Secular folks should worry.

[honorentheos]

It wasn't a six hour debate over whether or not Noah's ark should be taught. But it was a working days worth of anti-science attempts to politicize the Utah school curriculum. I'd invite anyone interested in getting an idea of the tedious attempts to civilly engage a religious polemic to review the discussion on why the nutcase wanted "microevolution" inserted as a concept between 4:05 and 4:13. That being HOUR 4, not four minutes in. Watching the poor science advisor tiptoe around trying to affirm it is BS anti-science language in a non-offensive way should tell MGs lurkers what they need to know here.

The recording was full of example after example of this sort. I didn't watch the whole thing but I went through following topics at points at the start, middle, and end with the general pattern repeating. Nutjob had proposed amended language to the professionals recommendations, stilted discussion around it, a vote, next item.

[Marcus]

...I’ve learned SO much about the minds of ex Mormons as I’ve participated on this thread. Folks will lie, create strawmen, do hatchet jobs with context, and misinterpret (purposfully methinks) and misrepresent…and just be plain dishonest...

A fascinating part of watching the mentalgymnast post is seeing him accuse others of very detailed behavior that is exactly those techniques in which he has most recently engaged. The list he's given above is nothing more than a very specific outline of his recent techniques.

[Res Ipsa]

MG 2.0 is playing his usual games. The slide shows a red-lined version of proposed changes to the existing standards. Proposed changes are marked in red. Catastrophism isn’t included in the current standards. It was a proposed amendment. And it did not define catastrophic the way MG 2.0 defined it. It specifically defined catastrophic as a theory that changes in the earths crust were caused by a global flood. There is just another religious extremist trying to sneak Biblical scripture into school curriculum.

Current earth science is a synthesis of gradualism and catastrophism, depending on the evidence. Asteroids striking the earth is an example of catastrophism. Volcanic eruptions are an example of catastrophism. Large floods caused by the sudden release of dammed up water from retreating glaciers (e.g., the cratered scablands in Washington) is catastrophism. In the textbooks I’ve seen, where there is a scientific dispute over the cause of an event, the different theories are taught. (E.g., what caused various extinction events over time).

But proposing that the structure of the earth’s crust, including the layers in which fossils are found, was caused by a worldwide flood is not a scientific theory. It is Biblical scripture.

Note, the linked entry says that this proposal was made by a board member who also proposed an amendment dropping Darwin from the standards because evolution is just a theory.

Religious extremist Christians have never stopped stopped trying to sneak their religious teachings into public school classrooms for decades, trying to disguise them as science.

This was just the latest attempt in Utah.

MG 2.0’s commitment to the separation of church and state is just as sincere as his commitment to the first amendment.

[Res Ipsa]

It wasn't a six hour debate over whether or not Noah's ark should be taught. But it was a working days worth of anti-science attempts to politicize the Utah school curriculum. I'd invite anyone interested in getting an idea of the tedious attempts to civilly engage a religious polemic to review the discussion on why the nutcase wanted "microevolution" inserted as a concept between 4:05 and 4:13. That being HOUR 4, not four minutes in. Watching the poor science advisor tiptoe around trying to affirm it is BS anti-science language in a non-offensive way should tell MGs lurkers what they need to know here.

The recording was full of example after example of this sort. I didn't watch the whole thing but I went through following topics at points at the start, middle, and end with the general pattern repeating. Nutjob had proposed amended language to the professionals recommendations, stilted discussion around it, a vote, next item.

I’m not surprised. Microevolution is yet another pseudoscientific claim made up to allow Biblical creation to be taught as a bona fide scientific theory.

[honorentheos]

Four hours and thirty-nine minutes in, flat earth comparison raised by science expert when explaining why calling evolutionary theory "just a theory" is fundamentally misunderstanding science when nutjob wants to add neo-Darwinism as a standard to be taught as both sides need to be heard in her opinion. Huh.

[honorentheos]

I can say civil tolerance of a nutjob was on display in that eight hour slog.

[honorentheos]

Six hours and forty-five minutes in, nutjob opposes discussing human impacts on ocean organisms. Board members talk around nutjob about the politicizing of topics and how to deal with that in topics that may deserve more discussion.

ETA: highly recommend checking out 6:51and listening for five or ten minutes where nutjob misunderstands debate and science. Good times.

[Res Ipsa]

Four hours and thirty-nine minutes in, flat earth comparison raised by science expert when explaining why calling evolutionary theory "just a theory" is fundamentally misunderstanding science when nutjob wants to add neo-Darwinism as a standard to be taught as both sides need to be heard in her opinion. Huh.

Neo-Darwinism? Did she have any idea of what that term means?

[honorentheos]

Four hours and thirty-nine minutes in, flat earth comparison raised by science expert when explaining why calling evolutionary theory "just a theory" is fundamentally misunderstanding science when nutjob wants to add neo-Darwinism as a standard to be taught as both sides need to be heard in her opinion. Huh.

Neo-Darwinism? Did she have any idea of what that term means?

Oh, she knows. She wanted the website, dissentfromdarwin.org taught in schools. She is absolutely a religionist fundy rightwinger nutjob.

[honorentheos]

She is a walking rep of the kinds of deceptive trojan horse anti-science brought up on rightwing media. I'd say Cam's description is correct in that she spends the entire work day long discussion attempting to insert a political, anti-science agenda into the standards based on religious-political mashup being discussed. The board members and science advisors are remarkably levelheaded in dealing with it most of the time.