SC Education Candidate Wants Creationism in Schools

Sheri Few, one of the many Republicans running to be the next superintendent of education in the state of South Carolina, thinks that schools should teach the “scientific theory of intelligent design” as an alternative to evolution. And she seems to have no idea what the word “objective” means.

“In regard to the evolution issue, I have to say that that is one of the problems with our education system today, and it is one of the problems that has been brought to light through the problems with the Common Core standards,” she remarked. “Children are not receiving an objective education.”

“There is plenty of science and research behind the theory of intelligent design, and yet it is not allowed in the classroom,” Few added. “There is no reason why the scientific theory of intelligent design should not be taught in the classroom alongside the theory of evolution, and that way children would receive an objective education and they could also — for Christian children — could point to their God though the theory of intelligent design. Children need to have an objective education.”

Problem: There is no “scientific theory of intelligent design.” There are a bunch of bad arguments against evolution and a big ol’ god of the gaps conclusion that if evolution can’t explain given feature X (yet), God is the only explanation. To teach that in a public school science classroom would be educational malpractice and a violation of the Establishment Clause.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://howlandbolton.com richardelguru

    scientific theory of intelligent design”

     

    the lady doth protest too much, methinks

  • http://howlandbolton.com richardelguru

    Damn damn damn!!! Me want editor for comments!!!

      

    scientific theory of intelligent design”

     

    the lady doth protest too much, methinks

  • MyPetSlug

    and that way children would receive an objective education and they could also — for Christian children — could point to their God though the theory of intelligent design

    Thanks for immediately letting the cat out of the bag.

  • Jared Ragland

    Kitzmiller wasn’t the end of this culture war; it was the opening salvo. The fact that they lost is completely lost on Theocrat-Americans (much as the fact that they won in Scopes is also forgotten.)

  • Mr Ed

    I think it should be taught too, but as a cautionary tale.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake ZaraSheri Few:

    There is plenty of science and research behind the theory of intelligent design…

    Really? Where? By whom? In what journals did they publish? Because I seem to recall a trial about ten years ago in which the ID proponentsists were forced to admit they had sweet fuck-all for science and research, and I’ve seen no reason to believe that has changed since.

  • eric

    @3 – yup exactly. This is another case of the believers providing all the legal ammo us secularists would ever need.

    @5 – I mostly disagree. I think spending any significant amount of time on “negative examples” is very likely to confuse students more than it helps them. I’m not opposed to any mention of it, but I think if you’re only spending 5 minutes/semester on the plum pudding model of the atom, you should probably use that as a model of how to treat negative examples and only spend 5 minutes/semester on creationism.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake ZaraMyPetSlug, #3:

    Thanks for immediately letting the cat out of the bag.

    The cat has been out of the bag for years. Since the Disastrous Defeat in Dover, the ID crowd have mostly stopped pretending they aren’t motivated by religion: Even a conservative Christian judge didn’t buy it, and anyway the useful idiots couldn’t keep their mouths shut about taking a stand for Jesus.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Hey, don’t be so rough on Sheri Few – she probably went to South Carolina schools, y’know?

  • gshelley

    “There is no reason why the scientific theory of intelligent design should not be taught in the classroom alongside the theory of evolution,

    Obvious question, “What is it?”

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    …Sheri Few…

    Gesundheit.

  • colnago80

    In addition to being a far right wing whackjob, Ms Few has also engaged in fraudulent practices via her alleged non-profit organization, South Carolina Parents Involved in Education . She belongs in the slammer, not in the office of the State Superintendent of Education.

    http://goo.gl/QSzCrI

  • abb3w

    @5, Jared Ragland

    Kitzmiller wasn’t the end of this culture war; it was the opening salvo.

    The problem is that the IDer’s canon exploded in their faces.

    As is often the case, this appears to have sent the casting team back to the drawing boards.

  • Artor

    It’s convenient that, in arguing for “intelligent design” to be taught in schools, it’s proponents always manage to display their complete ignorance on the subject.

    There is plenty of science and research behind the theory of intelligent design…

    Really? You actually believe that? You are obviously unqualified to speak on the subject then. Please give us some citations to this “science & research” you speak of. I’ll wait right here…

  • John Pieret

    The Discovery [sic] Institute is agin’ her too:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/in_south_caroli_1086211.html

    They don’t want another Dover Disaster.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake ZaraJohn Pieret, #15:

    The Discovery [sic] Institute is agin’ her too:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/in_south_caroli_1086211.html

    They don’t want another Dover Disaster.

    Yup. Nowadays, the good ol’ Dishonesty Institute claims it doesn’t want to teach intelligent design and never did. Given their track record of lying to their own supporters and then hanging them out to dry, I’m not sure why they still exist at all… other than as wingnut welfare for the likes of Casey Luskin and David Klinghoffer.

    Also note the weasel wording in “Discovery Institute opposes government insertion of intelligent design into K-12 public schools.” They’re against government insertion of creationist material, but if a teacher decides he’d rather preach than teach, why, that’s just Academic Freedom!

  • fmitchell

    … if evolution can’t explain given feature X (yet), God is the only explanation.

    That’s hardly a fair characterization of ID. It could be aliens.

  • Michael Heath

    Mr. Ed writes:

    I think it should be taught too, but as a cautionary tale.

    I agree but, but not in biology classes since Creationism isn’t science.

    Creationism could be taught in a class on critical thinking as an illustration of defective thinking. It could also be taught in an abnormal psychological class. I doubt either are taught many high schools.

    It absolutely should be taught in a sociology class when it comes to the ramifications of children being abused by attempts to indoctrinate them to believing in creationism. Particularly when it comes to disproportionately limiting these children’s educative and career opportunities.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    fmitchell “That’s hardly a fair characterization of ID. It could be aliens.”

    It could be. But it’s not.

  • matty1

    The usual attitude is that the intelligent designer ‘could’ be anyone. Winks and waves Bible around.