---

Chronicler wrote: Interesting article in the Chronicle today reports that over 120 profs at Iowa State signed a statement indicating they reject all attempts to promote Intelligent Design as scientific endeavor. 

Dumb and Dumber wrote: 120 profs signing such a statement is as unnecesary as 120 profs signing a statement that they reject all attempts to promote crystal ball reading or astrology as science.

---

I agree it should be D. & D., but this is being viewed as a very critical battle in the USA.  I hope other scientific organizations speak out before the public vote on high school science curriculum.

In selecting their professional affiliations, I've observed that far too few university faculty look at what they consider to be "just teacher organizations." I'd like to plug a couple.

If you are a science professor & you have any teaching load whatsoever, you should be a member of the National Science Teachers Association. You should specify that you want to receive the "Journal of College Science Teaching." (They have publications specific to college, high school & elementary science teaching.)

If you teach life sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers is an excellent organization. They are at the forefront of the evolution/creation controversy & have been for years.

Membership in both organizations is affordable. NSTA has a state affiliate. And NABT conventions are incredible.

Chronicler wrote:

---

One of their colleagues wrote a highly publicized book supporting ID 

---

Is that outside the boundaries of academic freedom at Iowa State?

I would like to respond to "Dumb and Dumber" and "Liberal" concerning scientists publishing books.  In science the journal articles are peer reviewed and constitute what we say is science.  Books can and do contain anything the author wishes to put into them and are not subject to peer review before publication.  So a scientist publishing a book supporting Intelligent Design can't be using journal articles on I.D. to support the statements because I.D. isn't in scientific journals.  So this has to be personal belief and opinions.

This is a method of confusing the public.  Even though the "scientist" wrote the book, the book doesn't contain science.  This is one way Science differs form the Humanities.  Books in science can be less prestigious that journal articles.

So it is imperative that scientists make this clear to the public.  As I have said before this is technical stuff people are not generally aware of.  I.D. people love to use imprecise words and get the issues out to the public who don’t have the training in precise reasoning.

Ipost this because I saw how quickly you considered this an issue of "censorship" and/or academic freedom.  While it really is an issue of deception.

 

 

LVN wrote:

---

Since when do the public "vote" on high school curricula?

---

They do indirectly, LVN.  For example, in Kansas they elect the school board who then decides on curriculum.  In the past "Creation Scientist" got elected and they changed the textbooks so evolution would not be mentioned.  They were voted out, but "Intelligent Design" people were elected in the past election when Bush carried the state.  They are again trying to change the requirements to allow I.D. discussed in science class.  When they do this the textbooks companies must publish suitable books or lose business.

 

Their agenda is to elect religious conservatives to school boards.  The boards then demand that evolution either not be taught or taught with alternative “theories” like I.D.  This forces publishers to produce suitable books.  So I.D. will appear in high school science books even though it isn't in scientific literature.  If they can get this done in a large enough state the publishers will ignore the smaller state markets  and these will be the only books available to most of the country.

---

Scientist wrote: Their agenda is to elect religious conservatives to school boards.

Invictus wrote: In the interest of being fair to sincere & true conservatives, I think the above quote ought to be: Their agenda is to elect religious "conservatives" to school boards. But seriously, the current move to abolish separation of church and state is hardly conservative & really isn't very religious. It is being fed by some members of a particular political party that has co-opted the word "conservative" & panders to the so-called "religious right" (which may think it's religious but is hardly right) in order to win elections. Folks, this is not about science & it isn't really about religion. It is about partisan politics & power. The "religious" groups behind this are dupes.

---

Thanks for making my statement more precise, Invictus.  I love precision.

If I see one more letter, pro or con, about the evolution-ID debate, I will content myself with reading the only the obituaries and the comics section of the newspaper. Posters supporting ID as the here all and end all are too far to the right for me. Posters supporting evolution as the here all and end all are too far to the left for me. Both extremes have been relentlessly bent on their preconceived notions.

Invictus wrote:

---

Scientist wrote: Their agenda is to elect religious conservatives to school boards. In But seriously, the current move to abolish separation of church and state is hardly conservative & really isn't very religious. It is being fed by some members of a particular political party that has co-opted the word "conservative" & panders to the so-called "religious right" (which may think it's religious but is hardly right) in order to win elections. Folks, this is not about science & it isn't really about religion. It is about partisan politics & power. The "religious" groups behind this are dupes.

---

I couldn't have said it better. And if I did Scientist would want to argue with me. The only thing about your post that I'd change is the last sentence. I would have said "The religious groups behind this are being duped."

Dumb and Dumber wrote:

---

I couldn't have said it better. And if I did Scientist would want to argue with me. ...

---

This is not true.  I would never have disagreed with you.  How can you say that? 

Scientist wrote:

---

Now if you meant this post as a troll, welcome aboard.  We are only on page 11 and could use a troll to keep the thread going

---

There's no troll in these offices. Please don't develop the habit of labeling every poster you disagree with as troll. You first spoke of deception, and now you speak of trollism  Be tolerant, young man. When you grow up maybe you'll realize that, like changes brought about by biological evolution, science also changes. I suggest you cease thinking as if  science has fully developed and has found the final answers. If that were the case you'd be out of business. 

Dumb and Dumber wrote:

---

The only thing about your post that I'd change is the last sentence. I would have said "The religious groups behind this are being duped."

---

Excellent point. I shall amend my thinking accordingly.

I've always felt that it was pretty sad when somebody has to use science to justify their religion (or religion to justify their science).

Dumb and Dumber wrote:

---

I saw on a national newscast that professional baseball is using religion to draw fans to the games. A couple of spokespersons on the program all but admitted outright that their motive was not entirely religious.

---

Egad! Bad enough somebody uses science to justify religion. Now they're using religion to justify spectator sports!

Baseball has always sponsored "special nights" at their games. My guess is that the motive is often financial rather than a committment to the "cause" the event organizers profess to support.

Now they are using the court.

University of Calif. Sued Over Creationism

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050827/ap_on_re_us/creationism_lawsuit