Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

Hi, Artemis.I haven't been part of a bombsquad for a while, so here's my 2 cents: Is it your position that all discoveries that build on previous discoveries count as "doing what has already been done"? So, for example, once we've sequenced the genome of one species, sequencing the genomes of other species would just be redundant? After all, who needs a wasp genome when we've already got a fly genome?Is this really comparable, in your mind, to giving relatively untrained school teachers the prerogative to scrutinize what has already been scrutinized by multiple generations of better-trained scientists?I was recently an adjunct instructor of an introductory biology course, which involved teaching lectures about evolution, paleontology, genetics, ecology, taxonomy, geography, climatology and basic logic. However, my professional credentials only really make me an expert in ecology. So, how do I teach those other topics objectively? Should I teach what professional geneticists have put forward based on decades of genetics research? Or should I assume that the two genetics courses I took and a generous helping of ad hoc armchair reasoning give me the prerogative to reject all that and consider teaching something else?The biggest part of objectivity is recognizing your own limitations. Even double-duty teacher/researchers are actual experts in a much narrower field of study than the subject matter they are required to teach as part of their job. Therefore, objectivity requires teachers to acknowledge that they are generally not in a position to make the sorts of decisions that Intelligent Designists want to empower them to make with this new slurry of bills.[/2 cents]

Hi, Artemis. I don't want to discourage you from making up your own mind. By all means, make up your own mind. But, teaching other people is a bigger responsibility than making up one's own mind: it should be done with more objectivity and detachment and with less hubris and navel-gazing.