These sort of school board members remind me of the title of a Dilbert book a couple of years ago.
"When did Ignorance Become and Opinion?"
So true, bernarda, so true...
Does she also refer to the OED editorial board as "a group of so-called grammarians"? Or the College of Cardinals as "a group of so-called theologians"?
For a die-hard creationist to accuse anybody of being "dogmatic" is just a little rich, doncha think? (Pot, meet kettle...)
No, no, no, every day is Opposite Day in Wingnutta-land. So when 'Dr.' Marketing Professor Owens Fink says scientists are 'dogmatic', what she's really saying is she's upset that they don't swallow her dogma wholesale.
"We represent the bulk of faculty in the science departments"
The "bulk of faculty"?
It's a good thing they're not in the English department.
But more power to 'em (no matter how much they weigh).
Next I'd like to see some university and industry scientists write a similar letter about people in Congress, the courts (but they have some precedent for having to think rationally now - thanks, Judge Jones), and the White House.
The letter said,
Current Board Member Deborah Owens Fink has referred to the National Academy of Science, the nation’s most prestigious scientific body, as “a group of so-called scientists”, and more generally to all scientists as a “dogmatic community”.
So she called them names -- so what? She has probably been called everything in the book.
During her tenure on the State School Board she has continued to sideline important issues associated with improving public education in her effort to debase and distort the teaching of science in high schools while attempting to cast controversy on biological evolution in favor of an ill-defined notion called Intelligent Design that courts have ruled is religion, not science.
Did she push ID, or just critical analysis of evolution theory? ID was not part of the Ohio evolution lesson plan. ID is specifically the idea that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved -- there was nothing about that in the lesson plan and in fact the lesson plan expressly denied that teaching ID was one of its purposes.
Also, I have seen no evidence that she "sidelined" other important issues or that she tried to "debase and distort" the teaching of science in general.
And ID was ruled to be religion by a single judge, not "courts."
our views thus reflect the views of the majority of the science community in Northeast Ohio
Case Western Reserve University has a minority of the scientists in Northeastern Ohio.
This letter is full of lies.
The large number of people who are skeptical of evolution theory are not likely to be influenced by this letter.
"The large number of people who are skeptical of evolution theory are not likely to be influenced by this letter."
No kidding. Their minds were made up long befofe they were able to make up their minds.
"The large number of people who are skeptical of evolution theory are not likely to be influenced by this letter."
Again, when did ignorance become an opinion?
Ah, Larry, from Planet Opposite.
It may surprise you to know that we can read, and comprehend; skills lacking on your planet. We'd be more than happy to sell you oxygen at market rates, of course. Please contact our business office.
go right on ahead with indoctrinating young kids with ideas that there is no god and that life has no meaning. while your at it lets not teach kids any morals either because that woudl require religion.
Me thinks that Debbie Owens-Fink, master marketeer, is about to discover that creation science/intelligent design is an unmarketable product.
No matter how slick the market gloss may be, the soap is not going to sell if it has a "liquid doodie" center. We can all agree on that I suspect. The part that gets me is how a supposedly intelligent lady with a Ph.D. and a nice teaching post at a major university has a complete inability to distinguish liquid doodie from soap. Can anyone here explain that to me?
Ah, merle, and who should we hold up as fine examples of moral perfection?
Tom De Lay. Hmmm, no.
Jim Bakker? Oh, in prison.
Rush Limbaugh? Adultry, pills, smoking.
Kent Hovind? Tax evasion.
Vickie Osteen? Homeland Security.
Shall we continue?
Merle, are you on a Troll-a-thon?
Merle: It is entirely possible to have morals without religion. The difference is that you have to think about your values (both for the context of how your behavior affects you as well as its impact on others), rather than just regurgitate what your parents/Church told you. To say that morals only stem from a belief in a supernatural power is not only willfully ignorant, but debases the innate human potential for empathy and responsibility. No one creed holds a monopoly on morals. Get over yourself.
Ole Merle has arrived here after soujourns at the Brayton and Rosenau blogs where his comments were equally wacky. I guess he's making the rounds in order to show off his incredible lack of knowledge on scientific subjects. Never have I heard anyone speak so knowledgeably from such a vast fund of ignorance.
"So she called them names -- so what? She has probably been called everything in the book."
Ah, so it wouldn't matter if someone robbed you, if they themselves had been robbed? In addition to your fallacy of irrelevance, you've got it quite wrong -- she didn't "call them names". When you figure out what she did do, why it matters, and why it's a good reason not to vote for her, perhaps there will be some reason for anyone to pay attention to you, Larry.
"while your at it lets not teach kids any morals either because that woudl require religion."
But Merle, all *your* religion requires of you is that you proclaim Jesus to be your personal savior; it doesn't matter what sort of scumball you are. Which might explain why you and so many of your co-religionists *are* scumballs.
"So she called them names -- so what? She has probably been called everything in the book."
If political discourse is reduced to the perennial playground ripostes of "Know you are, but what am I?", we're in *serious* trouble...
Commenting by HaloScan
