Professor Tony Whitson has posted the audio for an interesting exchange during yesterday's evolution hearings in Texas. Eugenie Scott (ES), of the National Center for Science Education, had finished her clear and concise presentation against including the "strengths and weaknesses" language in the Texas science standards, and for including the "analyze and evaluate" language as recommended by the standards writers and the scientific community. Cynthia Dunbar (CD), an ardently unapologetic creationist, revealed that at least in her mind, eliminating the "weaknesses" language is the same as inhibiting religion.
The relevant audio is transcribed after the jump.
CD: So in a semantics issue as far as weaknesses, you don't think there is weaknesses per se, but do you believe this is still simply unknown or not fully understood knowledge on the issue?
ES: There's un-understood knowledge about gravitation, and in every scientific explanation.
CD: Right. So that wouldn't be something that you request?
ES: I - that's not a weakness, that wouldn't be included -
CD: (interrupting) Well, I'm not - I didn't say weakness, I said I understand the semantic issue as far as how you define weakness, um, but there would be areas that are certainly unknown. Um, do you believe that to allow discussion on weaknesses would in your mind open that up to a religious discussion?
ES: Absolutely -
CD: (interrupting) Okay, and would you think then that in order for a secular scientific presentation that we would necessarily need to inhibit such discussion?
ES: Well, you need to inhibit discussion of religious explanations in the science, in the public school classes in general because advocacy of religion is unconstitutional in public schools.
CD: And are you aware that inhibition is also unconstitutional?
ES: That which? I'm sorry, I didn't hear the word you said.
CD: Inhibition.
ES: Inhibition. Alright, inhibiting religion as well as promoting religion are both unconstitutional -
CD: (interrupting) Right, thank you, thank you.
ES: But you're not saying that the weaknesses of evolution are creationist views
DM (Don McLeroy, chair): (interrupting) Alright -
ES: are you?
DM: We ask the questions, thanks.
(Great hilarity ensues from the audience.)
CD: I didn't say creationist views. I just asked very specific questions and it's all on the record.
(end)
ES: There's un-understood knowledge about gravitation, and in every scientific explanation.
CD: Right. So that wouldn't be something that you request?
ES: I - that's not a weakness, that wouldn't be included -
CD: (interrupting) Well, I'm not - I didn't say weakness, I said I understand the semantic issue as far as how you define weakness, um, but there would be areas that are certainly unknown. Um, do you believe that to allow discussion on weaknesses would in your mind open that up to a religious discussion?
ES: Absolutely -
CD: (interrupting) Okay, and would you think then that in order for a secular scientific presentation that we would necessarily need to inhibit such discussion?
ES: Well, you need to inhibit discussion of religious explanations in the science, in the public school classes in general because advocacy of religion is unconstitutional in public schools.
CD: And are you aware that inhibition is also unconstitutional?
ES: That which? I'm sorry, I didn't hear the word you said.
CD: Inhibition.
ES: Inhibition. Alright, inhibiting religion as well as promoting religion are both unconstitutional -
CD: (interrupting) Right, thank you, thank you.
ES: But you're not saying that the weaknesses of evolution are creationist views
DM (Don McLeroy, chair): (interrupting) Alright -
ES: are you?
DM: We ask the questions, thanks.
(Great hilarity ensues from the audience.)
CD: I didn't say creationist views. I just asked very specific questions and it's all on the record.
(end)
That's right, Ms. Dunbar, it's all on the record. As are the statements from the anti-evolution folks, who mostly gave away their religious motivations for favoring "strengths and weaknesses" over "analyzing and evaluating."
Dunbar is also on the record in her book One Nation Under God where she maintains that public schools are "tools of perversion," "tyrannical" and "unconstitutional" because they're not supported by Scripture. We must assume this is why she's chosen to educate her own children through homeschooling and private schools.
(Where exactly is democracy supported by Scripture, Ms. Dunbar - shall we go back to being ruled by a divinely-appointed king? For that matter, modern transportation and medicine aren't mentioned in Scripture either . . . )
Yes, Dunbar's motivations are clearly on the record, as she'll discover to her chagrin during any ensuing court proceedings. Clearly she didn't learn from Bill Buckingham's record in Dover.
posted by Cheryl Shepherd-Adams
