A majority of the Pinellas County, Florida, School Board supports the inclusion of Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, reports the St. Petersburg Times.
Four members of the school board, including the chairperson and vice-chairperson, have made statements in support of Intelligent Design.
“The entire theory of evolution is not scientific fact. Intelligent design balances it out.” — Nancy Bostock, Chairperson
“I’d probably ideally like to keep it all [evolution and Intelligent Design] out of the classroom. If it’s going to create this much controversy, how important is it?” — Peggy O’Shea, Vice Chairperson
“I think that students should be given the opportunity to view all theories on how man evolved and let their science background and their religious background take over as to which one they believe in.” — Jane Gallucci, Member
“To teach one [evolution] as if nothing else existed, I think we’re doing our students a disservice.” — Carol Cook, Member
You can read the news article here.
The PCSB website states: “The public is encouraged to contact the School Board members on any issue.”
I suggest we contact the school board and let them know there are more than two theories of our origins. Pastafarianism is built on similar tenets as Intelligent Design, and has much greater support from the academic community. If you decide to write, please be respectful.
Contact Info:
Office: (727) 588-6300
E-mail: Board@pcsb.org
Individual E-mail addresses:
Nancy Bostock: bostockn@pcsb.org
Peggy O’Shea: osheap@pcsb.org
Jane Gallucci: galluccij@pcsb.org
Carol Cook: cookc@pcsb.org
Dear Board members,
I am delighted to notice that you plan to introduce Intelligent Design in science classes. As an European citizen, I would favor the following creation myth to be taught alongside Darwinian evolution:
“According to Norse lore, before there was Earth (Midgard), there was Muspell, a fiery land guarded by the fire sword-wielding Surt; Ginnungagap, a great void, and Niflheim, a frozen ice-covered land. When the cold of Niflheim touched the fires of Muspell, the giant Ymir and a behemothic cow, Audhumla, emerged from the thaw. Then, the cow licked the god Bor and his wife into being. The couple gave birth to Buri, who fathered three sons, Odin, Vili, and Ve. The sons rose up and killed Ymir and from his corpse created from his flesh, the Earth; the mountains from his bones, trees with his hair and rivers, and the seas and lakes with his blood. Within Ymires hollowed-out skull, the gods created the starry heavens.”
You surely will notice that, similar to the biblical genesis, in this story trees were created before there was light (”starry heavens”).
The Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth, of course, would be a tasty alternative to this!
Here my little contribution. I decided to try the patriotic argument, perhaps it will help:
Honourable Pinella County School board members,
I am writing to you from France, as even there I heard of your plan to teach ID alongside evolution in science classes.
Considering myself as a friend of your great country and supposing you consider yourself as patriots, I wanted to warn you of the harm you are risking to do to the United States.
First, because you seriously damage the image of America. It is precisely this sort of things that make Europeans in general and Frenchmen in particular think Americans are completely retarded (please excuse the rudeness of the expression).
Because wanting to teach as if they had the same value a theory that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community (actually, the question is not if it occurred, but how exactly it did), by a huge and every day growing amount of evidence and has not only withstood testing for 150 years, but has reinforced itself all that time long, and another that hasn’t any convincing evidence at all, that isn’t even a theory by scientific standards, that hasn’t been peer-reviewed, that is incapable of withstanding any serious testing and that has been shown to be pseudo-science and just wrong (I am of course thinking of the Dover trial) simply appears to be the summit of stupidity, making every reasonable person of my continent laugh about the USA.
Perhaps you should know that in Europe, every scientist supports evolution, though many of them are Christians, and that if you really want to teach religious theories in science classes, there are many others which should be taught, too (at least for the constitution’s sake), for example the theory of “Unintelligent design”, stating a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world.
The whole civilized world laughing about you isn’t only a pity, it disqualifies America as a leader.
And this not only politically and morally, but potentially, at least in a few years, economically. Because the leadership of the United States is based on the economy and the military. And both are so strong because your country is so good in scientific research. By doing what you do, you destroy American science.
And by destroying American science, you will destroy America.
Do you really want that?
Robert Surcouf
I suppose it won’t work, these people showing once again faith is the reason of the stupid
yay Jenny
Just as a quick update - their poor overloaded admin person has just sent a standard response notifying me that the letter is forwarded to board members, the superintendant and his staff. She was probably expecting a nice quiet couple of days before the break, only to be deluged with stuff from us. I’ll post any reply I might receive in a couple of weeks. I just hope the admin assistant has a good sense of humour!
I sent this today. I release any rights to it - you may change it, take parts of it for your own, or utilize it in its entirety if you so wish.
To whom it may concern,
.
I have been apprised to the fact that four members of the Pinellas County School Board support the inclusion of Intelligent Design to the science curriculum.
.
In life, we are in the habit of deferring to experts. You likely do not understand the science behind medical procedures that have prolonged the lives of people close to you, but you do not have to understand them – all that matters is that somebody, an expert, does understand them. Even scientists use equations in their work for which they could not educe any deep understanding – they have deferred to the experts, in this case, the mathematicians.
.
Having read the quotes of the board members, they are abdicating themselves from the scientific authorities for a collection reasons that are deeply inadequate. These reasons boil down to the idea that we have an obligation to teach our children the religious community’s alternative to science as though a failure to do so would mean we were embracing obscurantism. This sentiment was echoed by Carol Cook, Jane Gallucci, and Chairperson Nancy Bostock.
.
This idea is patently absurd. Science is not a democracy. Science is a brutal field where concepts are tested, scrutinized, and rejected if they are found to be without evidential merit. This is the scientific process, and it exists as a check against bad science. If a hypothesis is subjected to the process of peer-review and subsequently rejected, the normal response is to incorporate the accompanying criticism, rework the hypothesis, and resubmit. This cycle of double-checks and self-correction is what separates science from other fields as the preeminent sphere of knowing. This is why science has given us quite literally everything that is reasonable to believe about how reality functions.
.
It is to this requisite system of correction that Intelligent Design has been particularly aversive. They have submitted their hypothesis and had it summarily rejected for a litany of reasons. However, the supporters of Intelligent Design have been reticent to incorporate any standards or consider any of the critiques which would allow it to ascend to the domain of science. Instead, they are attempting to circumvent the scientific process by proliferating their ideas to a public that is religiously eager to embrace the idea. It is from this villainous tactic that we receive the notion that science, or any other evidence-based discipline, is a democracy or is subject to how many people it offends. No matter how put off I may be by the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, in science the evidence trumps my feelings. The truth has never made any guarantees that it will conform to our intrinsic sense of wishful thinking in the way that religion has, which is precisely why the dispassionate adherence to the evidence on display in the field of science is so crucial.
.
This thinly veiled creationist trick of insinuating that science has anything to do with who it offends has taken root in a four-member concentration of the Pinellas County School Board, and the concern I feel over this fact should be amplified one hundred fold for anybody living in that area – especially for somebody who has a portion of the responsibility for ensuring the quality of the education the local children receive.
.
In Dover, it cost their district over two million dollars to lose and look like buffoons. If you are determined to follow the lemmings on the Board of Education towards whichever cliff they are marching, then it will also cost you over two million dollars to lose and look like buffoons. Do not do this. Our future resides in the hands of our children and we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the miasma of willful ignorance.
.
Defer to the experts on what is science.
.
JT Eberhard
President, Missouri State University Chapter of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
“It has come to my attention that you have made the decision to include Intelligent Design in the standard science curriculum in Pinellas County . I agree that all available theories should be taught, and the children should use their own judgment to decide upon which theory is correct.
.
However, you make a dire mistake in excluding the theory with academic support second only to evolution: Unintelligent Design. You see, look at all of creation we notice things such as war, disease, violence, crime, etc. These are all signs of a very flawed, and unintelligent, creation process. Of course, the creator himself must have been omniscient and quite intelligent in order to create the beautiful things in life (such as sunsets, rainbows, humans, Rice Krispies, etc.), which shows that such a being must have been heavily inebriated at the time.
.
This theory is known as Unintelligent Design, FSMism, or the Theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is called such because we have evidence that the creator manifests itself as a being composed of many tentacle-like appendages resembling noodles.
.
You can find the aforementioned academic endorsements here”
.
Short but sweet, and got a message saying it’s being forwarded.
“I’d probably ideally like to keep it all [evolution and Intelligent Design] out of the classroom. If it’s going to create this much controversy, how important is it?” — Peggy O’Shea, Vice Chairperson
Yes, controversy in the class room is an altogether bad idea. We should probably stop teaching our students anything and instead have them watch a multi-colored flashing orb all day while sitting in a well padded room. This method works very well in preventing teen pregnancy and teen drug and alcohol abuse. We know that if our students don’t know about it they won’t do it.
Interesting correlation between big hair, pastel colors, neck scarves, and general ignorance.
Let them teach ID. Its fine with me.
.
I picture it happening this way:
There are two main beliefs as to how everything came to be.
1) A God or Gods snapped his/her/their fingers, did a dance or something and everything came into being.
.
2) Things change slowly over time…now lets examine the evidence of this…etc…
.
.
Seriously? I would love to see the content, the scope and sequence, the curriculum of ID. How much can be in there?
.
If any out there can find, or does have an ID curriulum for a public school, let me know.
Madame Chairman and Members of the Board:
.
Where the premise of education is to teach *how* to think, rather than *what* to think, it is appropriate to present competing ideas with comparable credentials. Unfortunately, not every competing idea is equally valid; peer review helps weed out those which are not viable — or not relevant to a given discipline — from those which are relevant and lead to a better-informed population.
.
However, neither public nor private schools are designed to allow students to “make up their own minds” about everything, nor to protect them from exposure to broader knowledge. If that were the case, there would be no need for schools in the first place. For those whose religious beliefs require that students be presented with options to choose whether to learn science in their science classes, please consider this reasoning as applied to other courses:
.
1. Language Arts
All classroom instruction will be bi-lingual. Students will spend equal time learning both English and Spanish as there is debate regarding which is the oldest language. Students will make up their own minds as to which they believe is most correct for completing their assignments (and appropriate within their neighborhoods), without coercion of majority rule, or penalty due to instructor prejudice.
.
2. Other Science Units
Science teachers will ‘teach the controversy’ between Alchemy and Chemistry, giving equal time to both. Chemistry is the modern, secular offshoot of Alchemy, which enjoyed a long and respected tenure in Western history. Many notable, devout men (and women) believed in Alchemy, without diminishing their faith or their other academic achievements. In order to Leave No Florida Child Behind, warning stickers will be affixed to handouts of the Periodic Table of Elements stating that, as its data is subject to change, it is of dubious value. Students will be required to transmute base metals into gold for the final exam, and provided with authorized 17th century English translations of Bronze Age texts as reference materials.
.
3. Music
Band and Chorus students will no longer be constrained to so-called ‘music theory’. Since Western classical music is difficult or offensive for some listeners, each student will follow an independent study which best conforms to his or her existing experience and taste. Familiar composers such as Toby Keith and Trick Daddy will be given equal consideration with French elitists such as Claude Debussy or Joseph-Maurice Ravel. Of course, as the arts can be ‘controversial’, perhaps the safest course is to eliminate them from your curriculum entirely.
.
4. Mathematics
Math students will no longer be limited to ‘theories’ they may find offensive, such as ‘Algebra’ (invented by Pagans and Muslims), ‘Game Theory’ (school is not for playing games) ‘Homology Theory’ (this sounds suspicious), or ‘Proof Theory’ (can they prove it or is it just a theory?). Besides, who cares what ‘x’ stands for? They’re never going to need that. Also, the Bible states that Pi = 3.
.
5. Human Development
A) “The entire theory of Abstinence is not scientific fact. Education on fertility and contraception balances it out.”
B) “I think that students should be given the opportunity to view all theories on how pregnancy may be avoided and let their science background and their religious background take over as to which one they believe in.”
C) “To teach one [abstinence] as if nothing else existed, I think we’re doing our students a disservice.”
.
6. Civics
Finally, as freedom of religion *is* protected in the United States, all students may cite the scriptures and traditions of their personal belief systems in any and all classes where the curriculum is in discrepancy or causes personal anxiety, without challenge and without grade penalty for not embracing the teacher’s theories.
.
- - - - - - - - - -
.
Members of the Board, I refer you to an article in the December 5, 2007 edition of the Washington Post: “The average science score of U.S. 15-year-olds lagged that of students in 16 of 30 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based group that represents the world’s richest countries. U.S. students were further behind in math, trailing counterparts in 23 countries.”
.
I understand that your constituency is dominated by different Christian sects, none of which is in complete agreement within its own members — let alone within the larger body — regarding any question. Please honor both your God and your country by allowing parents to take responsibility for their children’s religious education within their respective homes and churches. You, as stewards of the *public* school system, are accountable for providing the serious education they will need to compete in a world dependent on technologies requiring the ability to reason. You are not authorized to choose their religious beliefs and enforce your own.
.
Sincerely,
[pieces o’nine]
I was so excited — I got a response back!!!… but it was just to say my email would be forwarded to the board members and the superintendant. Darnit.
I too got the response saying my email was forwarded to the board and superintendent. I’ll be very surprised if I get a response out of them, but I do appreciate the response (canned though it may be) from this innocent bystander. Like others, if I do get anything in response, I’ll let you know.
Hey Mods:
.
I posted those email addresses yesterday, but it seems you’ve moderated them out. Don’t you want them?
.
St John the Blasphemist
Saint of Fruits of Labour
I just sent them the following e-mail.
———-
I demand that all forms of ID (and/or UD, see below for a bit more on this) be included, along with
rational conjecture based on billions and billions of hours of observation and thought followed by
billions and billions of hours of critical study of the first billions and billions of hours in order to
come to reasonable conclusions that seem to agree with the world we see around us, in any school
cirriculum so that our young may have a fully grounded grasp on things.
It is my belief, shared by many others, that the Earth was created 5,001 years ago by the, “Flying
Spaghetti Monster.” At this point the difference between traditional ID’s position and our Church’s
may not be clear and you may wonder how the Pastafarian’s (thus we call ourselves) position differs.
The difference is in this, we Pastafarians have no quibble with science. Science is not wrong in their
findings, as far as can be shown or proven. It is a victim of the world as it actually is. The “Lord of
Lasagne” sees a scientest (or anyone else) making a measurement, and with his great “Noodly
Appendege” alters the measurement to make it seem that the observer’s data agrees with a Universe
that is 14 billionish years old. Why he does this we aren’t sure. And as the “Price of Pasta” doesn’t
generally converse with us (Evidently we just aren’t all that interesting to the “Maker of Manicotti”)
it may never be entirely clear.
Also, our Church has graphs!!!!!! Evolutionists and other scientists are all the time dragging in
graphs and stuff to support scientific views, well move over Newton, we gottem too. Not knowing
how to stick the graph in here you’ll have to take my word for it (unless you visit our site) that it
shows an almost perfect inverse relationship between the decrease in Pirates and the rise in global
tempature.
For whatever reason the “Giver of Gnocchi” is uncommonly fond of Pirates and is angry
over their decrease.
In addition to graphs the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti contains a number of mathmatical proofs
that are made up of hard to understand symbols used in a manner not commonly seen in regular
cyphering. It doesn’t stop there either. We got proofs using all kinds of scientifical looking stuff. No
matter what your views may be, we think you will agree that this is something that is sorely missed
in the older religions.
A few words on, UD or, “Unintelligent Design.” There is in the “Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster,” (available at Amazon.com should you be interested) on page 30-31 a brief passage that
lays the groundwork for the concept of, “Unintelligent Design.” I feel that the title of this line of
thought says enough that a full explanation is not necessary at this point.
I will, however, add an emperical observation that may help. Early last month I was called to the VA
and was subjected to all the usual indignaties that a man of 60 must endure. During this pleasant
interlude I was informed that I was now the proud possesor of hemorrhoids. And just to top it off,
next Monday, I have to go in and have a camera poked up my pooper.
You know. . . you’re the master of everything, you got all the power there is, you got your blank
canvas to work with, it looks to me like some thought and planning would have gone a long ways
toward toward not having these little problems. I’m sure you can come up a few examples where
some basic groundwork before actually starting creation would have been real handy.
For those of you that are ignorant, as was until recently, of the “King of Calamaretti” you might
want to stop by his site at http://www.venganza.org/ and check it all out.
There are several good reasons to join (if you will allow me to evangelize for just a moment):
1. Flimsy moral standards.
2. Every Friday is a religious holiday.
3. Our Heaven is way better. We got a beer volcano and a stripper factory.
4. Even our Hell isn’t all that bad. The beer volcano dispenses only stale, and probably warm (the
scriptures aren’t clear on this point) beer and the strippers are older and like those in Las Vegas tend
to have various veneral diseases.
5. We don’t have 10 commandments but rather 8 “I Really Wish You Wouldn’ts.” We’re pretty short
on dogma too.
6. Try our 30 day guarantee. After 30 days you don’t like us, your old God will probably take you
back.
So, it is the desire of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that our, equally valid, revealed
theory of how we came to be on the earth should be included in any debate over whether or not there
will be changes to any public school’s science curriculum.
If, and when, this should come to a debate rest assured that we will be right there with you fighting shoulder to shoulder to have all equally valid theories presented to the students of this country.
To the esteemed members of the Pinellas County School Board:
Ah, what a breath of fresh air you bring to the curricular debate. I must wholeheartedly congratulate you on your courageous decision to throw caution to the wind. For as you know, American jurisprudence is based upon the theory of stare decisis et non quieta movere, whereupon your decision to allow other theories to be taught alongside evolution sets the precedent, opening wide the floodgates of the mind–ushering in an era when all theorists and theologians alike may sue for inclusion in your schools’ teachings. While more timid school boards would shy away from the budgetary burden of legal hearings and lawsuits, you are boldly saying, “I will not be cowed by my fiduciary responsibility to my constituents!” If critical programs must be eliminated merely to afford the expenses associated with this unpopular choice, if our children must pay this price so that future generations will be blessed with the freedom of deciding that truth is whatever we think it should be, then so be it.
I, for one, thank you for lifting the bonds of conformity, and know that He looks favorably upon your actions to let His word reach the minds and hearts of our children. By administratively removing the burdens of proof normally afforded the determination of valid scientific theory, we are no longer shackled by the rigors of empirical thought, which–let’s be honest–are really tough.
For years I have been rebuffed for my theories that conventional history, too, is nothing more than a hyperspectral multidimensional projection onto the collective consciousness of humanity starting at the beginning, with creation, and continuing until October 24, 1979. (Not coincidentally, this is the date of first use of the trademark for Prego® brand pasta sauce.) Such a mental manifestation, of course, serves as the ultimate test of faith, being an artifice of His omnipotence. It is also serves as a clever means to distract His followers from the questionable reasons for our creation, namely the drinking.
So by your actions, you will finally give voice to my desire to have this serious alternative theory taught alongside so called “accepted” history, and reveal the Truth of His Noodly meddlings in not just natural history (a.k.a. science), but history itself.
Lest I misrepresent my views as those of a single united voice, it must be stated that followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have interpreted their perceptions in myriad ways, and in acknowledgment of the fairness doctrine, their diverse views, as well as those of Zoroastrians, Yam Worshipers, Buddhists, Shinto, and even practitioners of non-conventional religions, be afforded equal time in explaining science, history, mathematics, and the vocational arts, insofar as their faith speaks to the basis of these fields of study.
A rousing huzzah to this brave, new, discordant academe that, by your convictions, shall be foist upon our credulous youth. I look forward to your consistent, unwavering support as we embark upon the lengthy and arduous task of rewriting the entirety of Pinellas County’s syllabus.
Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Has anyone noticed they have retro hair cuts? It’s like looking back in time to the early 80’s
Wait…let me get this straight-if it causes controversy, it isn’t important. So that means the Iraq war, the debate over religion, and pretty much all politics isn’t importnat? Great to have those things off my chest…
“I think that students should be given the opportunity to view all theories on how man evolved and let their science background and their religious background take over as to which one they believe in.” — Jane Gallucci, Member
Okay then, teach the science version in the science class and the religious version in religion class. Of course, as we all know, his Noodly Appendage will touch all and prevail. Which sounds a bit disturbing for a classroom, admittedly. Golly gosh! It’s so complex.
RAmen
I got the same canned response as everyone else. But it’s better than nothing, right?
Since everyone else is posting emails here is the one I sent. Feel free to use any piece of it or the whole thing in its entirety.
Dear Pinellas County School Board,
I recently read a report in the St. Petersburg Times which suggested that the majority of you held the same point of view regarding the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution and natural selection, and inclusion of the religious idea of Intelligent Design (ID).
I, first and foremost, would like to start by reminding you of the (fairly) recent decision in the Kitsmiller vs Dover suit in Pennsylvania. As I am sure you are aware, the court found that the concept of ID failed all three criteria of the lemon test for violation of the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights, and as such is not permitted to be taught (at least in the context of a science class). If you are unaware of the particulars of the case, or even if you are, may I suggest a number of videos regarding the trial and the scientific validity of ID, including the recently aired NOVA program (available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html) and a number of presentations including those by Kenneth Miller (Brown University), and Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education) both of which are available on www.youtube.com and google videos. Even though the case only holds precedent in that particular federal district I hope you see that when challenged in a court, even in a religious district, with a Bush appointed federal judge, this concept of ID is exposed as having no scientific validity.
I would also like to point out that, based upon the quotes each of you (ID supporters) have given to the St. Petersburg Times, you don’t seem to quite grasp the, possibly subtle, difference between the popular usage of the word theory and the scientific use of the word. The popular usage of the word usually points to any unsubstantiated idea that one comes up with, however, in the scientific community an hypothesis only gets the label of theory after rigorous testing and, usually, refinement.
I would now like to point out to each of you, the holes in logic/reason/judgment you have displayed in your statements to the St. Petersburg Times.
“The entire theory of evolution is not scientific fact. Intelligent design balances it out.” — Nancy Bostock, Chairperson
Ms. Bostock, based upon this logic, gravity is not scientific fact and must be balanced out by the idea that god is pushing everything down toward the earth, actively holding all of the planets so they don’t’ float away, moving all of the stars around in the galaxy, pushing galaxies together to merge…wow god sure has a lot of hands doesn’t he? Also based upon this logic chemistry is not scientific fact and therefore must be balanced out with the fundamentals of alchemy…I’m really looking forward to turning some lead into gold. Furthermore, astronomy must be balanced out by astrology…It’s not my fault; the stars made me do it.
“I’d probably ideally like to keep it all [evolution and Intelligent Design] out of the classroom. If it’s going to create this much controversy, how important is it?” — Peggy O’Shea, Vice Chairperson
Ms. O’Shea, the concept of Evolution and Natural Selection has been called the single most unifying principle of biology. Everything we know about biology only makes sense in light of evolution. Clearly it can’t be that important. Trying to keep evolution out of the classroom only hurts the students by making them ignorant. Clearly you don’t want your students to be competitive in the work place.
“I think that students should be given the opportunity to view all theories on how man evolved and let their science background and their religious background take over as to which one they believe in.” — Jane Gallucci, Member
Ms. Gallucci, while at first glance what you suggest here sounds reasonable; there are a few problems with it. The first problem is, as stated above, only one of the ideas you want to put forward to your students is a theoryin the scientific form of the word, and therefore only the scientific theory belongs in a science classroom. The second problem here is that you yourself in this quote identify ID as a religious idea; this highlights your motivation for teaching ID as religious in nature and thus violates the test applied by the courts to determine whether an act violates the Establishment Clause (you should take note of this because right here you just lost the court case that will follow if you choose to adopt an ID teaching policy). The next problem here is that you are forcing a false dichotomy. In case you don’t understand what I mean or where I’m coming from I’ll expand on this point. I assume from your statement that you feel that acceptance of evolution and being a religious person are not compatible, and thus accepting evolution means you deny god. This is the way it seems you want to present it to your students, “Either you believe science or you believe in GOD.” This dichotomy does not exist. There are many, many people who do not see evolution and religion as incompatible, including the aforementioned Dr. Miller, and the previous Popes: Pius XII (who held in his encyclical Humani Generis that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation), and John Paul II who said the following in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences [Oct 22, 1996] :
“Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of “evolutionism” a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l’encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l’évolution plus qu’une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory…With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans.”
Furthermore, if you’re willing to bring religion into the science class then why are you only contrasting Evolution with ID? There are a plethora of other creation stories that hold just as much weight as ID does. If, as you claim, your students “should be given the opportunity to view all theories” then you must have no problem with them being told about: Izanagi and Izanami cast a jewel crested spear into the ocean from on top of Ama-no-ukihashi to create the land (Shinto), Brahma created the Earth from the lotus flower and then formed the plants and animals (one of several Hindu stories), or even how 400 years ago the Flying Spaghetti Monster created mankind by mistake while in a drunken stupor and then created a slew of evidence to make us think that evolution was true, just to test our faith (don’t forget to include the part about how the decline in the number of pirates is why global warming happens, no really they have a scientific graph and everything). Wow there are so many different stories that you will need to include in order for the students to hear “all theories” that you’re going to need a separate science class called “the origin of life”, so that the teachers in the other classes actually have some time to teach the rest of Biology.
“To teach one [evolution] as if nothing else existed, I think we’re doing our students a disservice.” — Carol Cook, Member
Ms. Cook, since every counterpoint I would make to this statement has already been included in this letter I’ll refrain from restating them.
In the end I’m not trying to convince you that evolution is right and ID is wrong because I feel that this would be tantamount to me bashing my head against wall. What I am trying to convince you of is that only one theory regarding the origins of life belongs in the science classroom, the one that is based upon science. Religious views regarding the origin of mankind belong in church. If you attempt to make policy that ID is to be taught alongside evolution, the results will be you losing in court and wasting a load of the school district’s money defending a policy that you should know ahead of time will not hold. Likely another thing will also happen, as we saw in Dover, all of you voting for imposing religious views on science students will be ousted from your positions in the next election and replaced by people who are either more reasonable or better educated, or both. Of course these predictions stem merely from my own personal hypotheses and are, thus, in need of testing, I would love for you to help me make them scientific theory.
Thank you for taking the time to read this (and I hope you did read it in its entirety),
Drew Walton
Sent my support to the school board:
Dear Pinellas County School Board members
.
I would like to offer to you my support for your stand in favour of intelligent design. It is wonderful that some people still have such admirable conviction that they stand behind their beliefs when faced with 200 years of scientific findings.
.
I would like to offer one more to the list of possible theories on the birth of the earth and development of life. You have surely received great support from pastafarians advertising the Flying Spaghetti Monster version of this issue and I also hear that someone brought forth the Norse version. The following is the old Finnish version of things from The Kalevala: The daughter of the Ether lifted her knee from the water when she saw the pochard bird (a bird that resembles a duck) looking for a place to build her nest. The bird built her nest on the knee and lay 7 eggs, 6 golden and 1 iron, and began to hatch the eggs. This heated up the knee of the hapless water-mother (aka. the daughter of the Ether) so that she thought her knee was burning. She moved and all the eggs fell into the water shattering in pieces. The pieces then formed the earth, heaven, stars, moonbeabs, sunshine and clouds. Then the water-mother, who was pregnant, gave birth to the first man Wainamoinen.
.
You can find the full story in the beautifully written epic Kalevala. An English translation is available at http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/kveng/kvrune01.htm
.
This story also corrects some of the gender bias that is present in many other version of this issue, since the dauther of the Ether known as Ilmatar is clearly a woman.
.
I wish you all a wonderful celebration of the birth (or rebirth) of the sun or sun god - aka. Christmas. I am confident that people so learned in and pro ancient beliefs are informed that the upcoming festival is one of the oldest festivities of humankind and has been celebrated for many millenia around the time of the winter solstice, and only converted into the current birth-of-christ festival around 300 AD.
.
Yours truly