new chief justice.
Poor Dave can't even count. And does he know something about Chief Justice Roberts that we don't?
Red Right Hand · 10 June 2006
Ooops! I was commenting on a Dave Scot comment a year old!
I guess I owe Dave an apolgy.
I'll get right on it...!
steve s · 10 June 2006
Red, do a Dembski Apology:
Davescot, I retract the claim that you egregiously can't count.
GvlGeologist, FCD · 10 June 2006
I dearly hope that some of the members of Pandas Thumb are recording the conversation over at UD for any upcoming legal proceedings that might result from a name change. I'd love to see the expressions of the creationists (Oh, excuse me, I mean the IDers, I, uh..., mean the IEers) when it is again shown that their new "theory" is just creationism in a cheap suit (love that quote!).
steve s · 10 June 2006
There aren't going to be any upcoming Intelligent Evolution legal actions. Dembski is just having fun at the expense of his crowd of dimbulbs. You'd have to be a complete retard to think that publicly changing the name will work.
GvlGeologist, FCD · 10 June 2006
Like from Creationism to Intelligent Design?
GvlGeologist, FCD · 10 June 2006
OK, so that wasn't public.
And parenthetically, most of the retarded people I've met have been alot more honest and likeable than what I've seen at UD and here at PT of the diehard IDers.
steve s · 10 June 2006
Yeah, it's actually insulting to retards to compare them to the Uncommonly Dense.
wamba · 10 June 2006
Henry J · 10 June 2006
If they start calling it "I.E.", the industrial engineers of the world should complain about the insult to their profession.
Henry
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 June 2006
Sir_Toejam · 10 June 2006
The way Ann Coulter et. al. conduct standard business is the very reason Al Franken wrote his book:
[u]Lies and the Lying Liars That Tell Them.[/u]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0525947647/103-6919427-4316665?v=glance&n=283155
wamba · 11 June 2006
Freelurker · 11 June 2006
Shalini, BBWAD · 11 June 2006
I'd guess that it would be an insult to all industrial engineers to equate them to the IDiots.
wamba · 12 June 2006
Raging Bee · 12 June 2006
...over at dembski's blog, there's a movement going on to rename ID to IE (Intelligent Evolution)!!! Didn't take them long to consider another name change, eh?
What, they didn't take my suggestion to call it Subtle Hidden Intelligent Tinkering? I'm hurt. But maybe they're saving the best idea for last...
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 12 June 2006
I like the name suggested, right here in this blog, by leading IDer Paul Nelson:
"The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short)."
That, at least, has the virtue of being accurate.
Shalini, BBWAD · 12 June 2006
One of the rare occurrences of honesty from the ID front, eh?
Freelurker · 12 June 2006
paul d · 13 June 2006
My neologism. Macrointelligent design.
Sure, I believe in Macrointelligent design, but there's no way that you could extrapolate that into any kind of Microintelligent designers.
fnxtr · 15 June 2006
Sir Toejam: Franken's book is brilliant. And not just for the pasting he gives Coulter, though the chapter title "Ann Coulter: Nutjob" pretty much says it all.
Sir_Toejam · 15 June 2006