A Robust Fisking
I haven’t fisked anything in its entirety in quite some time. Frankly, it’s a lot of work and I’m a fairly busy guy. Thankfully, Mark Peterson, the leftist professor at UWWC who pens a column for the Daily News, offered an opportunity for a fisk that is exceedingly easy, so I’ll oblige… off we go.
The School Board primary on Feb. 16 has drawn quite a few letters extolling the virtues of various candidates.
I have one rule for voting in local elections – I am completely happy if the candidate can do math, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. Take School Board member Tim Stepanski, who ran as “the eye for the taxpayer.”
Wait for it…
Politically speaking, I disagree with his political commitment to conservative, anti-tax, principles but I completely agree with his commitment to doing the math. Once he’d seen the actual numbers the school district was up against, he made a tough decision to support the tax levy increase. His principles remain in place, but he did the math and put his responsibility to the kids first. You have to respect that.
Wait for it…
I also have no interest in the religious views of anyone running for office. Frankly, it’s none of my business, or anyone’s business, how elected officials worship or which god, or gods, they worship.
WAIT FOR IT…
I don’t care. I don’t care, that is, so long as they don’t make their religious views my business. They only cross the line when they think it’s OK to use my tax dollar to fund teaching their religious views in a science classroom. (Personally, I approve of teaching kids about religion in literature or history or social science classes. It’s important that kids, especially in today’s global economy, understand how people from all parts of the world think – even in distant and strange places, like Madison, say.)
BAM!!! There it is. In other words, he absolutely cares about more than a candidate’s ability to do math and is intensely concerned with their religious views. As with most people, Peterson is rightfully concerned with these things, despite his assertions to the contrary.
So long as candidates don’t insist on teaching their religious views as science, no problem. I mean, imagine if a religiously committed School Board member, maybe one who worshiped the old Scandinavian gods, insisted we teach science students that lightning is caused by Thor swinging his hammer. Thor is not a scientific hypothesis and this fact, along with the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, explains why fundamentalist Christian beliefs (in the form of creationism and its slicker but equally unscientific little brother, “intelligent design”) have repeatedly been removed from public schools by the federal courts.
Speaking of which: in a bit of karmic turnabout, I find myself indebted to the local chapter of the Eagle Forum for their recent poll of School Board candidates. Fortunately for all of us, this poll identified some candidates whose personal views could weaken the science curriculum and drag the school district into federal court.
Three of the remaining six candidates — I understand that Knepel and Williams have withdrawn — told the Eagle Forum that they were in favor of teaching creationism, a religious doctrine, in science classes. Those who demonstrated this lack of respect for either competent scientific education or the rule of law are Randy Marquardt, Douglas Rakowski and David Weigand. The Eagle Forum site notes that Mr. Weigand would be in favor of “teaching the TRUTH about evolution” — but to my jaundiced eye this suggests he believes evolution isn’t true. His original answer online indicated a desire to teach creationism in science classes.
That’s a complete lie. Here’re the answers in question:
What is your position relative to teaching alternate theories of origins such as Intelligent Design and Creationism as an alternative, or in addition to, the the theory of evolution to students in science classrooms? (Choose: Favor/Against)
MARQUARDT: IN FAVOR
WILLIAMS: (Amended 1/24 for clarity) ABSTAIN (As long as teaching them in public schools is completely legal, I am open to alternative theories of origin.)
WEIGAND: ABSTAIN (I would be FOR teaching the TRUTH about evolution.)
CORAZZI**: AGAINST
VAN EERDEN**: ABSTAIN (Adhere to legal parameters for public schools)
KNEPEL: WITHDRAWN FROM RACE
RAKOWSKI: IN FAVOR
ZIEGLER: NO RESPONSE.
First notice that the question says “alternate theories of origins such as Intelligent Design and Creationism.” Yet Peterson focuses in on Creationism in the Christian sense despite the fact that the question leaves open teachings about any other theory of creation. Second, notice that the question asks, “as an alternative, or in addition to, the the theory of evolution to students in science classrooms.” That says that evolution would still be taught, and, to me, the question is unclear as to whether the alternatives would be taught in science classes, specifically, or just as an alternative elsewhere. Given that Peterson later professes to support the teaching of these alternative theories in other classes, I’m a bit bumfuzzled as to why he would mount such opposition to free thought.
Ziegler gave no response to the question but both Van Eerden and Corazzi gave answers indicating they believe that, regardless of your upbringing, a public school board needs to follow federal court rulings and teach science, rather than religious doctrine, in science classes.
Herein you find the complete bullshit of Peterson’s argument. There is substantial legal precedent about the teaching of the Christian belief of creation (not going into the other beliefs of creation that Peterson ignored) that make Peterson’s entire column a massive moot point. Evolution vs. creation is not an issue facing the school district. Nobody but leftist reactionaries like Peterson even consider this an issue in this election. Frankly, sensible people are concerned with the district’s finances and infrastructure issues. Peterson’s bigotry seems to foremost in his mind.
Quite apart from simply upholding Constitutional principles, there are even more practical reasons for adhering to federal court findings. The now infamous Dover case (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), in which some School Board members pressured their science classes to include creationism, wound up costing that school district over $1 million in legal fees after a spectacular loss in federal court and a scathing opinion from the judge, one of the most conservative in the country.
Which is why nobody but the like of Peterson are even talking about this issue.
Maybe Marquardt, Rakowski or Weigand won’t try to impose their religious views on the science curriculum, but let’s take them at their word: they think religious doctrines should be taught in a science class — even though pursuing this agenda would land West Bend in federal court. It would.
Again, they didn’t say that, but Peterson can pretend otherwise for his own agenda.
West Bend is now on the media’s radar and some of these creationist candidates are affiliated with the same people who made West Bend a national laughingstock during the last year; those who, first, attempted to eliminate anti-gay and lesbian language from the district’s hate speech policies and, second, helped put West Bend on the map as the book-burning capital of North America. The whole world is watching us now and waiting for the chance to send in reporters, film crews and the National Center for Science Education and ACLU legal teams. I don’t think we need any more of that.
The whole world is watching West Bend now? Seriously? Methinks someone needs to get out a little more.
One last irony: Weigand and Marquardt have been endorsed by Common Sense Citizens of Washington County. Here’s what I want to know: how much common sense does it demonstrate to endorse candidates who publicly assert that their religious beliefs should be intruded into the school curriculum in a way that could cost the district millions in legal fees and international ridicule?
By this point, Peterson’s anti-Christian bigotry (although he confesses to be reared a Christian) is on display, but not a factor in this election. And he completely ignores why CSC endorsed these candidates - which has nothing to do with their personal religious convictions.
Common sense dictates a common sense approach to electing this board. Let’s elect people who will guarantee competent scientific education for the kids, keep us out of federal court and off the front page of the New York Times. Common sense dictates Corazzi, Van Eerden or Ziegler.
OK, time to get real.
Nobody, sans Peterson and some zealots, give a rat’s balls about whether or not we teach alternate forms of creation in West Bend’s schools in science class or elsewhere. It’s a complete distraction. There is one issue in this election: the budget. The reason that there are eight candidates running for two seats is that the school board passed a 10%+ tax increase, a referendum, and a 4%+ tax increase in the course of 13 months.
This election is about how much we should spend for the value of education. Peterson is trying very hard to distract everyone from the cost of their district, but this would be just another ho-hum election if not for the actions of the district regarding financing in the last couple of years.
On a side note, I continue to question why the taxpayers should be paying such a hardcore leftist bigot like Peterson to teach our kids. I suppose every perspective deserves taxpayer support. Oh, wait… Peterson opposes such.
Rat’s balls and bullshit? It’s Separation of church and state. Intelligent Design and Creationism = religion; ideas supported by faith, not logical argument. Ain’t nothing anti-Christian in the concerns. It’s constitutional, Tubby. Keep the religion where it belongs, on private property.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 2208 hrs
Always entertaining to get inaccurate and BS comments from anonymous folks.
Keep up the effort!Posted by Owen on January 30, 2010 at 2224 hrs
As Kevin Scheunemann mentions on Mark’s blog, I wonder if this the endorsement will be a “political scarlet letter”? Mark is definitely a polarizing figure based on the reactions to some of his columns…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 2241 hrs
Always entertaining to get inaccurate and BS comments from anonymous folks.
And you support it in the funding of political campaigns as well.
At least your consistent.
Free speech and all that right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 2242 hrs
Free speech and all that right.
Indeed. For the same reason that I don’t block your anonymous speech.
Posted by Owen on January 30, 2010 at 2252 hrs
Like I said at least your consistent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 2306 hrs
Personally, I find Mark a bit of a fraud. He’s closed minded. His blog is extremely obsessive (as I’ve pointed out weeks ago on B&S)....
... and he teaches, of all things, philosophy….
Posted by Smeety on January 30, 2010 at 2312 hrs
Wow. The lefty trolls must have gotten paid to be here today.
First:
How is talking about creationism “establishment of religion”? Feel free to write a paper detailing your ignorance of the law, the constitution and the meaning of the word “is”.
Second:
“fact or opinion” seems to confuse what he says with actual facts. Maybe if he didn’t spew so much opinion his brain would start working. Oh, wait, he’s a lefty…he doesn’t HAVE a brain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 2356 hrs
You had to like the Thor thing.
Posted by Charlie Hillman on January 31, 2010 at 0141 hrs
“What is your position relative to teaching alternate theories of origins such as Intelligent Design and Creationism as an alternative, or in addition to, the the theory of evolution to students in science classrooms?”
I wonder what the point of asking the question of the candidates was?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 0905 hrs
inaccurate? A side view will prove your tubby ...and if this article wasn’t a big deal, Owen, you wouldn’t have dedicated so much original writing (vs your habitual one-sentence responses to cut-n-pastes). Zealots on either side will line up if the creationist snowball gets into the science curriculum. No one will say squat if it enters mythology curriculum. In fact, I venture to say it likely has.
Google “creationism public school*” legal cases…
What’s the point of the questions?
The 1st point was to polarize and mobilize. 2nd, It’s cultural and historical: WB has a reputation of being subtly polarized by what church one attends. (Call up your friends in a neighboring city and ask.) 3rd, this is the fumes of a prior challenge to the science curriculum that failed. One candidate knows this well.If anyone wants the counter, mystical, supernatural, theories taught, they can reserve a soapbox in the buildings after hours, for free, without crossing the local control v. separation of church and state parameters. Then, no litigation. I’m surprised more people have not taken advantage of this to indoctrinate kids to knock down democrat yard signs in election years. Now, maybe they will.
It’s good to start Sunday in a snarky mood.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1004 hrs
A side view will prove your tubby
Despite your poor grammar, I am not tubby. I’m fat. Get it right
if this article wasn’t a big deal, Owen, you wouldn’t have dedicated so much original writing (vs your habitual one-sentence responses to cut-n-pastes).
Ah… a neophyte to the blogging medium. Welcome. It’s refreshing.
Posted by Owen on January 31, 2010 at 1051 hrs
“Despite your poor grammar, I am not tubby. I’m fat. Get it right”
As with much of what you say on this blog, I have to disagree with this assertion, buddy.
Give yourself some credit. You are, how shall I say, robust? Unlike some of your posts….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1143 hrs
“There is substantial legal precedent about the teaching of the Christian belief of creation (not going into the other beliefs of creation that Peterson ignored) that make Peterson’s entire column a massive moot point.”
Then let’s see it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1202 hrs
(Hi keld! Long time, no see. Hope all is well with the family!)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1203 hrs
The following quotation is from the 1987 Supreme Court decision:
“The Act’s reference to `creation’ is not convincing evidence of religious purpose. The Act defines creation science as `scientific evidence,’ and Senator Keith and his witnesses repeatedly stressed that the subject can, and should, be presented without religious content . . We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on earth . . Creation science, its proponents insist, no more must explain whence life came than evolution must explain whence came the inanimate materials from which it says life evolved.”—*U.S. Supreme Court, Edwards vs. Aguillard, U.S. 482 (1987), p. 549.
Posted by GAMazy on January 31, 2010 at 1517 hrs
Nobody, sans Peterson and some zealots, give a rat’s balls about whether or not we teach alternate forms of creation in West Bend’s schools in science class
So, with GAMazy checking in, I guess we have identified at least one zealot. I don’t know, but I assume Dave Weigand is somehow related to Mary and I know from personal experience that the teaching of Christian creationism is very important to her.
I agree with Owen that the efficient use of tax money for public education should be the primary issue. I’m just not sure it is for some of these folks.Posted by Charlie Hillman on January 31, 2010 at 1529 hrs
I think Rich is correct, Peterson will cause you more harm instead of anything good, he is a liability. Peterson is proof large daily amounts of LSD will have lasting effects.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1544 hrs
“I agree with Owen that the efficient use of tax money for public education should be the primary issue. I’m just not sure it is for some of these folks.”
I also agree. The push should be for more efficient use of tax money. But that’s not the case. There’s a bigger agenda for some of the candidates, and their supporters, than just trying to help the tax payer save money. I doubt if that wasn’t the case the question about support for teaching creationism and intelligent design would never had been included on the questionnaire. That question is important to some people and would help sway some folks for those candidates who answered to the affirmative.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1554 hrs
Chuck, Thanks for noticing me!
Posted by GAMazy on January 31, 2010 at 1623 hrs
hardcore leftist bigot
I hope you have a good libel attorney.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1627 hrs
Thanks to Peterson for his non-endorsement. It would be the “kiss of death”. I wouldn’t want Obama’s endorsement either.
Thanks folks, for all your interest in the education of the kids in our community. Feel free to check out my blog. I try to add something new every few days. Weigandforschoolboard.blogspot.com
David Weigand, School Board Candidate
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1711 hrs
It’s shocking to imagine that I’d agree with Mr. Stepanski and Rich Kasten about being frugal with taxpayers money?
Pooh.
I know it doesn’t fit the handy and obscuring caricature of “leftist” but then, I don’t either. Too bad, eh?
But spending the money sanely was sort of the point. If these creationist theocrats agree not to push their religious agenda in the science curriculum, I’m cool with them serving on the school board. Like I said, their religious views are none of my business so long as they don’t make it my business—I just find it hard to believe they won’t try and, when they do, we simply call in the ACLU *again* to make sure the rights of West Bend citizens are not overwritten by a religious minority seeking to impose its own vision through the mechanism of government—as they did in the library nonsense.
Dude, I can’t believe you wrote “rat’s balls”.
Posted by Mpeterson on January 31, 2010 at 1711 hrs
Tubs, er, Fats, uh, Robusto,
Wouldn’t “hypocritical” bigot be more accurate? MP is endorsing 2.0 church-goers. Posed as a question avoids libel.GM, (your not in Haiti?) Since your gravitational pull started this domino effect, I wuz wonderin what “life on earth beginnings” curriculum (and time on topic) you were entertaining to encourage a curriculum committee to consider. Somthin like… 1) Life – shortcomings of evolutionary theory 90-min (supernatural forces and you) 2) Life – Comet dust and primordial soup 1-min (LSD and your brain) 3) Life – Carbon analysis shortcomings 45-min (G is a trickster: Dino bones are a satan’s red herrings) It’s cool: A $1 mil litigation process and sown science skepticism is just the ticket to knock this pub-school down hard, build private school #s, and further disrupt all the globalwarming nonsense. I’m ready, ready for the big ride baby!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1940 hrs
GAMazy’s excerpt is from the dissent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 2036 hrs
Owen, you have some stinky sock puppets. They would be just plain ole sock puppets if they made sense.
Posted by GAMazy on January 31, 2010 at 2125 hrs
I agree with Charlie. To think that these people WON’T try inserting creationism into the classroom is to just ignore all the warning signs. Are we really going to let Ginny et al waste more of our taxpayer dollars?
www.ginnymaziarka.com
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 2213 hrs
One has to wonder about the mental stability of an anonymous poster who takes it upon himself to register a domain name for the sole purpose of insulting a fellow human being.
Sick, man… sick.
BTW, you’ve engaged in sock puppetry which violated our terms of service. If it happens again, you’ll be banned.
Posted by Owen on January 31, 2010 at 2229 hrs
That Weigand guy believes this:
“WITH REGARD TO TEACHING EVOLUTION OR CREATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
In a nutshell, this is what I believe:
1. Origin studies, (whether Creation or evolution) and the idea of “millions of years” does not belong in the science classroom because these are not testable, repeatable or observable; they are philosophical and accepted by faith.
2. If evolution is taught in school, students should be taught the truth about it and the scientific data surrounding it. Ideas that were once championed by evolutionists are no longer valid, much like the false science behind man-made global warming. Students deserve the truth.”
Which makes him unfit to hold office. Or perform any number of other important tasks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1340 hrs
Since Edwards vs. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), forbids the teaching of creationism in a science class and the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial showed that Intelligent Design is creationism and has nothing to do with science, I am completely at a loss as to why David Weigand or any other person running for school board would bother to make statements about it. The only discussion of it would be done in a class about the history or comparisons of religions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1347 hrs
GAMazy: Why are you quoting a dissenting opinion from the Supreme Court? While it does represent a few of the justice’s opinion, it has no legal authority. You’re being quite deceptive in not pointing that out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1348 hrs
Wow, according to MotleyCow, this issue has gone “national” thanks to none other than Owen Robinson - never mind who actually brought the topic up:
http://the-motley-cow.blogspot.com/2010/02/creationists-running-for-school-board.html
Of course, Prof. Peterson mustn’t step out of his “bubble” very much. This is the “national blog” that picked up on the issue:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/west_bend_wisconsin_aspiring_t.php
Another University professor (Minnesota) who describes his blogging as such: “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal”
According to Alexxa, his reach is the 18-24 year old demographic. Here’s a philosophical question (paraphrased), “If Professor Peterson excretes gas and noboby hears it, was it really a fart”?
Thanks Owen for being responsible for all of this “national blog attention” - I’m real scared that some public funded professors and students might have a lower opinion of West Bend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1432 hrs
The nutty professor will stop at nothing to bring traffic to his blog.
Let me know when MSNBC gets here so I can drive by with dueling banjos playing.
Hey keithy boy can you squeel like a piggy.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2010 at 1746 hrs
In the questionnaire, Dave Weigand indicated that he supported “teaching the TRUTH about evolution” [Weigand’s emphasis]. That statement is ambiguous without any further context. Given just that statement, you could assume he was being serious and wants the science of evolution taught, or you could assume he was being sarcastic and believes that something else caused the current state of biological affairs. However, we do have more context. Weigand’s blog implies he believes evolution is false and nowhere does he advocate teaching creationism. In fact, a strict reading of his nutshell indicates he advocates teaching nothing about the origins of life on Earth, be it creationism or evolution.
My axe to grind here is with Weigand’s elitism. Without giving any counter evidence or testable alternate theories, much less training in the scientific method, he pronounces the science behind evolution to be false. If I strode up to a Marine and told that soldier he or she was firing that rifle all wrong without explaining why or having any experience in firing a rifle, that Marine would rightly tell me to STFU. If I walked onto one of Weigand’s construction sites and lambasted him for building stuff all wrong without explaining why or having any experience in construction, he’d laugh me off the site. But yet when Weigand says the science of evolution is false without offering any evidence to the contrary, we’re supposed to accept that as plausible? Based solely on his personal opinion? How many other decisions would Weigand make on the school board based solely on his personal opinion and not on evidence? And is that the kind of elitist attitude you want on your school board?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1459 hrs
Total Entries: 19703
Total Comments: 130368
Most Recent Entry: 02/22/2012 10:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/22/2012 10:41 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 90
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/23/2012 04:22 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).