There is a storm brewing in Arizona regarding ID in public schools again. This time it is at the state department of Education level. Perhaps DI and ID folks can weigh in.
Well if the AIBs can give their opinion/demand then all the people can.
The public , who own the schools, money, kids, should be involved in what is being taught/censored.
Are these things being taught a attack upon religious beliefs?
I’m glad for this dustup but I advidse creayionist and good guys everywhere that the great judical/intellectual/acedemic cause should be to end state censorship on the truth/investigation into subjects that belong to all mankind.
In short freedom of thought, speech, learning, teaching.
This should be the MISSION STATEMENT. Then use the nations government, constitution, democracy, natural rights etc to make the case and go to the top courts, however hostile and unrepresentedive of Americaetc, and then make a movie out it. A GOOD MOVIE FOR A CHANGE WORTHY OF PEOPLE OVER fifteen. No monsters. This means you Steven Spielberg.
Although truth repression and freedom stomping are monsters.
My take is that it’s a storm in a teacup.
Consider what the draft standards actually say about evolution:
Evolution is an explanation for the unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct.
The theory of evolution seeks to make clear the unity and diversity of living and extinct organisms.
Nothing objectionable there. I imagine some people from the NCSE might want the standards to read: “Evolution is the only true explanation [or: the only possible explanation] for the unity and diversity of organisms, living and extinct.” However, real scientists don’t talk in such dogmatic terms.
There’s absolutely no mention of intelligent design in the draft standards, either.
What about climate change? Here’s what the draft standards say:
Fossil fuels, frequently used in power stations and generators, are a limited resource and their combustion contributes to global warming and climate change.
Changes in the atmosphere due to human activity have increased carbon dioxide concentrations and thus affect climate.
Moreover, anthropogenic changes (induced by human activity) in the environment - including habitat destruction, pollution, introduction of invasive species, overexploitation, and climate change - can disrupt an ecosystem and threaten the survival of some species.
But human activity is having positive and negative impacts on biodiversity through overpopulation, overexploitation, habitat destruction, pollution, introduction of invasive species, and climate change.
There’s absolutely nothing here that a climate scientist could object to.
I think the objection is that this implies evolution hasn’t made this clear. From a scientific point of view, it certainly has.
It looks like DI wants to encourage learning about the scientific controversy over evolution. Anyone here know what scientific controversy over evolution they are referring to?
Meanwhile the draft new standard de-emphasising evolution and climate change is going to be voted on and is expected to be defeated. Superintendent Diane Douglas lost her primary and is out of office in January. She appointed a YEC to the board and now is crying that she is the victim of “Christian prosecution”.
Science and Reason prevail in Arizona: