stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Ho-Lee Sh1t. Dembski's research assistant, Joel Borofski, says the Kansas 'teach the controversy' standards are really ID in disguise.
| Quote | July 29, 2006
Radio Commercials Air in Kansas Supporting Standupforscience.com’s Approach to Teaching Evolution
| Quote | As the debate over how to teach evolution continues, two new radio commercials promoting www.standupforscience.com and the online petition to “Stand up for Science, Stand up for Kansas” will air this weekend across Kansas.
One ad features molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, explaining that “it is imperative to understand both the evidence for and against a scientific theory… as a scientist, I am standing up for science education policies that require students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence that supports Darwin’s theory, as well as the scientific evidence that challenges it.”
The second commercial features Kansas public school science teacher Jill Gonzalez Bravo who was also recently interviewed for the ID The Future Podcast about her support for Kansas’ new science standards.
Click here to hear commercial #1.
Click here to hear commercial #2.
The commercials will air periodically over the next six weeks. Remember to tell your friends to sign the petition.
|
Filed under: Education, Evolution, Science — William Dembski @ 7:09 pm
7 Comments »
1.
Decent commercial spots. My only quibble is that they ostensibly promote fairness and sound slightly biased. For example, the Bravo spot says, “What do Kansas Science teachers think about evolution?” They then get a sound bite from one teacher. Does she really represent all of them? If she does, wouldn’t it be more powerful to let the viewing public know that somehow?
Having them sign the petition is great, but most TV viewers won’t go there, they need the info up front.
Same thing with the “majority of Americans agree…” tag. If true, I’d personally like to see (or hear) the evidence of said claim. I know a lot of people will digest the message on face value, but I personally think evidence speaks louder than soundbites.
Comment by VOICEofREASON — July 30, 2006 @ 9:43 am
2.
My hope is that ID will be taught properly in Kansas. Having been born and raised there I would love to claim to be from the first state to teach ID. There is a lot of movement among science high school teachers to never teach ID, even if it becomes a law because “we don’t know how to teach philosophy.”
It would be nice to see them learn. I worked in a school and grew tired of hearing them speak of how it’s wrong to point out the weaknesses in Darwin’s theory because, “even if it is weak, it’s still the best theory out there.” (Shades of Dawkins anyone?)
Comment by Joel Borofsky — July 30, 2006 @ 10:08 am
3.
Philosophy is pervasive. If teachers “don’t know how to teach philosophy” then teachers are not in control of the foundation of knowledge. There is some reason why the highest degree that the education system has to offer is the Doctor of philosphy.
Comment by bFast — July 30, 2006 @ 10:39 am
4.
Joel - Are you thinking that this is about ID? My impression is that this is about teaching the theory of evolution in a more balanced, less dogmatic way.
Comment by DaveW — July 30, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
5.
Why will the commercials air for the next six weeks? It seems that the commercials are not of much use except in the campaigns for the board of education elections to be held on August 1.
Comment by Larry Fafarman — July 30, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
6.
DaveW,
It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools…at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID.
If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause…which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.
Comment by Joel Borofsky — July 30, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
|
|
