Good news from Idaho

It's all well and good that the ISTA has stated a position against ID, but if you read the article by the Christian Post, it is very "even handed" towards ID, as if there really were a scientific theory of ID, rather than it being a scam.

There is still a lot of work to be done to let the religious, as well as the non-religious, understand the BS behind ID.

"Intelligent design is not derived from faith," explained Steve Renner, co-founder of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center at the University of California in San Diego, in the American Chronicle, "rather it is a scientific theory which uses the scientific method to make and substantiate its claims."

IDEA Club FAQ (Answers to Frequently Asked Questions) Fear not the creationists!!!: Hi there, thanks for coming to our FAQ page. IDEA exists on the UCSD campus to serve those at our school interested in having meaningful, critical, friendly, and informed discussion over issues related to creation and evolution among people of many viewpoints. Those from "both sides" of the creation-evolution issue at our club are dedicated to truth, friendship, and self-criticism above all things. As creationists, we have nothing to hide... If any of this appeals to you, we hope you would come to the club! Please read on as this FAQ tries to explain more about the club:

Note the appearance that IDEA is some official "center" at UCSD. This would shock the hell out of me so I checked the IDEA Club web site and found:

"We are a student chapter of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, a non-profit group which promotes intelligent design theory by helping students to start IDEA Clubs, like this one, at their own schools"

Can't help but be reminded of Mike Dunsford's blog post 3/3/07 The limits of tolerance.

Apparently according to their definition of the term "Center," I was president of the Chemistry Center at UC Davis for two years. Wow!

If you can't ethically put it on your resume, it doesn't exist.

Those from "both sides" of the creation-evolution issue at our club are dedicated to truth, friendship, and self-criticism above all things.

Ah, but will they also not allow the designer-free phony "critical analysis" that IDers are peddling instead of ID (as in direct arguments for design)?

Here's the version of the story from Americans United...

Way To Go, Idaho!: Science Teachers Say No To 'Intelligent Design'

NSTA also recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. In addition, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, "creation science," and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution. -------- In addition, Benchmarks for Science Literacy from AAAS's Project 2061, as well as other national calls for science reform, all name evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the disciplines of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.

By Ed Iverson Henceforth, there will be no funny business about evolution in Idaho schools. Parents can rest easy now that the Idaho Science Teachers Association officially banned any challenge to Charles Darwin's theory of biological evolution. Last week, the ISTA president said teachers in the government schools could teach only things that had been "approved by the scientific community." ISTA now has an official position on intelligent design: It's not science, and it doesn't belong in the classroom. Neither creationism nor intelligent design can be mentioned as alternatives to Darwinism. The ISTA is following the national organization by claiming that doing so might confuse young minds, giving them the impression that evolution is a controversial theory. One might conclude from this that the government schools are reluctant to introduce perplexing alternatives. That would be a wrong conclusion. Indeed, children are blithely introduced to all manners of alternatives. For example, they are taught that while some families have a mommy and a daddy, others have two mommies and some have two daddies. This is called alternative lifestyles, you see. And alternatives are good, aren't they, kids? The Mandarins that govern the public schools are not at all shy about the possibility of confusing children in many other areas. Muslim traditions are introduced as normal. Alternative history is also popular with educrats. America is vilified both in its founding and its development. One looks in vain for any acknowledgment that Christianity played any part in the early history of America. The entire edifice of education as monopolized by the state leans heavily upon the pillars of multiculturalism and diversity. As a result, kids don't know the history of Western civilization. They don't study the great literature, analyze the complex music or scrutinize the great art of the West. They are given alternatives. But our government schools will suffer no alternative to the doctrine of evolutionary Darwinism. This is because evolutionary Darwinism effectively functions as the educrats' approved religion. Questioning Darwinism affects the National Science Teachers Association in the same way that drawing cartoons of Mohammed affects militant Islam. KABOOM!

Ed Iverson's neat little stereotype is demolished by Paul Gross. And his parroted anti-"Darwinism" sound bites ("no beneficial mutations", etc.) are demolished in the usual places.

Ed sounds like he got his biology instruction from his cousin Allen. Nice to see him appropriately shredded in the comments.

Well, now that somebody's Comments #164617 through 164624 have demonstrated randomness, maybe add some selection effects? Or not?

http://mein-blog.net/?w=sergt college sex party