Comments on: Cheri Yecke, Intelligent Design, and Scrubbing the Past

By: Don Thieme

Don Thieme — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:02:44 +0000

Apparently, Dr. Cheri was trying to get the Minnesota Academic Standards Committee to insert Santorum into this document on teaching science? Yeck!

By: Austringer

Austringer — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:20:29 +0000

Wow. That’s… interesting. I will certainly make it known if anything untoward happens, but so far ReputationDefenders has been unfailingly polite in their interactions. Besides, since I’m now in Michigan, someone looking to make good on a death threat could take a wrong turn and end up at Ted Nugent’s place.

By: triviality

triviality — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:46:36 +0000

Seems there’s a dark side to some of these reputation defending companies: http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6194158.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news

By: Austringer

Austringer — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:18:57 +0000

Thanks, Greg; those videos have the smoking gun. I’m making a new post for this.

By: Austringer

Austringer — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:19:45 +0000

Greg, I note in the comments that RBH says the Pioneer Press article makes the same claims as the Princeton Union-Eagle article. That would be stunning. However, looking at the link to the archived article, that this is what the Pioneer press had:

Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke will ask the committee to consider an amendment that Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., tried unsuccessfully to add to the federal No Child Left Behind law. It says that when controversial topics — such as biological evolution — come up in the classroom, the curriculum should help students understand other views as well.

One of the alternatives Santorum has written about is “intelligent design,” which says an organism’s complexity is evidence of an otherworldly designer. The amendment passed the Senate and was included in a conference committee’s report, but was struck from the final version of the law.

This is not the same thing as the Union-Eagle article said. The PUE article has Yecke herself saying that IDC is one of the things that local districts may teach; the PP article has Yecke backing the rejected Santorum language (bad enough in itself), but not herself specifying IDC as one of the permitted “alternate views”. It is this difference between “by her hand” and “on her watch” that I think has caused Yecke to act.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:38:56 +0000

More info for you from a reader on my site:

http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1024#comment-47876

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:03:04 +0000

The wikipedia is surprisingly up to date on this, by the way. Its like they’re watching us…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheri_Yecke

By: Inoculated Mind

Inoculated Mind — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:18:49 +0000

I support you, Wes. Let them prove that it is false before you take it down, and then if you can find proof positive that it is true, put it all over the place and fellow bloggers will help spread it around!

By: Austringer

Austringer — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:59:01 +0000

Links to other notice of this issue: Florida Citizens for Science The Gradebook Greg Laden Pharyngula Reality Based Community Red State Rabble Thread's from Henry's Web

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:21:43 +0000

I’ve put up two posts on this, the second of which includes the speech Yecke made at the time supplied to us by Judy Budreau, as well as a fuller representation of Kennedy’s statement referred to in that speech of Yecke’s

Keep up the good work!

http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1021