“Intelligent design is not scientific, it’s not supported, it shouldn’t be taught, it should not be there. Period,” Okazaki said. “There’s no scientific reason to put it there, there’s no legal reason to put it there.”
Ya-know, I get the impression that she doesn’t think ID is good for science classes. I agree.
The article also mentions that she concedes it “could fit in a philosophy or literature or religion course” (literature course – what?). My recommendation is to have ID taught in a political science course – you could use it as a case study on how to manipulate public opinion. (See the article “Academic Cross-Dressing: How Intelligent Design gets its arguments from the left” in Harper’s Magazine, December 2005, it’s available in newsstands now, but not online.)
Also, this past weekend here, I went to a couple of events put on by SLC’s local Calvary Chapel and creationist jugernaught, the Institute for Creation Research. Tatoos, bald-headed tough guy bikers, part of Bikers for Christ (same organization as my first commenter on the following post) were there in force. It was interesting. I felt like Custer at the Little Bighorn. So I didn’t mention to anyone that I was an evolutionist while I was there; I don’t mind talking about things in person or online, but I am not interested in martyrdom :^)
Finally, I would like to give a big beehive out to The Daily Herald for awarding to Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, a Buffalo Chip for being sneaky about his creationism bill. We can only hope he steps in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment