I almost needed Duct tape when I read this story.
LANCASTER, Pa. At least one Pennsylvania Democrat is having a hard time getting over President Bush's re-election.
A city councilman in Lancaster is demanding that photos of the president be removed from a stand in the town's farmers market. Councilman Nelson Polite says the city needs what he calls a "healing period" following the bitterly contested election.But David Stoltzfus is refusing to remove the photos from his bakery stand, and Polite has threatened to enact a city law against political material in public places.
The town's Republican mayor says the flap is bad for tourism in the Amish country town.
But the baker is enjoying the attention, saying even some Democrats want him to keep the photos in place
George Bush is the President of the United States. If you don't like it tough. He won election so this guy has every right to have a picture of the leader of OUR country.
Where is the ACLU trying to protect Mr. Stolzfus's rights?
Oh, that's right. They are trying to sue a school for trying to teach Creation in addition to Evolution and the Big Bang.
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- The state American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district to stop it from teaching an alternative theory of evolution that many say is just another form of creationism.
SURVEYShould students be required to learn a theory of creation by a divine being?
Yes
No
Results | Disclaimer
The lawsuit stems from the Dover Area School Board's decision to mandate the teacher of an alternative theory to evolution. The theory, called intelligent design, holds that the complexity of the universe suggests creation by a divine being rather than through evolution.The School Board voted 6-3 on Oct. 18 to include this curriculum in its biology class.
Six of the 11 school parents who are plaintiffs took part in a press conference Tuesday at the state Capitol. Angie Yingling is one of those parents. She said the School Board established the curriculum for religious reasons, not to improve science education.
"I believe it's wrong to introduce a non-scientific explanation of the origins of life into the science curriculum," Yingling said
Ok Ms. DinaLing, so the schools aren't supposed to teach a "non scientific" explanation. It's called a theory. It's probably correct, but who the hell knows. Also the new curriculum they are going to teach is also called a theory. Theory of creationism.
Schools are meant to foster thought by promoting several viewpoints, not just the one that doesn't anger people like Mrs Yingling.
When we start defining what is taught in schools based the the tyranny of the few we will have schools systems similar to the ones in Russia, Nazi Germany, and the Islamofascist world where only a "popular" viewpoint is taught.
Posted by psugrad98 at December 15, 2004 08:24 AMSorry, Tom. Creationism isn't a theory, it's religion. Well, it's a horrible distortion of religion being used for political ends.
There is no science in it whatsoever. It has no place in the science curriculum except as an example of wrong-headedness, alongside modern-day flat-earthers. Actually, it's worse than the flat-earthers, but I don't expect schools to deconstruct post-modernism, which is the only thing that can really stand beside creationism in the politically-motivated bullshit category.
If schools want to foster thought by promoting several viewpoints in the field of evolution, they could try teaching real stuff like Punctuated Equilibrium ("Punk-Eek") and Lamarck (who was wrong, but honest).
Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 15, 2004 02:06 PMAs for the town councilman, he needs to hear about freedom of expression and the shall make no law abridging detail.
I'm kind of with Pixy on the rest of it.
Finally, the redesign looks mighty sharp.
Posted by: RP at December 15, 2004 02:46 PMI have to disagree with my host. I think they should be able to teach both creationism and the big bang. Part of a full education is showing and exploring both sides of a story, including ones that may not be politically correct.
Posted by: Tom at December 15, 2004 03:01 PMIt's not a question of PC-ness, it's a question of not being a scientific theory.
Now, if a school wants to present "Intelligent Design", and explain why it's not a scientific theory - and my high school did exactly that with Creationism - then good for them. That's just what they should be doing. But that's not the case here: the teachers are required to present ID as an alternative theory, and it's not.
Like Chomsky's linguistics, it just plain isn't science, and any attempt to present it as such undermines science education in general. There are certain requirements for a scientific theory - explicative power, predictive power, testability, falsifiability - and ID fulfils none of those.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 15, 2004 03:25 PMNot that I have much time for the ACLU, mind you. Now, if they protested the teaching of Chomsky's linguistic nonsense as loudly as they do Creationism, it would be different. (Yeah, like that'll happen...)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 15, 2004 03:36 PMso now should we teach the bible, and all the "theories" about heaven and hell too? what about the Koran, or the theories that we evolved from space aliens?
Posted by: BushIsBinLaden'sBitch at December 15, 2004 09:27 PM
