According to the recent Associated Press story on South Carolina’s new critical analysis of evolution standard, the South Carolina Department of Education does not think critical analysis means teaching alternative theories, like intelligent design (ID): “Education Department spokesman Jim Foster says scientific inquiry is taught at every grade level and in every subject. Foster says the wording does not require students to study alternatives to evolution that are out of the mainstream.” (Education panel approves wording on biology standards) We’ve been agreeing all along that critical analysis of evolution policies do not require teaching about alternative theories like ID! This just shows that the Darwinist claim that critical analysis = ID is just another tired conspiracy theory. So is the Read More ›
[Editor’s Note: The three individual installments of this series can be seen here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. The final complete article, New England Journal of Medicine Traipses Into the Kitzmiller Decision, can be found here.] Previously in parts one and two of this critique, I discussed how George Annas’s New England Journal of Medicine review of the Kitzmiller decision only told one part of the story. The prior sections discussed problems with the Kitzmiller ruling’s finding that ID is not science. This final section will discuss problems with the claims that ID is creationism, and also the false history of ID promulgated in the ruling, and subsequently into “Intelligent Judging — Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom,” Read More ›
Note: It appears that the lead referenced in the original post below has indeed been corrected. And rightly so. Yet another AP lead to the news story about South Carolina’s adoption of science standards calling for critical analysis of evolution. This one is sure to please everyone. (Columbia-AP) June 13, 2006 – The Education Oversight Committee Monday approved high school biology standards that require students to learn. Now who can argue with that!
The Associated Press has corrected the lead paragraph of its story on biology standards adopted yesterday in South Carolina. As Casey Luskin reported last night, the AP’s original story erroneously stated that the new South Carolina standards do not require the critical analysis of evolution. But as of early this morning, the new AP story clearly states that the South Carolina standards do require critical analysis of evolution: COLUMBIA, S.C. – The state Education Oversight Committee approved high school biology standards Monday that require students to “critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” (emphasis added) Kudos to the AP for correcting its earlier inaccurate report.
The Associated Press has an article essentially stating that South Carolina both did and did not approve standards requiring critical analysis of evolution. The article states: “The state Education Oversight Committee approved high school biology standards Monday that do not require students to learn to critically analyze the theory of evolution.” (Education panel approves wording on biology standards) but then goes on to state: “Under the wording approved Monday, students would have to understand how scientists use data to critically analyze the theory.” (Education panel approves wording on biology standards) So which is it? This appears to be contradictory reporting, or slicing the baloney so fine so as to make meaningless statements. What actually happened is that South Carolina ratified Read More ›