Pinellas County School Board supports Intelligent Design

Published December 19th, 2007 by Bobby Henderson


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: [email protected]

Individual E-mail addresses:
Nancy Bostock: [email protected]
Peggy O’Shea: [email protected]
Jane Gallucci: [email protected]
Carol Cook: [email protected]

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

1 19 20 21 22 23 25
  1. Brittni_Lover_of_RAmen says:

    You know what, am i supporting the right god? Im not sure. Because it is still going against my beliefs, that evolution is the only theory. ANd yes, FSM does make fun of the god factor, but still…. I need some reassurance

  2. embarassed says:

    If I may, Intelligent design stresses no god; it just states a theory that something(s) may have created. That includes the FSM. That being the case, I don’t understand the anger.

  3. James says:

    Hello embarrassed,
    You should be embarrassed, “intelligent designer” is the same thing as “creator.” In the book of Pandas and people intelligent design was pasted inside of creationism, in an edition of the book just after it was made illegal to teach creationism in schools, as science. Intelligent Design is not Science, there is no fact to support it, irreducible complexity has been proven wrong. I will gladly e-mail you with scientific information from [email protected]. The problem is that ID is religion, it stresses an intelligent designer who created all living things, yes all. It is unconstitutional for them to teach creationism… I mean ID as science, it has no scientific foundation, and therefore it is a violation of the establishment clause in the constitution, which separates church from state. Look up the wedge document, which shows one of the main organizations behind ID’s agenda. Evolution has countless fossils, DNA evidence etc. You cannot say because there is a gap in Darwin’s theory (of which I have seen no evidence) we are right. ID has to come up with conclusive evidence to be considered a scientific theory. So until you have peer reviewed evidence, which can be observed and tested, and there are 100’s of pieces of evidence, you will graduate from religion to science and therefore be legal to be taught in schools. But since ID is creationism, it is a breach of my rights as a student and the rights of every American to teach that garbage outside of a theology class. FUCK YOU.

  4. craig says:

    My response to this situation was thus.

    I, a believer in the tenants of Pastafarianism as well as Deism, feel that, in spite of my Christian ties, intelligent design should not be taught in school, based on a few basic and unavoidable flaws in its practice. The first being that following the law there is to be a separation of church and state. Where can I find information on how you justify the creationistic teachings as not breaking this key law. The next point is that the word science has a definition. This is, as stated by dictionary.com;
    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

    4. systematized knowledge in general.

    5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

    6. a particular branch of knowledge.

    7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

    All of these definitions have one similarity and that is that they point to a study of factual, earthbound laws, not beliefs. Darwinism follows this and is science theory. A theory is not a fact and as such is not saying that ID is not right but instead that evolution is a possibility currently supported by the scientific community. I use this argument to say that ID should not be taught in a science class that or any class that it would, by being in it, be a contradiction to the very class.
    Lastly my Pastafarian beliefs hold me to point out that ID could be done by many forces other then God. There are other divine forces in belief on the earth. God, Ala, Buddha, the Hindu gods, as well as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as well as many more. My focus, however, will be on the latter. He has just as much grounds as all other ID beliefs and, to my knowledge, more scientific backing. Do we really have enough time in the school year to teach all of the possible religious creation possibilities that spring up. Do we base it on the number of followers of a given religion to give its support validity? I would assume that the only fair way to teach it is to teach all beliefs and in that it would cut down on all the other more scientific teachings in the already cramped curriculum. Is that fair to the future generations or society as a whole, I think not.
    I would like to thank you all for your time. I hope my view may enlighten you to a new side of the issue. I do not expect to change your view on your religion or life in general, but I do hope you will see the other side for the sake of science and the constitution.

    Craig Schambers

  5. Lu says:

    They’re teaching intelligent design? That’s is great!!! So are they going to teach how our lord and savior, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, intelligently designed mankind with his noodly appendages in 6 days, 7000 years ago? Everyone knows Jesus was the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster…so spread the truthful gospels of the FSM!

    Ramen be upon you

  6. Vermicelli says:

    I’m curious, is there an Intelligent Design II class that explains how the creator was created?

  7. Greg says:

    PS, here is the letter I sent:

    It is unfortunate that you are supporting the religion of Intelligent Deisgn. Such a thing is a violation of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., the Lemon Test, and other federal lawsuits (available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test#Lemon_test ). Intelligent design is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to push the majority religion (in this case Christianity) onto the entire populace. Such a thing only goes against the Lemon Test.

    In addition, the adoption of Intelligent Design is inherently flawed. In doing so, you are removing all other forms of religious creation stories, including the idea that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Under the Lemon test, you (as a government lawmaking entity) must do the following:

    1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;

    2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

    3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

    In adopting Intelligent Design, you are no longer having a secular purpose, as you are adopting a religious belief in the school setting. You are advancing a religion in this case, as Intelligent Design is primarily a Christian invention. In wanting to adopt Intelligent Design, you are possibly engaging in “excessive entanglement with religion” by taking a Christian Creationism stance.

    It only takes one of those points to fail the Lemon Test, yet by adopting Intelligent Design you are clearly violating two points of the Lemon Test and possibly violating the third one. I urge you not to commit an unconstitutional and unscientific mistake.



  8. Pete says:

    I think it’s extremely neglectful that the schools aren’t also teaching our children how to predict the future by reading the entrails of slaughtered animals, or observing the flight of birds. That would really balance things out nicely.

1 19 20 21 22 23 25

Leave a Reply