[Correction: the panel in question is a science curriculum review panel.]
Six people were appointed. An earlier post took up the two obvious ringers affiliated with the Discovery Institute, Stephen Meyer and Ralph Seelke. I emailed Kate Alexander, who wrote the American-Statesman post on that topic, and asked for the other names, which she provided.
David Hillis, U. Texas at Austin — clued-in scientist who has been an outspoken opponent of IDC in the past.
Gerald Skoog, Texas Tech — professor in education, and past president of the National Science Teachers Assocation, who has criticized antievolution in the past.
Ronald K. Wetherington, Southern Methodist University — professor of anthropology, one of the people who told the Discovery Institute to get lost last year when they were looking for some free exposure at SMU. The DI didn’t like his response, noting that Wetherington talked about a debate done in 1992 at SMU, and waxed satirical over that. However, IDC was debated at SMU far more recently than Wetherington had noted, and way too recently for the satirical invective from the DI to have any traction.
Charles Garner, Baylor University — professor of chemistry, signer of the DI’s “Dissent from Darwin” statement.
So, one-half of the
textbook science curriculum review panel has been ceded to a batch of religious antievolution advocates, whose entire contribution to the process is expected to be terminal nit-picking over any effective presentation of the accountable scientific position, evolutionary science.
The fact that half the panel is not part of a radical fringe pseudoscience faction has already been commented upon as showing “balance” by, you guessed it, a radical fringe pseudoscience cheerleader.<= get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>> = get_option(\'vc_text_before\') ?> 4944 = get_option(\'vc_human_count_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_preposition\') ?> 1789 = get_option(\'vc_human_viewers_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>>