



"He had been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in phials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers." - Jonathan Swift
Many of the candidates they support are receiving thousands of dollars in contributions from a group of corporations and individuals around the country who support school choice.So Floyd is the benefactor of the largess from this wealthy, Cato Institute libertarian. What else is his money buying? It's buying us a Superintendent who is a creationist and sides with the Discovery Institute in their jihad to weaken science education in public schools. This is something that libertarians are supposed to be against. While they like the idea of privitizing public education, at which point any nonsense one wishes to teach is fair game, they are generally (or supposed to be) strong advocates of church-state separation. And as long as public education remains public, church-state separation applies. Karen Floyd isn't just arguing for teaching creationism (or its derivatives) as a matter of choice in the private schools that she wants funded by taxpayers, she advocates that public schools should have it taught as well. And as for Sanford, he's stated similar beliefs although he's so far out there that I'm willing to just chalk it up to unfamiliarity with the issue and general stupidity. Floyd, on the other hand, knows exactly what she's doing.
Through corporations set up in New York, Maryland, Texas and Georgia, a New York real estate developer named Howard Rich has contributed nearly $40,000 to Floyd and seven House challengers.
Today, June 13th, is primary day in South Carolina. Most of the would-be Democratic nominees are running unopposed, but the Republican slate is packed full for a number of races.
The race for state Superintendent of Education has no fewer than 5 candidates running for the Republican nomination. The SCSE page has the response of each candidate during a recent debate to the question of what they thought about teaching “alternatives” to evolution. Read the responses and see what you think. The two front-runners in the race are supposedly Karen Floyd and Bob Staton, and the winner of the nomination will be heavily favored to win the general election. You can read more about Floyd’s opinion on teaching evolution here. Staton is a bit harder to pin down. Most agree that he doesn’t feel strongly about the issue, and therefore his answers tend to be tactfully vague.
Also on the ballot today is Oscar Lovelace challenging incumbent Governor Mark Sanford.
There are three candidates running for Lt. Governor. Incumbent André Bauer is being challenged by Mike Campbell and Henry Jordan. The views on teaching evolution among the first two are not a matter of public record as far as I know, but Jordan has, shall we say, a rather unsubtle opinion. He also has complementary views on religious diversity.
Anway, if you are from South Carolina, please get out and vote. There are obviously other issues to consider, so choose your candidates carefully.
(Cross-posted to the Panda's Thumb.)
In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where -- thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU -- the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.It probably doesn't need to be said, but no, students in Dover are not required to wear such T-shirts. This is what we would call... let's see, what's the technical name for it.... oh yeah, a blatant fucking lie.
So that’s where things stand. But remember: The Discovery Institute exists on Planet Bizarro. In their world, things are the opposite of what they seem:
South Carolina Set to Join Four Other States Calling for Critical Analysis of Evolution.
Columbia, SC – The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee (EOC) will vote Monday, June 12, on whether to give final approval to science standards for biology that require students to summarize how scientists “investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” The standards were approved unanimously by the South Carolina Board of Education on May 31. Four other states (Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kansas, and New Mexico) already have science education standards encouraging critical analysis of evolution.
Back here on Planet Earth, the Board of Education did not add the “critical analysis” language to the curriculum standards, and the EOC cannot accept standards containing that language without the Board of Education adding them first. But when declaring victory, why let a little thing like defeat get in your way?
Edited to add: It was brought to my attention that the science curriculum does actually contain one sentence about “critical analysis” that was added a year ago, so the DI press release isn’t technically untrue. It is, however, grossly misleading in that the changes they lobbied for all throughout the first half of this year, which included adding “critical analysis” language to each and every indicator dealing with evolution, were rejected. It was these changes, not the one from last year, that created the impasse between the EOC and BOE. The EOC’s June 12th vote is noteworthy in that it will end this impasse with the Discovery Institute failing to get the changes they wanted.
(Cross-posted to the Panda's Thumb.)