Over at Pharyngula, PZ gets a little angst going over a recent New York state Assembly Bill:
Assembly Bill 8036, introduced on May 3, 2005 and referred to the Committee on Education, would require that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in both theories of intelligent design and evolution." It also charges New York's commissioner of education to assist in developing curricula and local boards of education to provide "appropriate training and curriculum materials ... to ensure that all aspects of the theories, along with any supportive data, are fully examined through such course of study."
To be honest, I don't find this all that disturbing. First of all, the bill has only a single sponsor who is clearly mad:
The bill's sole sponsor, Daniel L. Hooker (R), represents Assembly District 127, encompassing parts of Greene, Otsego, Delaware, Schoharie, Ulster, Columbia, and Chenango counties. Hooker also recently introduced bills that would, if enacted, permit the display of the Ten Commandments on public buildings and grounds (A08073), declassify sexual orientation from civil right status (A07916), and prohibit the solemnization of same-sex marriages (A07723).
So I really don't think this bill is going anywhere in a hurry. But there's a definite upside to this.
Look at the requirement to develop appropriate, ID-oriented curriculum. Does this have entertainment value or what? Does anyone remember the last time creationists were asked to come up with some official curriculum? Here, let me refresh your memory with this legal decision regarding the 1982 Arkansas creationism trial, particularly this delightful excerpt:
The testimony of Marianne Wilson was persuasive evidence that creation science is not science. Ms. Wilson is in charge of the science curriculum for Pulaski County Special School District, the largest school district in the State of Arkansas. Prior to the passage of Act 590, Larry Fisher, a science teacher in the District, using materials from the ICR, convinced the School Board that it should voluntarily adopt creation science as part of its science curriculum. The District Superintendent assigned Ms. Wilson the job of producing a creation science curriculum guide. Ms. Wilson's testimony about the project was particularly convincing because she obviously approached the assignment with an open mind and no preconceived notions about the subject. She had not heard of creation science until about a year ago and did not know its meaning before she began her research.
Ms. Wilson worked with a committee of science teachers appointed from the District. They reviewed practically all of the creationist literature. Ms. Wilson and the committee members reached the unanimous conclusion that creationism is not science; it is religion. They so reported to the Board. The Board ignored the recommendation and insisted that a curriculum guide be prepared.
In researching the subject, Ms. Wilson sought the assistance of Mr. Fisher who initiated the Board action and asked professors in the science departments of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the University of Central Arkansas (30) for reference material and assistance, and attended a workshop conducted at Central Baptist College by Dr. Richard Bliss of the ICR staff. Act 590 became law during the course of her work so she used Section 4(a) as a format for her curriculum guide.
Ms. Wilson found all available creationists' materials unacceptable because they were permeated with religious references and reliance upon religious beliefs.
Sure, this was over 20 years ago but it's clear that these folks haven't learned anything as they implode spectacularly in Kansas as we speak.
So chill out, PZ. Don't fight this bill. Rather, let's encourage these folks enthusiastically to develop curriculum. I, for one, would love to see some ID-based lesson plans. Come on ... where's your sense of adventure?
(Thanks to Glenn Branch over at NCSE for the pointer to the legal judgment.)
3 comments:
Easy for you to say, you live in a country where rational thought is still valued.
Believe me, these people will not give up. They are working very hard at this, and they will have some success. A lot of people in the USA believe the Bible literally.
Now, now ... I'm not advocating in favour of this monstrosity of a bill, of course. It's more a case of -- give them enough rope and they'll almost certainly manage to slit their wrists with it.
Perhaps a more effective approach would be, when bills like this are introduced, rather than immediately attacking them, play the accommodating, open-minded, conciliatory card:
"Why, yes, that's an interesting bill and, naturally, I'm all in favour of academic freedom and the like and, why, yes, I'd love to have some ID curriculum to examine. Feel free to drop a full set, including lesson plans and sample assignments by my office any time."
See what I mean?
P.S. Careful with that "rational thought" generalization. The Conservative Party up here is ready to give the Liberals a run for their money. If they win, we might just as well rename ourselves to Alabama North.
Well, yes I get your point. The lesson plans would be hilarious. I'm sure someone has a parody of one posted on the web somewhere. I'm just running a little short on a sense of humor these days. It's really maddening to have a bunch of nutcases running things.
What would be really funny is a debate between ID advocates who think it's God, but without being able to mention God explicitly, versus the advanced aliens/we're an experiment lobby. That would be a funny debate.
Post a Comment