Well, to Rachel Gillespie: Thank you Rachel for seeing something in what I thot was a fairly comprehensive review of our recent cenvention, and not just my thots on comments one of the school board candidates made on Intelligent Design. And please forgive me for not remembering your last name since you were indeed one of the bright spots of the day. A recent DFL mayor (well not so recent at that) was sitting near me during your speech and leaned over to say, "Isn't it great to hear a young kid speaking like that?" It was, and thank you for trying the system, and do come again.
As to your answer on ID, I have to wonder at your age how you learned enough about ID, let alone about science in general, to come up with your answer. I am afraid I didn't hear all of it and probably should not have put it in either my 'duck', or short 'no' category, and I do think, as Bob suggests, it was probably the best (or actually to me, second best) answer. Now if you learned these things in school or by readings encouraged by something you did learn in school, what makes you think that other young people wouldn't come up with a similar view about ID not being a science? Nevertheless, many people are putting it forward as science regardless of what you think they should never do. The point I am trying to make is that ID and creationism won't fare well in a free educational forum. This won't be another Scopes trial. It is my belief that the creationism people are having some very heavy doubts that are threatening their whole belief system and are bringing up all the old chessnuts about the creation under the relatively new title of ID. Moreover, in what appears to me to be a desperation move, they are now willing, nay, begging to go up against Darwin and his even more learned followers and are entering a contrary theory as their champion, and right on to the field of science. Where better?
On this Prof. Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown university has said that the "biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but for the most basic of reasons, because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence."
I like that argument as a perfect place for us liberals, it gives us a home court advantage, as I said, a chance to try a compromise without taking risk. My beliefs are not threatened by the new hypothesis. I do understand, however, avoiding, even trying to avoid, the agrument. But this argument is both real and very current and not just in St. Paul. I offer this link from Google to an article about the issue in the Kansas City (sorry Tim) paper on the same day as our St. Paul convention. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/11533770.htm
Either Mike or Bob took me to task for not repeating the question correctly. I misheard 'curriculum' when what was said was 'science curriculum'. I have answered them privately off this forum because of a lack of knowledge about how the forum works. In that answer I ducked a bit from teaching about ID in a science class, but on reflection I think that is the place for it, actually exactly the place. I agree with Mike that we should not teach religious beliefs in public schools, but the ID idea is not being presented as a religious belief but as a scientific challenge. If fact one of the leading IDers holds two PhDs in true sciences, not technologies. He did all this scientific work just to disprove Darwin, or so he says. Maybe he squeezed a couple econ and J-school courses in there too, and is just making collections from believers. Bob, also, is right in saying ID is not an alternative science, it is a contrary theory which is something science welcomes, or should.
I also want to repeat that I did not hear completely Ms. Swanson's (whispered) reply, but from her manner, I was 'pretty sure' she is not a creationist. Bob, I think, wondered how I knew that. Again, I was not sure about it. But her answer was the single one which suggested the issue had a place in education in the ?-12 years. It does. Hey, I learned about phrenology in a high school science, but I suspect they've dropped that by now. Old hat, so to speak.
On Ms. Swanson (I.m also sorry about her first name slipping by me), I think she meant well. I can't explain the whisper or why she held the mike so far away. Unfortunately she was not in the right hall to be heard out. She probably realized that.
On John Brodrick, whom I regard as a friend, and ID, I think he may have meant to say 'I don't know MUCH about it." That's not a totally dissembling answer since there is really not much to know. But I'm sure he can speak for himself.
Again, it was a great convention, all eight hours of it, not just the few minutes we're discussing, Al Uhl, downtown
-------------------------------------------------
JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY:
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/
-------------------------------------------------
POST MESSAGES HERE: [email protected]To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
