"Intelligent Design": Too weird even for California.

Just go read, and follow the links. I wanted to add some commentary to this but, really, it pretty much speaks for itself.

OK, I LIED. I will toss in one gratuitous comment. I like the introduction to the concept of philosophy in the second syllabus:

Philosophy is a class about ideas and theories. It is about beliefs. It is addressing the question, what do you think and why. It is about a search for wisdom and truth.

It slices, it dices. It's a dessert topping. And a floor wax.

I think California needs to raise its requirements for teachers ever so slightly from "total moron."

OK, I LIED AGAIN. There's just so many gems here, it's hard to pick the funniest one. Maybe this part (emphasis added):

But concern has surfaced about the syllabus presented to the Board of Trustees. The instructor of the proposed course, Sharon Lemburg, says she wanted “to tell people about the ideas of Intelligent Design,” but that “Everything happened quickly. I had to have a syllabus overnight. I’m not an expert on this subject.” Lemburg is widely appreciated in the community and by this newspaper as the Lady Falcons’ successful soccer coach. She is certified to teach Geography and Health, with a social science degree. She quickly admits she is not certified to teach science.

But I'm sure she'd make an excellent philosopher.

I JUST CAN'T LEAVE IT ALONE: One of the more bizarre developments in this story is the massive change from the first syllabus to the second one. Looking at the first one, you can see that its content is taken directly from pure young-earth creationism sources.

Although the course is entitled "Philosophy of Intelligent Design," a good deal of the syllabus refers to straight science and is clearly intended to discredit mainstream science, such as geology, determining the age of the earth, thermodynamics and so on. Regardless of your opinion on these topics, there's no possible way they can be considered part of "philosophy" unless one accepts an absurdly general definition of that term to include, well, everything.

In contrast, the second syllabus backs off of almost everything that could be considered actual science and is reduced to meaningless arm waving. And it's odd that almost every bullet point in that second syllabus is a question, as if nothing in science or philosophy has been reliably established and even the most fundamental principles are open to debate.

I suspect this second syllabus is also going to crash and burn, and a third one will be forthcoming. I can't wait.