In the previous post, Cheryl presented evidence clearly demonstrating the fact that current members of the anti-evolution faction on the Texas State Board of Education have previously advocated the teaching of Creationism and Intelligent Design in Texas public schools.
In the comments on that post, Tony Whitson of Tony's curricublog linked to a post of his that provides audio (mp3) of a public statement by Dr. Don McLeroy, chairman of the Board:
I don't think you'll find a single Board member that has ever advocated - in fact I don't know of a single Board member that has ever advocated - teaching creationism, teaching intelligent design, or teaching supernatural explanations in the science classroom.
As we now know, the above statement is blatantly false. McLeroy himself "strongly favor[ed]" the following statements in 2002 and 2006 respectively:
CREATIONISM: Present scientific evidence supporting intelligent design, and not just evolution, and treat both theories as viable ones on the origin of life.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Present scientific evidence in our public schools supporting intelligent design, and not just evolution, and treat both theories as viable ones on the origin of life.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Present scientific evidence in our public schools supporting intelligent design, and not just evolution, and treat both theories as viable ones on the origin of life.
In addition, McLeroy wrote an op-ed in August 2008 in which he openly advocated for the inclusion of supernatural explanations in Texas's curriculum standards.
If science is limited to only natural explanations but some natural phenomena are actually the result of supernatural causes then science would never be able to discover that truth-not a very good position for science. Defining science to allow for this possibility is just common sense.
If you listen to the second audio clip in Tony's post, you will hear Dr. McLeroy say "no one can use that word" when he and his fellow board members are accused of lying about their religious motives for criticizing evolution.
Apparently, he doesn't like the "L word."
And yet, simply refusing to allow others to say the word "lie" does not make it acceptable for a public servant to knowingly convey blatant falsehoods.
Perhaps Dr. McLeroy should brush up on his Shakespeare:
What's in a word? That which we call a lie
By any other name would still smell foul.
By any other name would still smell foul.
edited 12/6 0822: updated per Tony's comment - csa
posted by Jeremy Mohn
