Comments on: Texas: Don McLeroy and the Sadly Neglected Ninth Commandment http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/12/22/texas-don-mcleroy-and-the-sadly-neglected-ninth-commandment/ Wesley R. Elsberry's personal weblog, talking about falconry, science, antievolution, computation, and the broken body he lives in. Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:09:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Jeremy Mohn http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/12/22/texas-don-mcleroy-and-the-sadly-neglected-ninth-commandment/comment-page-1/#comment-312084 Jeremy Mohn Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:33:33 +0000 http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/12/22/texas-don-mcleroy-and-the-sadly-neglected-ninth-commandment/#comment-312084 I just had to add a link to this post. It seems so fitting: http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/ I just had to add a link to this post. It seems so fitting:

http://www.anevolvingcreation.net/collapse/

]]> By: Austringer http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/12/22/texas-don-mcleroy-and-the-sadly-neglected-ninth-commandment/comment-page-1/#comment-155858 Austringer Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:03:28 +0000 http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/12/22/texas-don-mcleroy-and-the-sadly-neglected-ninth-commandment/#comment-155858 The unfortunate fact is that about 30% of science teachers in the public schools would be happy to take any opportunity at all to teach "intelligent design" or other forms of creationism in a <i>credulous</i> rather than <i>critical</i> fashion. I don't know how many percent would overstep in the other direction, injecting pronouncements on religion being bad, but I'm sure that's non-zero, too. I think that civics courses are an appropriate place to bring up populist movements like "intelligent design" creationism, and how that seeks to privilege particular sectarian views that have failed to demonstrate accountability in the field of interest, as IDC has consistently failed to produce anything of scientific worth. The unfortunate fact is that about 30% of science teachers in the public schools would be happy to take any opportunity at all to teach “intelligent design” or other forms of creationism in a credulous rather than critical fashion. I don’t know how many percent would overstep in the other direction, injecting pronouncements on religion being bad, but I’m sure that’s non-zero, too.

I think that civics courses are an appropriate place to bring up populist movements like “intelligent design” creationism, and how that seeks to privilege particular sectarian views that have failed to demonstrate accountability in the field of interest, as IDC has consistently failed to produce anything of scientific worth.

]]> By: Frank J http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/12/22/texas-don-mcleroy-and-the-sadly-neglected-ninth-commandment/comment-page-1/#comment-155845 Frank J Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14:38:21 +0000 http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/12/22/texas-don-mcleroy-and-the-sadly-neglected-ninth-commandment/#comment-155845 McLeroy says: "...no subject should be “untouchable” as to its scientific merits or shortcomings." I'm sure we all agree to that. And indeed, in chemistry class we explored the obsolete models of the atom, and how they were replaced by better ones. Since the testable (& mutually contradictory) claims of classic creationism can easily be phrased in "secular" (designer-free) terms, then McLeroy should be amenable to a neat dismantling of them. And to a neat dismantling of the sought and/or fabricated "weaknesses" of evolution that ID ripped off from classic creationism. Especially since all of that can be accomplished <i>without</i> the cherry picking, baiting-and-switching of definitions and concepts, and quote-mining that is required to "critically analyze" evolution. Yet, strangely, I have never heard an anti-evolution activist demand that. McLeroy says:

“…no subject should be “untouchable” as to its scientific merits or shortcomings.”

I’m sure we all agree to that. And indeed, in chemistry class we explored the obsolete models of the atom, and how they were replaced by better ones. Since the testable (& mutually contradictory) claims of classic creationism can easily be phrased in “secular” (designer-free) terms, then McLeroy should be amenable to a neat dismantling of them. And to a neat dismantling of the sought and/or fabricated “weaknesses” of evolution that ID ripped off from classic creationism. Especially since all of that can be accomplished without the cherry picking, baiting-and-switching of definitions and concepts, and quote-mining that is required to “critically analyze” evolution.

Yet, strangely, I have never heard an anti-evolution activist demand that.

]]>