Pinellas County School Board supports Intelligent Design

Published by Bobby Henderson December 19th, 2007 in Intelligent Design and General FSM news.

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

194 Responses to “Pinellas County School Board supports Intelligent Design”

1. 41 - December 20th, 2007 at - Starbuckaneer Says:
   
   

   Seriously, Pinellas County is about 10 minutes away from me… I actually used to work there. You’ve got to be fucking kidding…. Good news is… I don’t have to travel very far to distribute propaganda!

2. 42 - December 20th, 2007 at - Droidiphile Says:
   
   

   I don’t see my post, so I’ll post what I sent to this Board of Educators:

   “I am a Pastafarian who is greatly concerned for your support of Intelligent Design being brought into the science cirricula of Florida schools, without also including the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. FSMism is an alternate theory of Intelligent Design that has the backing of the scientific community, and is proven to be scientific by many graphable, provable data. I strongly urge you to review the open letter to the Kansas Board of Education, found here: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter. I’m sure you will agree with all us pastafarians that FSMism deserves equal time in the classroom when compared to Evolution and the Christian based Intelligent Design. I hope that our 10 million members will not have to have any bake-sales to fund legal action aginst PCSB for discriminating against our beliefs.

   Thank you very much. Andrew D Pohlman. ”

   I got the canned response saying my lette rwould be forwarded to the Superintendent and the Board. If I actually get real responses, I’ll post them.

3. 43 - December 20th, 2007 at - rmw Says:
   
   

   OMFSM! I know this isn’t just particular to Florida, but some of the school boards in the state are just taking this issue and running with it.
   .
   And Ms. Peggy O’Shea’s comment: “If it’s going to create this much controversy, how important is it?” just demonstrates a fundamental flaw in American society. It seems if there’s some sort of debate and intelligent engagement involved, then it’s bad and should just be shoved under the rug. I’m sending them my email I sent to Polk County. This is just ridiculous.

4. 44 - December 20th, 2007 at - CindyB Says:
   
   

   Where are these people getting their “science?” They seem ready to accept the DNA evidence that will help loved ones cure a disease or find their relatives, but not the evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution. Science is not just applicable where one wants it to be - and it constantly changes. Every time it does, it makes the Theory of Evolution more plausible. And, of course, if these people want I.D. taught, then they also need to teach the origins of man/woman/pirates as told in the Gospel of the FSM.

5. 45 - December 20th, 2007 at - Brother Boyardee Says:
   
   

   The quotes from the 4 School Board members who support teaching “Intelligent Design” as science kind of say it all. No satire required when reality is just that stupid…

   “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

   They’re as good as any satirical comment I can up with.

6. 46 - December 20th, 2007 at - Bob Says:
   
   

   Hello,

   I understand that a majority of your school board members support teaching Intelligent Design as part of a science curriculum.

   In science, there are specific criteria for what qualifies as a “theory”. It’s not just an idea, or something that explains the data. The word “theory” means something very different in science than on TV, where detectives stand around a crime scene talking about their theories of the crime.

   One of the criteria for a scientific theory is that it must be “falsifiable”. If you are not familiar with that idea, Wikipedia has a good explanation.

   Evolution is falsifiable. Intelligent Design is not. So it does not belong in a science class.

   That is not to say Intelligent Design is not what actually happened. Nobody can prove or disprove that, any more than they can prove or disprove the idea that the world was created 200 years ago, or even one second ago.

   It’s just to say that Intelligent Design does not meet the criteria of science. If it is to be taught in schools, it should be taught somewhere else, perhaps as part of a philosophy course.

   However, I can see where you might want to re-define science, throw out falsifiability as a criterion for scientific theories, and include things in the curriculum that have the support of powerful interest groups.

   If that’s what you want to do, I strongly suggest you consider the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s not falsifiable, but neither is Intelligent Design, and they explain the data equally well. You may consider its proponents nut-jobs, but we are nut-jobs to be reckoned with, since many of us work in the computer industry, science, and engineering, and have plenty of money to contribute to lobbying and legal funds to promote our views.

   Best regards,
   Bob

7. 47 - December 20th, 2007 at - Pontius Pirate Says:
   
   

   And so the emails begin. Do not let the equally valid theory of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism be ignored any longer!

8. 48 - December 20th, 2007 at - Yun Long Says:
   
   

   It’s always interesting to see which board members are the more rabid (and thus ironically more honest) and which try to cover their ideas with a veneer of diplomacy or hypocracy (e.e. teaching the controversy).

   RAmen

   (Gold, first time poster)

9. 49 - December 20th, 2007 at - Bascule Says:
   
   

   Oh, again? Well, well. These seem to be really very intelligent persons. I especially liked the argument of Ms. O’Shea. I think Physics create some controversies, too. Let’s do away with it. Or Mathematics, come to think of it…. well, why go to school in the first place?

   I always thought, it was a mistake leaving the trees….
   (OK, that’s Douglas Adams).

10. 50 - December 20th, 2007 at - Bob Says:
    
    

    I sent the following email to Board@pcsb.org, and cc’d the superintendent (super@pcsb.org):

    Hello,

    I understand that a majority of your school board members support teaching Intelligent Design as part of a science curriculum.

    In science, there are specific criteria for what qualifies as a “theory”. It’s not just an idea, or something that explains the data. The word “theory” means something very different in science than on TV, where detectives stand around a crime scene talking about their theories of the crime.

    One of the criteria for a scientific theory is that it must be “falsifiable”. If you are not familiar with that idea, Wikipedia has a good explanation.

    Evolution is falsifiable. Intelligent Design is not. So it does not belong in a science class.

    That is not to say Intelligent Design is not what actually happened. Nobody can prove or disprove that, any more than they can prove or disprove the idea that the world was created 200 years ago, or even one second ago.

    It’s just to say that Intelligent Design does not meet the criteria of science. If it is to be taught in schools, it should be taught somewhere else, perhaps as part of a philosophy course.

    However, I can see where you might want to re-define science, throw out falsifiability as a criterion for scientific theories, and include things in the curriculum that have the support of powerful interest groups.

    If that’s what you want to do, I strongly suggest you consider the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s not falsifiable, but neither is Intelligent Design, and they explain the data equally well. You may consider its proponents nut-jobs, but we are nut-jobs to be reckoned with, since many of us work in the computer industry, science, and engineering, and have plenty of money to contribute to lobbying and legal funds to promote our views.

    Best regards,
    Bob

11. 51 - December 20th, 2007 at - Red DutchPasta Wench Says:
    
    

    O FSM, why are these people even on a school-board? They clearly lack the understanding to decide on anything concerning education!

12. 52 - December 20th, 2007 at - storm petrel Says:
    
    

    “The entire theory of evolution is not scientific fact. Intelligent design balances it out.” — Nancy Bostock, Chairperson
    .
    ‘I don’t know yet’=/=’God did 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
    .
    Generally if something creates a lot of controversy, it’s because many people care about it. Usually when a great number of people care strongly about a subject, it’s because it is important.
    .
    “To teach one [evolution] as if nothing else existed, I think we’re doing our students a disservice.” — Carol Cook, Member
    .
    And ignoring the scientific method for a myth isn’t? What’s so wrong with a religion class? ID can be presented as fact there, not just a competing ‘theory’ although it can barely even be called a hypothesis. At least if it was called religion class, the children wouldn’t assume it had been well researched as they would in a science class.

13. 53 - December 20th, 2007 at - Robert Hood Says:
    
    

    Oh noes! They’re at it again!

14. 54 - December 20th, 2007 at - Theo Says:
    
    

    “To teach one [evolution] as if nothing else existed, I think we’re doing our students a disservice.” — Carol Cook, Member

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything. It’s not perfect, because he was drunk.
    All evidence for something else is put in place by him.

    RAmen

15. 55 - December 20th, 2007 at - Nugnir Says:
    
    

    I am so happy that I live in a country where the ID hoax is seen as just that.
    I am all for religious believes, but the moment the belief is used for promoting oneself, to gain anything worldly, it no longer has anything to do with religion, at least not Christianity.
    Religion and politics has nothing to do with science, in an ideal world, sadly both history and present events show that we don`t live in it yet.

16. 56 - December 20th, 2007 at - Reasonable Avatar Says:
    
    

    “If it’s going to create this much controversy, how important is it?”
    .
    Importance is a key part of what makes something controversial. Nothing trivial ever creates controversy. (If anyone disagrees, and thinks that irrelevant and inane topics are rife with controversy, try to foment a furor in the nearest large city to your town over which flavor of ice cream is the best. Then chart how much success you have.)
    .
    -Avatar of Reason

17. 57 - December 20th, 2007 at - Pluto Says:
    
    

    This is my effot
    .
    I was horrified to see that the myth of Intelligent Design is being promoted in schools.
    I’ll assume that those in support of it are part of the cowardly and undemocratic “wedge strategy” as there is no other explanation for insisting that a lie has any bearing in science!
    .
    Evolution is theory supported buy observable evidence. Creationism (which is all ID really is) has no scientific founding or supporting evidence. In fact the evidence refutes ID!
    .
    So I think those board members who are supporting ID should be ashamed of their selves! The use of such underhanded tactics to try to force religion into the science class is a despicable. Religion belongs in a church not in a school!
    .
    If you feel your religion is so threatened by science that you have to resort to unfounded lies and sudo-science then clearly your faith is some what lacking.
    .
    Stop trying to corrupt the minds of the young!
    .
    If you whish to teach these ideas then you will also have to teach all creation myths. Hindu, Mayan, Seek, Buddhist and especially FSM which actually has some science to back it up!
    There are many more, but to cover them all in full would require a year or so out of a child’s education in a state that is already failing behind in standards.

18. 58 - December 20th, 2007 at - Jennyanydots Says:
    
    

    Letter below just sent to them. I sent the brochure No. 2 as an attachment of anyoine wants to follow up with a different one.
    .
    To the members of the Pinellas County School Board,
    Although living in England your teaching decisions do not directly involve me, I have become aware that you are supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is no more science than any other creation theory, and in fact has less scientific evidence behind it than some theories. If Intelligent Design is to be taught as science, I would strongly recommend that you also teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes. I have attached a leaflet setting out the main tenets of Pastafarianism, and you can find out more at www.venganza.org, should you be so inclined. There is considerable scientific support for this theory.
    .
    There are a number of creation theories from different cultures around the world and, in order to give your students an detailed education in all of these, you would actually not have scope in the timetable to teach any other subject, such as mathematics or literature. I would suggest you select no more than half a dozen options to teach in addition to evolution, as your students would otherwise be somewhat overwhelmed. I would suggest you investigate teaching Christian Intelligent Design, as it will initially be the most familiar to any church-goers amongst the class. To balance this unscientific view, Pastafarianism is the most logical choice. Should your teachers be unfamiliar with the key principles you will be able to approach any Pastafarian for guidance in creating a teaching plan. As ancient Egyptian beliefs helped to define the Judeo-Christian tradition, I would suggest one of the Egyptian stories be taught as historic background. As I am sure you are aware, one of the earliest of these identifies the foundations of the Ennead in which Atum arose from the primordial waters (Neith), and masturbated to relieve his loneliness. His semen and breath became Tefnut (moisture) and Shu (dryness), respectively. From Shu and Tefnut, were born Geb (earth), and Nut (sky), who were born in a state of permanent copulation. Shu separated them, and their children were Ausare (Osiris; death), Set (desert), Aset (Isis; life), and Nebet Het (Nephthys; fertile land). I would advise balancing the old Egyptian theory with one of the tribal beliefs still adhered to. You could select any of these from around the world, but I particularly like that of the African Bushmen, as it forms a nice juxtaposition of 2 African theories. People and animals lived peacefully under the surface of the earth with the Great Master and Lord of All Life, Kaang, who made plans to bring them out onto the surface of the world. He created a tree on the surface and dug a hole down to the inner world, and then helped all of the people and animals to climb out and spread over the country. When night came, the people were afraid and lit a fire, the one thing they had been forbidden to do. This scared away the animals and they were never again able to communicate with them. In the interests of providing balanced views, I would recommend you also include one of the Asian cultures’ creation myth, for example Japanese. In that story, 2 gods created Japan together. They subsequently married and Izanami gave birth to three children, Amaterasu (the sun), Tsuki-yumi (the moon) and Sosano-wo. I would finally suggest that you teach at least one of the Native American traditions. I was able to find for you the Iroquois story of the pregnant Sky Woman being thrown down to earth by her husband and land forming on the back of a giant turtle, although I am not familiar enough with American prehistory to know if that is the most appropriate one for your students, geographically. You can read more on these and other stories at this website - http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths.html
    .
    You may argue that not all of these stories should be taught in science; however, if Intelligent Design meets the criteria to be considered science then so do all of these. It may be easier to work them into the curriculum under religion, with evolution as the only science subject. I note with great concern Ms O’Shea’s suggestion that neither be taught, as it cannot be both controversial and important. Intelligent Design is controversial precisely because it promotes ignorance of one of the most important foundations in the field of biology. Even if some children are taught at home or in church not to listen, you must teach it to all children in order that those who are not already completely closed off to the idea are able to understand those principles. There is no reason why they cannot decide for themselves that it is not the only answer, but without it forming a part of their education they will be severely compromised in any future educational or career choices. Without being aware of the mechanisms of evolution, you will produce a generation in your community which is incapable of understanding science, or of following a career path in medicine or many technological fields. By restricting them in this way, you will have to import doctors and nurses, while scientific R&D industries will be forced to locate elsewhere in order to find a skilled workforce. This is not only bad for the children whose futures you are responsible for, but also for your whole community.
    .
    I would ask you to please give this further consideration. Listen to scientists explain what science involves and make your decision based on their expert advice, before you create an entire generation of students who are unable to contribute to the future advancement of society. Thank you very much for your time in reading this.
    Regards,
    .
    [JennyAnyDots]
    An Archaeologist from England

19. 59 - December 20th, 2007 at - Bascule Says:
    
    

    Bravo JennyAnyDots!

20. 60 - December 20th, 2007 at - Jennyanydots Says:
    
    

    @ Bascule - well, it is my last day in work for a couple of weeks, and it seemed a fairly good use of my time!

Leave a Reply