<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Yecke and I Go A Round</title>
	<atom:link href="http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2005/10/12/yecke-and-i-go-a-round/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2005/10/12/yecke-and-i-go-a-round/</link>
	<description>Wesley R. Elsberry's personal weblog, talking about falconry, science, antievolution, computation, and the broken body he lives in.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:12:30 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: S. Daniel Morgan</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2005/10/12/yecke-and-i-go-a-round/comment-page-1/#comment-12167</link>
		<dc:creator>S. Daniel Morgan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:34:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=160#comment-12167</guid>
		<description>I think it would be quite interesting to investigate the political shuffles that resulted in Yecke not only *avoiding* being let go from professional education consultation (particularly in science), but in her being placed in an even more influential position in a different state would be worthwhile.

Is this yet another example of cronyism?  Did Jeb know someone who knew someone in Minnesota?

I am not for exclusionary policies *per se*, insofar as rejecting anyone with creationism as an education supervisor (esp with respect to science), but I certainly am for using a person&#039;s record to judge their ability to do the job they are hired for.  You can be an open creationist and a fine &quot;Chancellor of Education&quot;, I&#039;m sure.  But when your personal beliefs got mixed into your work before, no matter what that work is and who you are, your next employer has a responsibility to consider other candidates who are able to separate their opinions from their duties.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it would be quite interesting to investigate the political shuffles that resulted in Yecke not only *avoiding* being let go from professional education consultation (particularly in science), but in her being placed in an even more influential position in a different state would be worthwhile.</p>
<p>Is this yet another example of cronyism?  Did Jeb know someone who knew someone in Minnesota?</p>
<p>I am not for exclusionary policies *per se*, insofar as rejecting anyone with creationism as an education supervisor (esp with respect to science), but I certainly am for using a person&#8217;s record to judge their ability to do the job they are hired for.  You can be an open creationist and a fine &#8220;Chancellor of Education&#8221;, I&#8217;m sure.  But when your personal beliefs got mixed into your work before, no matter what that work is and who you are, your next employer has a responsibility to consider other candidates who are able to separate their opinions from their duties.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ed hessler</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2005/10/12/yecke-and-i-go-a-round/comment-page-1/#comment-12063</link>
		<dc:creator>ed hessler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=160#comment-12063</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think the edited (the committee had been told they would be edited for &quot;clarity,&quot; and English) standards had been posted for more than an hour on the department&#039;s web site before the egregious faults were detected.  There was the usual evasion when the draft as written by the committee was reposted, namely, a lower level but unnamed person was blamed for posting the wrong set.

I found it interesting that while the Profile of Learning standards for science were made available to the committee, I don&#039;t recall that the high mark given by the Fordham Foundation was ever mentioned to the writers (a smaller subgroup of the Profile of Learning science writing committee had more-or-less on its own rewritten these to shorten them and try to get at what less is truly more.  These were never made available and perhaps shouldn&#039;t have been.)

The Santorum amendment got plenty of ink, including a clarification later on in the process from the chair and minority chair of the committee, an attempt at adding some force to it.  Of course, the review by NCSE of the Santorum amendment which include a legal analysis and also a rebuttal by Senator Kennedy of a misquote by Santorum was never mentioned. Verboten!

Ms. Yecke&#039;s first radio interview made it quite clear where she stood when she said that school districts should be given a choice in this matter of ID creationism and evolution, never mentioning or considering that the courts had ruled on this but apparently she viewed this as legislating from the bench.

What I noticed as time went on is that the so-called IDers began to deny any ID affiliation, indeed even design preferring to duck under the umbrella of &quot;teach the controversy.&quot;  One of the things that I came to appreciate in the creationist who testified was his honesty: he wouldn&#039;t hide behind anything except scripture.  You knew exactly where he stood and why SAT scores were on the decline, sexual diseases among young people on the increase, drinking up, family values were down, etc. Now, I wish I had the charts.

Thanks, Dr. Elsberry for keeping the heat on and keeping your eyes open. And please share Patricia Shipman&#039;s essay in the recent The American Scientist on ID, especially with colleagues from other countries, on why this is important. The US is not Europe and the comparisons are not helpful. That shop-worn Rather word comes to mind: Vigilance! I appreciate your vigilance as always.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think the edited (the committee had been told they would be edited for &#8220;clarity,&#8221; and English) standards had been posted for more than an hour on the department&#8217;s web site before the egregious faults were detected.  There was the usual evasion when the draft as written by the committee was reposted, namely, a lower level but unnamed person was blamed for posting the wrong set.</p>
<p>I found it interesting that while the Profile of Learning standards for science were made available to the committee, I don&#8217;t recall that the high mark given by the Fordham Foundation was ever mentioned to the writers (a smaller subgroup of the Profile of Learning science writing committee had more-or-less on its own rewritten these to shorten them and try to get at what less is truly more.  These were never made available and perhaps shouldn&#8217;t have been.)</p>
<p>The Santorum amendment got plenty of ink, including a clarification later on in the process from the chair and minority chair of the committee, an attempt at adding some force to it.  Of course, the review by NCSE of the Santorum amendment which include a legal analysis and also a rebuttal by Senator Kennedy of a misquote by Santorum was never mentioned. Verboten!</p>
<p>Ms. Yecke&#8217;s first radio interview made it quite clear where she stood when she said that school districts should be given a choice in this matter of ID creationism and evolution, never mentioning or considering that the courts had ruled on this but apparently she viewed this as legislating from the bench.</p>
<p>What I noticed as time went on is that the so-called IDers began to deny any ID affiliation, indeed even design preferring to duck under the umbrella of &#8220;teach the controversy.&#8221;  One of the things that I came to appreciate in the creationist who testified was his honesty: he wouldn&#8217;t hide behind anything except scripture.  You knew exactly where he stood and why SAT scores were on the decline, sexual diseases among young people on the increase, drinking up, family values were down, etc. Now, I wish I had the charts.</p>
<p>Thanks, Dr. Elsberry for keeping the heat on and keeping your eyes open. And please share Patricia Shipman&#8217;s essay in the recent The American Scientist on ID, especially with colleagues from other countries, on why this is important. The US is not Europe and the comparisons are not helpful. That shop-worn Rather word comes to mind: Vigilance! I appreciate your vigilance as always.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pharyngula</title>
		<link>http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2005/10/12/yecke-and-i-go-a-round/comment-page-1/#comment-12040</link>
		<dc:creator>Pharyngula</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:20:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://austringer.net/wp/?p=160#comment-12040</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Cheri, Cheri, Cheri&#8230;&lt;/strong&gt;

Yecke caught squinking again. We&apos;re so sorry, Florida.

We&apos;re probably going to be sorry again in a few years when the Powerline boys retire and move to Orlando.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Cheri, Cheri, Cheri&hellip;</strong></p>
<p>Yecke caught squinking again. We&apos;re so sorry, Florida.</p>
<p>We&apos;re probably going to be sorry again in a few years when the Powerline boys retire and move to Orlando.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
