On and On We Go...

On of the striking things about the recent ruling in the Dover intelligent Design case was the blunt way the court addressed the IDer's blatant dishonesty in making their case (p137) :

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

Now I never thought that the IDer's would give up just because a federal judge handed them their asses on a platter, but I did expect they would take some time to learn from their mistakes.

According to this article in the NYTs, I got it half right.

A group of parents are suing their small California school district to force it to cancel a four-week high school elective on intelligent design, creationism and evolution that it is offering as a philosophy course.

The course at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, which serves a rural area north of Los Angeles, was proposed by a special education teacher last month and approved by the board of trustees in an emergency meeting on New Year's Day. The 11 parents are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the course, which is being held during the session that ends on Feb. 3.

Now it's true that the Dover decision only forbid teaching ID in public school science classes (quoting from the rulings conclusion) :

As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

So the philosophy course angle shows that IDers have some ability to learn.

But two things jumped out at me when I read articles second paragraph:

1. The class was proposed by a special ed. Teacher.
2. The class was approved in an emergency meeting on January 1

Now let me be perfectly clear here. I have nothing against special ed. Teachers. I rode the short bus to school for most of my primary school education due to a difficult to diagnose learning disability that made it very easy for most of my teachers to mistake me for an idiot. The butchering of the English language that you regularly wade through when reading this blog is not something that I have to work at. I'm not sitting at the computer just hoping that I'll dream up an innovative new was infect coma splices and dangling participles on the blogosphear. I don't actually try to give the nice blogger spell checker fits. My brain just happens to be all fucked up when it comes to spelling and grammar. It's a condition I would have been completely un aware of were I not diagnosed by my special ed teacher while the rest of my primary school teachers were busy making me my fellow "short bus" riders fight against one another in a pit behind the cafeteria.

So long story short, I got nothing against special ed teachers. Special ed. Teachers is good people. Hell a special ed teacher saved my life (I would have never survived another round against Mongo the Destroyer).

All that being said, I never got the impression that any of my special ed. Teachers were particularly interested in philosophy. They tended to have their hands full trying to teach a room full of kids who were all some combination of learning disabled, abused, emotionally troubled, and/or developmentally delayed how to fucking read.

So anyway, "special ed. Teachers" and "new philosophy class" : two things that don't quite go together in my mind. Just say'n.

On to point two: The class got approved by the school's board of trustees on January 1st during an emergency meeting. I'd like to know if this emergency meeting was held during church services or if it just took place inside the church once service was over. I'm only asking because I've got a calendar right in front of me and January 1st, 2006 was on a freakin' Sunday.

Maybe I'm daft, but "big holiday Sunday with many football games" and "School Board of Trustees meeting" are two more things that just don't quite fit together in my mind. Just say'n.

According to the article :

The special education teacher , who is married to the pastor of the local Assemblies of God church amended her syllabus and the course title, from Philosophy of Intelligent Design to Philosophy of Design after parents complained.

OK, I'm just gonna go ahead and assume the "meeting" took place during church.

What's next? An obviously biased course syllabus? Come on. That would be too easy:

In their suit, the parents said the syllabus originally listed 24 videos to be shown to students, with 23 "produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance." They said the syllabus listed two evolution experts who would speak to the class. One was a local parent and scientist who said he had already refused the speaking invitation and was now suing the district; the other was Francis H. C. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who died in 2004.

So the evolution side of the evolution vrs. Creationism debate was going to be handled by:

1. A guy who wasn't going to show up.
2. A dead guy.

Honestly, who would possibly have a problem with an arrangement like that?

All clowning aside: this is another blatantly dishonest attempt to force creationism into public school classrooms by a group of people who are convinced that they know god's will. They are willing to wage this battle at the expense of faith, dignity, and the public good for no reason save an irrational certainty that they are richeous actors of their creators will and can do no wrong.

Once more from the Dover decision :

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.