#20969: — 04/04  at  03:08 PM
While I don't read the papers every day, I haven't seen anything in either the Inquirer or Daily News here in Philadelphia about this, nor have I heard anything on radio or TV. Has any other Philadelphian out there contacted City Paper or Philadelphia Weekly yet? Appears that our Republican legislature looks to the national model and prepares to wrap themselves in gooberism, the last refuge of a moron.

#20972: — 04/04  at  03:23 PM

a board of school directors may include, as a portion of such instruction, the theory of intelligent design. Upon approval of the board of school directors, any teacher may use supporting evidence deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of intelligent design.

So does this mean that someone will actually have to sit down and write out what the "theory of intelligent design" actually is?

#20973: yami — 04/04  at  03:34 PM
Not only will they have to define intelligent design, they have to provide supporting evidence! Tee hee!

#20975: peterb — 04/04  at  03:41 PM
It's kind of a painful bill on a few levels. What I expect the public response of the legislators to be is that the bill doesn't mandate the teaching of ID, but just says that, y'know, Harrisburg is OK if school districts want to talk about it.

So they energize their base but then can claim innocence to those that care about education.

I think it's crucial that we let our legislators know (politely, if firmly) that we aren't fooled.

#20978: — 04/04  at  04:38 PM
It seems to me that this is perfect. ID is NOT a Scientific Theory - all we concerned folks have to do is keep attacking it on this line, and on the line that there is no scientific evidence for ID. The law isn't that bad when you look at it in those lights - it just calls for vigilant calling-on-it whenever a teacher starts to teach said "theory" and offer "evidence". Not to advocate the "teach the controversy" approach at all, but as the proposed law stands, ID won't be taught as it is:

a) not a scientific theory
b) not supported by scientific evidence

My 2 cents..

#20985: Linkmeister — 04/04  at  05:17 PM
The theory of ID has been written down for years, according to its proponents. It's called The Book of Genesis.

Sodden thought: If God did all that in a week 6,000 years ago, what's he been doing since?

#20987: Dan S. — 04/04  at  06:35 PM
""Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between." (Carville)

Or, as we say, Penntucky.

First Dover, now this. It's just embarassing

I intend to point out to my rep that Philly is always complaining about
a brain drain as bright young things flow out of the city, and that maybe
this isn't the best way to keep them . . .

Also that it's not science, etc. of course.

#20988: — 04/04  at  06:45 PM

Not only will they have to define intelligent design, they have to provide supporting evidence!

Well, Linkmeister beat me to it.

However, since the IDiots all swear ID has nothing to do with religion, the teachers won't be able to use the authoritative text. I'll bet a case of Yuengling Lager that if this comes to pass, any pro-ID teachers will bring in crap from the Internet (Answers in Genesis, ICR, C(RENEWAL OF)S&C, Jack Chick textbooks, &c.), mostly anti-evolution rather than "evidence" for ID.

The interesting question is whether any teachers will bring in material that is critical of ID. If anyone does, will parents come whining to the courts claiming their little sweetheart's religion is being mocked?

#20991: — 04/04  at  06:51 PM
Not Pennsylvania! They're the Keystone State. If they fall, the arc of democracy will crumble!

#20992: — 04/04  at  06:55 PM
I'm actually ok with this.
Of course they're going to have to teach
astrology as well now too. After all, it
does have a theory and lots of people
believe in it and it hasn't been
definitively disproven so it would be wrong
to exclude it now.

#20995: Ben — 04/04  at  07:38 PM
Not only will they have to define intelligent design, they have to provide supporting evidence!

Exactly. Sounds like a self-contradictory piece of legislation to me. "Now children, in accordance with Section 1516.2 of the State School Code, I now include a lesson on Intelligent Design involving all the evidence necessary for instruction.

...

Well, that was quick. Let's get back to some real science."

#20997: Ron Sullivan — 04/04  at  08:34 PM
<sigh>

What has fifty feet and five teeth?
The funnelcake line at the Perry County Fair.

And as far as I know, Harrisburg is the only town that Jack Kerouac ever actually cursed. (How's the river tonight?)

Scra'n foreplay?
Git 'n da truck, bitch!

I've got more; I'm an expat Coalcracker. Better tell yer butty Berube about this; he might have some fun with it. Damn but it's embarrassing though. I'd like to think it's a sort of Trojan Horse as people her have suggested, but I'm just not that optimistic any more.

I learned about evolution in school in PA though. In the Fifties. In Catholic school.

But you want to know what's depressing? Someone -- an adult, reasonably bright and educated (or so I'd thought, dealing with him for the past five years or more) asked me today, re: the dazzling butterfly migration we're enjoying her this week, "What do they eat? Are they carnivorous??"

#20999: — 04/04  at  09:08 PM
It seems to me that this is perfect. ID is NOT a Scientific Theory - all we concerned folks have to do is keep attacking it on this line, and on the line that there is no scientific evidence for ID. The law isn't that bad when you look at it in those lights - it just calls for vigilant calling-on-it whenever a teacher starts to teach said "theory" and offer "evidence".

Yes, until the DI moves on to Phase Two and asks the following questions:

"Who gets to decide what 'science' is? Why, philosophers have been debating the very issue for decades. Shouldn't the people get to decide what constitutes the so-termed 'scientific' method? Teach the controversy!"

And so on ad nauseum, until there is a religious aspect to everything under the sun.

#21009: Duane Smith — 04/04  at  10:10 PM
I think DCAl is correct in thinking in terms of branding ID with the tags:

a) not a scientific theory
b) not supported by scientific evidence

I would remove the word "scientific" from the second of them.

In addition, we need to repeat positive mottos. Something like

a) scientific theories explain the evidence
b) scientific theories lead to useful technologies (medicine for example)

I'd like to hear other examples. But as a concerned community we need to focus on just a few.

We also need to focus on the most understandable of the evidence and not be afraid of saying the same things over and over. Don't worry about being called shrill or panicky. Remember, ID is a marketing campaign. We need to be better marketers if we want to win in the end. There is more to all this than just a marketing exercise but that is a big part of it.

In the specific example of Pennsylvania the full range of ethical political tactics need to be employed. Remember, the other side is not very ethical. They have "higher" ambitions. Everyone in Pennsylvania should be told in print, on TV, on radio that any legislator that vote for this is on the side of ignorance.

By the way, G-Do, I think they are already are partially in this second phase. There is a fairly consistent effort to brand science as religion. Just as they try to brand ID as science.

So much from an old marketing guy.

#21016: — 04/05  at  12:14 AM
How about:

"A good grounding in biology--including evolutionary theory--produces the kind of scientists (ie, real ones, not IDiots) all those big biotech firms are looking for. If you want a big biotech firm to come to your backwater and spread all those investor bucks around the county, make sure your kids learn about evolutionary theory.

"Evolution. Do it for the children. And the money."

Gotta hit these mouthbreathers where they'll feel it...

#21029: — 04/05  at  05:08 AM
Ron - you wasted a chance to mess with her mind. You should have emphasised the swarming behaviour of butterflies causing them to mass around prey like piranhas. Granted, they normally just strip down small prey, but they can do some pretty serious damage to a human - doubly so since their bite is anaesthetic, and you don't even know they're *there*..

After all, if we can't have a little fun at the naive, well..

#21041: Ron Sullivan — 04/05  at  09:01 AM
Dang,Finback, you're right; what a missed opportunity. His mind, actually, and it's not who Chris Clarke probably thinks it is. (Doubly depressing, as it means there's more than one of them.)

And I could've mentioned how the deadliest venomous butterflied home in on human sweat and will actually land on your head if you're bald, and suck your brains right out. Well, the questioner isn't bald, but I have a great photo of a bald friend of mine with a butterfly sitting on his head. I suppose I could cap it with, "And this man is now a faded husk in a nursing home; I can show you a CAT scan..." Oh, oh, I know -- the bite turns you into a godless evolutionist!

If I weren't afraid people would start swatting the critters wholesale, I could cause havoc in northern California. I am, in a sense, the media.

#21042: — 04/05  at  09:11 AM
I am SO very grateful that my parents decided to stay in LA after Dad de-mobbed at the end of WWII. They could have gone back to Scranton where 95% of my relatives still live (and, acc'd to my genealogical research, have ALWAYS lived since getting off the boat.)

#21047: PZ Myers — 04/05  at  09:43 AM
WWII must have done something interesting to US demographics. My grandparents ended up in Seattle after he was demobilized at the end of the war, and my wife's parents did the same, ending up in California. I owe my existence to the War in the Pacific, I think.

#21074: — 04/05  at  11:45 AM
Finback / Ron Sullivan - even an idiot knows that the real reason butterflies are so dangerous is because they drink your sweat. That's scientifically proved. Even a single butterfly doing this could contribute to heatstroke and salt deficiency. Fact. Goodness knows what a mass attack could do. Think of all these creepy insects draining the fluid out of your body. Nothing left but a dry husk. Not a nice thought is it?

So, have you been feeling quite well lately? Have you had any feelings of fatigue or lethargy? Had any headaches lately? Muscle cramps? You might have salt deficiency. Think about those butterflies again. Why take a chance with your health? Write to your representative now and demand action!

#21078: — 04/05  at  12:07 PM
Finback / Ron Sullivan - even an idiot knows that the real reason butterflies are so dangerous is because they drink your sweat. That's scientifically proved. Even a single butterfly doing this could contribute to heatstroke and salt deficiency. Fact. Goodness knows what a mass attack could do. Think of all these creepy insects draining the fluid out of your body. Nothing left but a dry husk. Not a nice thought is it?

Oh my god, I never thought I'd get to use this:

We must defend our precious bodily fluids!

Kay, I've had my fun.

#21086: — 04/05  at  12:57 PM
I said fluid not fluids . Get a grip.

#21088: — 04/05  at  01:15 PM
The Dover School Board is sponsoring a seminar 23 April (http://www.yorkdispatch.com). The free seminar will concentrate on the "science of intelligent design theory" and will feature an apparition, er, appearance, by Michael Behe. Board member Alan Bonsell claims the seminar "should 'put to rest' any questions people have about whether intelligent design 'really is science.'"

It would really be swell if a bunch of people who know the difference between science and goddiditism could attend and insist on answers for those frequently dodged questions. I'd also like to see someone ask the Board if they intend to present both sides of the controversy, and invite one of Behe's many critics for a second seminar.

#21224: — 04/07  at  08:13 AM
My sister sent me information about this bill and about the comments on this blog and asked that I mention a few things about the legislative process, so here I am.

I used to work in the PA legislature on the House Democratic Education Committee so I'd like to share a few insights into the process and some of the people behind this bill.

The first thing to know is that many of the sponsors of this legislation are on the extreme in the PA House of Reps. That probably doesn't come as much of a surprise, but their positions make them, in many ways, outcasts within the House. Legislation they sponsor rarely gets a hearing in the Education Committee let alone a vote in that Committee.

I think it's a very good idea to write letters to members of the House Education Committee (copy your own House member on this letter) so they are aware that there is opposition out there.

That being said, there are over 3,000 bills that get introduced in the PA House and Senate each year and the vast majority of them sit without any action taken on them at all.

House Bill 1007 was referred to the House Education Committee when it was introduced, but that's a step that happens with every bill introduced (no matter how loony it might be). Each bill is referred to the committee that deals with the issues in the bill. But just because a bill is referred to a committee doesn't mean anything will happen to it in that committee. In other words, referral to the Education Committee is a formality, not an indication that any action will happen with this bill.

The Chairman of the House Education Committee is Rep. Jess Stairs (R) and he controls what bills the Committee will consider (vote on) and what they won't ever touch. Rep. James Roebuck (D) is the Democratic Chair and while he doesn't have the power that Rep. Stairs has because he's in the minority party, he still has some influence over what the Committee will work on.

So in addition to letters to all of the Education Committee members, I would encourage you all to make phone calls to Rep. Stairs' office in Harrisburg to ask about House Bill 1007 and whether Rep. Stairs intends for the Committee to take any action on this bill. Rep. Stairs' Harrisburg office phone number is (717) 783-9311.

I would encourage anyone who is going to call Representative Stairs' office to be straightforward and polite about the reasons for calling and to just ask whether or not the Committee is planning on taking any action on House Bill 1007.

When you call, ask for the staff person on the Education Committee who deals with Basic Education issues and tell them the bill number that you have questions about. If that staffer isn't available, leave your name and number so they can get back to you. Or just call back again. Legislators and their staff do take notice when they start receiving a lot of phone calls on a particular bill or issue.

Being polite may seem like a no-brainer, but I've been on the receiving end of well-meaning, but very impolite (and sometimes very belligerent) phone calls from people who want information about a particular bill and it's counterproductive to go off on the person answering your questions. Committee staff have no control over the legislation that is introduced, but members of the public routinely blast staff over the phone for some of the idiotic legislation that members introduce. In short, be civil.

I'll check back in here again so if there are any questions about any of what I wrote I'll try to answer them.

Also, feel free to report what I wrote on other blogs that may be commenting on this proposed legislation.

Trackback: A Marketing Plan for Biology: Part 1 Tracked on: Abnormal Interests (64.81.36.251) at 2005 04 25 16:05:13
For sometime, I've been thinking about what I would do if I awoke one morning to find out I was the Vice President of Marketing for biology. This is more of a nightmare than a sweet dream. Not only is...