Stop debating intelligent design!
by KrauzeThe North Dakota High School Activities Association won't allow students to debate the role of intelligent design in public school classrooms.
Some parents and administrators feel the topic is too controversial, said Robert Hetler of the state's high school activities association.
"We're doing this because we don't want to exclude any students from public forum debate at state," Hetler said. "Some schools were afraid parents wouldn't allow their kids to do this one."
N.D. bans intelligent design debate: First in country
I'm right behind North Dakota on this one, as there's nothing worse than debating a controversial topic. Hopefully, the North Dakota High School Activities Association will find a safer topic for their high schoolers to debate - maybe "Is pollution bad?" or "Are babies cute?"
December 29th, 2005 at 11:21 am
"The North Dakota High School Activities Association won't allow students to debate the role of intelligent design in public school classrooms."
Perhaps they are afraid that the side that took the position that "there is no intelligent design in public school classrooms" would win.
Comment by mb — December 29, 2005 @ 11:21 am
December 29th, 2005 at 11:38 am
1. Forensic League… hmmmm. Oh yeah, thanks Krauze for the gentle reminder that I have to judge at one of these events in a few weeks.
2. Sounds funny, and ND jokes are always in order (haven't they changed to just "D" yet?), but there's really not much to laugh at here. For those who don't know what goes on at debates at these "meets" (there are other sorts of competitions than just debates, and the kids do remarkable jobs - I highly recommend readers of this blog to visit your local high school and volunteer to help out with judging), teams must prepare both sides of an issue. They don't get to pick and choose, and they often have to argue both sides at a single tournament. Before the actual debate, there is a coin flip; the winner chooses either side or order of presentation. So, in order to have a chance, both sides must be researched.
In this instance, what is more likely than the "danger" of ID is that, in ND, that there is concern that debaters will have to learn pro-evolution, anti-ID stuff. The consequence of this sentiment is played out here, and it isn't really that funny.
3. There are possibilities for cracking ID jokes, but I think I'll resist this temptation.
Comment by Art — December 29, 2005 @ 11:38 am
December 29th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
I guess that is one way to try to prevent kids from learning about and understanding the real ID as opposed to the cartoon version of ID that Judge Jones ruled against.
Did someone really say that? It makes on wonder what topics they do accept…
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
You know how to tell a North Dakotan from a South Dakotan? A South Dakotan has a southern accent. (A North Dakotan has a Canadian accent.)
Comment by Rock — December 29, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Wow, this is a fairly sad precedent to set. Let's train our debate teams to avoid controversy. It's understandable if you don't want the theme of the prom to be "Evolution is for Monkeys"…but a debate team?
What's interesting is, for a non-IDer on the ID side, or an ID-er on the non-ID side, this would have been one of the best educational experiences school has to offer.
@Krauze:
"Are babies cute" invokes the WAP (Weak Anthropic Parent) principle, so is undecidable.
Comment by WhirlingBlade — December 29, 2005 @ 2:07 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
WB says:
Wow, this is a fairly sad precedent to set.
I had to check my calendar- being under the cat. "Humor" I thought it was a "April Fool" joke…
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 2:20 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Joe, it's not the evolution-favoring kids who don't want to learn the topic.
One more chunk of evidence that the motivating force behind ID in the classroom is the drive for ignorance, not knowledge.
Comment by edarrell — December 29, 2005 @ 3:26 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
edarrell:
Joe, it's not the evolution-favoring kids who don't want to learn the topic.
No its the parents of those jids who mst be afraid their kids will be exposed to reality and therefore be able to refute their anti-ID diatribe. I fully understand that "grown-ups" can't allow their beliefs to be debunked by their kids.
edarrell:
One more chunk of evidence that the motivating force behind ID in the classroom is the drive for ignorance, not knowledge.
If the Dover trial and the subsequent decision are any indication ID ignorance runs rampant and deep. Knowledge of ID appears to be the enemy.
Comment by Joe G — December 29, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 4:05 pm
The state association's decision respects "schools that might find this topic particularly awkward and conservative North Dakotans that might find this topic awkward," said Kent Hjelmstad, superintendent of Mandan Public Schools.
Its a shame that those ID hating conservatives nixed this debate! I bet all those liberal, Bush-bashing parents were eager for their kids to learn all the flaws in evolutionary theory!
Comment by Aagcobb — December 29, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
Hi Art,
"In this instance, what is more likely than the "danger" of ID is that, in ND, that there is concern that debaters will have to learn pro-evolution, anti-ID stuff."
Oh. In that case, I want to withdraw my suggestion for debate topics. I certainly don't want high schoolers to learn anti-baby arguments.
Comment by Krauze — December 29, 2005 @ 5:01 pm
December 29th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
LOL. Teach the controversy. Babies aren't cute. Pollution is good! (Hmm.. Kyoto pro and con fanatics, take it somewhere else)
Comment by Art — December 29, 2005 @ 5:26 pm