Possible Screaming Guy


Theresa Rickman

Well, there is that battle we keep referring to in this blog. The article Evolution Shares a Desk With 'Intelligent Design' points to the many dimensions this issue takes. The battle of fundamentalism and beliefs against science. We have said many times that this site got started to lend our support to the BOE decision to approve the new Health Education curriculum, that has turned into the "sex education curriculum" because lately sex has gained some prominence in our minds. But we have also said many times that this is not about "sex," "a condom demonstration," or even defend the rights of homosexuals to life their lives to their fullest and of our kids to now that, in case they have not noticed yet, there exist people that are homosexuals, and nuclear families who are constituted by two mothers, or two fathers... This is not ONLY about any of that, this is about the rights of our children to be educated in a scientific environment that leaves "beliefs" aside, and focuses on facts as we know them now, and as the scientific community have come to a consensus on them.

We have already discuss here that the word "theory" as understood by the scientific community is not just a conjecture or hypothetical proposition - actually, hypothesis are proved or disproved and the proved ones becomes theories - that can sit next to another bunch of suppositions, but theories in sciences are considered the truth until proved otherwise.

The theory of relativity, the theory of evolution.

Now the Board of Education in a small town in Pa. has decided to approve the teaching of the theory of evolution, next to the teaching of the belief in intelligent design -something that even the leaders in the proposition of that are against because they consider it does not have enough scientific backing as it stands now:

The Discovery Institute in Seattle, which is regarded as a leader in intelligent design theory, also opposes the Dover school board's policy in part because it seems to take three steps into old-fashioned creationism. "This theory needs to be debated in the scientific sphere," said Paul West, a senior fellow. "It's much too soon to require anyone to teach it in high school."

What's more impressive here is the fact that it seems we are now willing to vote in what should be considered science and what should be taught in schools, etc.
This lady says she would prefer to believe, but when did it happen that one could prefer what the truth is in matters of science?

DOVER, Pa. -- "God or Darwin?"

Lark Myers, a blond, 45-year-old gift shop owner, frames the question and answers it. "I definitely would prefer to believe that God created me than that I'm 50th cousin to a silverback ape," she said. "What's wrong with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the theory of evolution?"

Then, others say that the "majority" don't believe in evolution. Well, my daughter would love that the majority do not believe in maths so she could opt out of it, but as of now, she has a tough luck with that one. Science, regardless of what Bush opinion may be on the matter, can not be decided on election day...(Thanks GOD for that one!!)

Many here speak of a personal relationship with Christ and of their antipathy to evolutionary theory (A Gallup poll found that 35 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution). Steve Farrell, a friendly man and owner of a landscaping business, talked of Darwin and God in the Giant shopping center parking lot.

"We are teaching our children a theory that most of us don't believe in." He shook his head. "I don't think God creates everything on a day-to-day basis, like the color of the sky. But I do believe that he created Adam and Eve -- instantly."

Back in the town center, Norma Botterbusch talks in her jewelry store, which has been a fixture here for 40 years. "We are a very lenient town," she said. "But why should a minority get to file a lawsuit and dictate school policy? Most of our kids already know who created them."

One thing I hate is how the word "morality" has been hijacked by religious hypocrites. Once it referred to the distinction between good and evil, and navigating the tricky waters between them. Now it just means sex. Sex education is bad because it has the word "sex" in it. Homosexuality, same thing. You notice how rarely anybody has sextuplets? You know why, don't you?

This writer in the St. Petersburg Times has fun with the whole thing:

When it comes to sex, Americans act like adolescents: simultaneously confused, titillated, scandalized, drooling, obsessed and grossed-out. Maybe it's because we are a comparatively young nation. Maybe it's because our mythic founders - the Puritans - were the most unfun people in Europe.

It doesn't take much for us to get our knickers in a twist. A promo for the nighttime soap Desperate Housewives appearing on Monday Night Football treated viewers to a creamy-skinned blonde, dropping her towel in front of a fully-padded player in a steamy locker room. The family values nation rose up, peppering ABC with complaints. They weren't offended that this low-rent seduction scene played into stereotypes about black men and white women. They just don't like nekkidness. Children could be watching!

Of course, it is a scientific fact that the mere sight of a nice set of female thoracic vertebrae can corrupt the minds of the young. Better to focus on the game, in which a bunch of steroid-crazed, wife-beating, semi-literate millionaires harm another bunch of steroid-crazed, wife-beating, semi-literate millionaires while fans with faces and torsos painted blue or with giant pieces of plastic foam cheese on their heads cheer them on. Football is good clean all-American fun. Sex is dirty; violence is okay.

...

"Values" voters claim to be all about "spirituality," but they are really fixated on the body. The Religious Right regards sexuality as dangerous, anarchic, an enemy of the orderly state. For progressives, expressions of sexuality (like religion) among consenting adults are a matter of individual liberty. In other words, not that big a deal... Don't get your knickers twisted, morality isn't just about sex

Click on the link and go have fun reading this nice article. It'll do ya good.

South Carolina is, as this article in The State notes, "as solid a red state as you will ever find." The Bush administration is pushing for abstinence-only education, but the people of South Carolina don't want it:

The 2005 federal budget contains $168 million for abstinence-only education. The theory behind such an approach is that telling kids how to prevent pregnancy will encourage them to have sex.

The theory is debunked by research performed by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which found that sex education that includes information on abstinence and contraception delays the onset of sexual activity and increases the use of contraception once young people do become sexually active.

You might read that and think, fine, but not in South Carolina, as solid a red state as you will ever find. But it turns out that voters’ attitudes here on teen pregnancy prevention run toward a comprehensive approach.

When the South Carolina Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy surveyed Palmetto State voters about sex education in schools, 81 percent of them answered “yes” to the question, “Do you think that sexuality education which emphasizes abstinence, but also teaches youth about the benefits and importance of contraception, should be taught in South Carolina public schools?” Seven out of 10 of the registered voters also agreed that “comprehensive sex education in the schools decreases rates of pregnancy and disease.” S.C. supports comprehensive approach to stem tide of teen parents

Now, as we'll learn the hard way if we're not careful, you don't always get what you want. Hardline conservatives have been very crafty about implementing programs that the majority of people in an area don't want. They organize, they raise money, they campaign -- we're seeing it right here in Montgomery County.

The State opines:

The approach our state has taken through its laws and policies supports this idea of instruction tailored to the home and the community. It is a rational and reasonable method to work toward the important goal of reducing the number of teenagers who become parents too soon.

Our school board has also taken a "rational and reasonable" approach. Let's support the board in this, and stop the extremist minority now.

My kids went to a religious school for a few years, and now they go to public school. In the religious school they learned how to pray, they studied the scripture, and in the public school they acquire secular knowledge. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Religion is appropriate in a religious school, run by a church or synagogue, where everyone is paying tuition and has chosen that school for whatever reasons, probably including the religious stuff. It is not appropriate in a public school that the taxpayers are supporting.

Many of the religious right are choosing to home-school, and I think that's a good idea for them. If you have really, really strong religious convictions, it is unlikely that any teacher, even at a church-run school, can match your fervor. And there is no sense sending them to a public school, because, well, they won't get any religious education at all there.

I just came across a web site where they give advice on home-schooling: Classical Homeschool Curriculum.

Again, if you want children who will not merely survive in this culture, but will overcome and take captives for Jesus Christ, then they will need a distinctively Christian education. One of the most dangerous aspects of public schools is not the drugs, guns, ungodly sex education or even the lie that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative. It is the lie that our children can be properly educated without reference to God.

...

When our children attend government schools, they are told to learn math, but not to learn the central thing about math-that God is a God of order and that in Him all things consist. They are told to learn history, but not the most important thing about history-that Jesus Christ lived a perfect life, died an efficacious death, rose powerfully, and ascended majestically to the right hand of the Father.

When God is excluded from the classroom, we are not merely remaining silent about God. We are teaching children that they may safely disregard Him. Whether or not God exists, the lesson goes, His existence is irrelevant to what we are doing here. So when God is omitted, we are not silent about Him; rather we are teaching the children in the most convincing way possible that God is irrelevant. They can safely omit Him when it is convenient to do so.

So ... good. It's settled then.

You teach your own kids the values and beliefs you hold dear, and quit trying to "overcome and take captive" our public schools.

Deal?

The second author of a report that has been posted at the Recall the School Board web site has written a summary of it, which I see is making the rounds of the conservative web sites. I will insert a few comments.

As Goes Montgomery County, So Goes the Nation?
The Story of how Social Policy Crept into a Sex Education Curriculum

By David Blakeslee, Psy.D

What are parents and educators to do when they are presented with a curriculum touted as "scientific" and asserts that it will help reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in adolescents and the incidence of bullying and harassment of gays and lesbians? Such was the situation for parents and educators when the Montgomery County School Board presented to them last month their Annual Report of the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. The results of this two year project were about to be implemented county wide to 8th and 10th graders.

The author tries to imply that someone pulled a fast one here. In fact, a citizens' advisory group worked out this curriculum over a period of years. Then they submitted it to the Board of Education, who asked for revisions, which were made. The citizens' committee voted by a large majority to accept everything, and the school board's vote was unanimous.

The curriculum is still quite conservative. It teaches objectively about homosexuality, not that it is evil, but that some people are just gay. As a consequence, a group formed, with the aim of removing the entire school board. Those who had voted in the minority have now apparently decided that, since they were unsuccessful in forcing their hateful "family values" on the county from within the system, they would have to attack it from without.

Many parents were appreciative of the schools efforts to help protect and educate their children. They were concerned, however, that the actual curriculum designed during this two year process may have unintended consequences that would undermine the very purpose of the proposed changes. And so they decided to look closer.

This is pure fiction. The leader of the "recall the school board" group was on the committee. She and another committee member just didn't like the way the vote went.

What they found was a curriculum that makes five critical errors in sex education. In a recent report titled, Health Education as Social Advocacy, co-author, Warren Throckmorton and I critique the proposed curricular changes and examine problems in detail.

And we note that the "report" does not mention anywhere in its text who paid for thirty five pages of criticism.

First, the curriculum may present too much too soon. As in many schools, material is offered to 8th and 10th grade students. We have an observation and concern about this practice. Durex, the condom manufacturer, did a world-wide survey on sexual behavior and sex education. In analyzing their data, we came to a startling conclusion: there is a statistically significant linear relationship between onset of sex education and onset of sexual behavior. Simply stated, the earlier an adolescent is educated about sex, the earlier he is likely to engage in sex. This observation is so remarkable because it remains true across a worldwide tapestry of cultures which have different political systems, ethnic makeup and religious systems. This disturbing finding raises the provocative question: Are there unintentional negative consequences from merely the presentation of sexual education programs?

The change introduced in the eighth grade is that students will learn about homosexuality. Until now, the rule was that a teacher could only talk about it if someone asked. Now, kids will be taught that there are various sexual orientations, and will learn what they are.

In tenth grade, they will be taught about condom use, including a video that shows how to put one on. The statistics that Dr. Blakeslee forgets to mention in this section show overwhelmingly that knowledge of contraceptive techniques reduces the rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD).

Second, adolescents are not adults. There is a growing body of research which indicates that the adolescent mind is undergoing a huge renovation: from thinking concretely to thinking abstractly. During this renovation, however, research suggests that adolescents process their decision making in a highly emotional and impulsive manner. Material in the curriculum which educates about condom flavors and creates an artificial line between sexual behavior of adolescents and high risk sexual behavior in adolescents overlooks this central feature of the adolescent mind. While this is not news to anyone who has one or was one, adolescents are predisposed to think and act impulsively when contemplating sexual behavior because that emotionally driven behavior easily overwhelms their compromised decision-making ability.

Blakeslee is here referring to the findings of a professor at Binghamton Univerity, who has done much research on changes in the brain during adolescence and their effects on behavior and development. When asked in email about the conclusions as they were applied by Throckmorton and Blakeslee, she wrote "How that relates to sex education -- or what should be taught in sex education (and when developmentally) --seems to be more a matter of interpretation. It could be argued that the more hard facts and strategies for dealing with emotional situations, the better armed adolescents would be..."

Third, biology is not destiny. When discussing sexual orientation, the curriculum is permeated by a world view which sees same sex attraction as determined by one's biology. This "born-that-way" position is used by advocacy groups to strengthen their arguments for civil rights in the current political climate. It is not a position supported by research into same sex attraction. Furthermore, the curriculum ignores a competing view in academia which holds that sexual attractions are acquired via an interaction of environment and temperament. Why would the Montgomery County school board present only one view on this topic when the actual research picture is so much more complex?

There is no serious debate in the scientific community. There is wishful thinking by some conservative groups, whose world-view remains consistent if sexual orientation is simply another choice that a person makes. An individual can choose whether to engage in sexual behaviors of any kind, there is no argument there, but in that place called reality, some people "just are" gay.

Further, his argument that the curriculum ignores the interactions of environment and predispositions is simply false -- he's hoping you won't read the report itself. A section called "Interactions Between Psychological and Physical Development" outlines a section on:

B. Factors Contributing to Sexual Identity as Part of Total Personality

1. Physical (genetic, anatomical)

2. Psychological

3. Environmental

4. Other

This clearly contradicts his argument.

Fourth, health education is not an appropriate venue for social advocacy. The curriculum cites resource materials which come from advocacy groups and completely overlooks peer reviewed scientific studies which present more educationally sound material. This is one of the saddest parts of the curriculum, because it so clearly undermines the most cherished value of every educational system: credibility. Credibility leads to trust and trust accelerates the learning experience by defeating unnecessary skepticism and cynicism. This is especially harmful to adolescents who are just learning to think critically. Why would Montgomery County allow their credibility as an educational system to be needlessly undermined by advocacy based education?

The minority on the citizens' committee wanted to include "advocacy" literature, too -- this argument is transparent. Would you object to some facts from the Heart Association if your child was studying the heart? There are groups who promote sex education in America and around the world, and they produce literature. Most of those groups try to teach tolerance, which is what this group can't stand -- our children may grow up thinking that homosexuals are just people.

This point cannot be made too strongly. Blakeslee and those who pay him believe in teaching social advocacy. They wouldn't mind if the school district taught that homosexuality was a disease, or a form of mental illness, or a sin. You can be very sure they wouldn't complain about that. They can't stand your kids learning that some people are gay, without also learning that it's evil.

Fifth, tolerance does not require distortion of facts. The curriculum, in an effort to teach tolerance completely obscures the overwhelming benefit of the two parent family. It defines family in a nearly meaningless fashion: "two or more people who are joined together by emotional feelings or who are related to one another." It implies that those who have significant concerns about the destruction of the family over the last 40 years are "intolerant:" The curriculum states: "American families are becoming more complex and the greater variety of households encourages open mindedness in society." There is no discussion of the significant and still growing body of evidence that shows that these "complex" and "various" households have significantly higher negative outcomes for children and women. This is education, in service of tolerance, becoming a vacuous exercise in social persuasion.

There are many kinds of families. Some homes include the grandparents, aunts and uncles and cousins; some homes have adults without children, for one reason or another; and some kids have two daddies or two mommies. It is impossible to see any real way that a gay couple threatens the traditional family.

And note, further, that the notion of a "family," as used by hate-groups such as American Family Council, is a pure fabrication. Look it up. The dictionary doesn't say how many people it takes to be a family.

A family is defined by love. Blakeslee's rhetoric, quoted here, is motivated by hatred of what it does not understand.

Despite recent attacks on abstinence education in the media and by politicians licking their wounds from the November election, recent data suggest that this type of education is making a difference. Teen pregnancies during the last ten years have declined over 20%. Furthermore, children who take virginity pledges delay their first sexual experiences by 3 years (from 16-19 years). Older children making decisions about sexual behavior is likely going to lead to more mature, responsible decision-making. Finally, significant risks for gay identified adolescents and young adults persist: although gay men account for only 2-3% of the general population, they account for 44% of the new cases of HIV. Maybe virginity pledges for gay identified adolescents will help lower the incidence of HIV for these vulnerable adolescents?

Yes. teen pregnancies are declining, and condom use is increasing. Coincidence?

Everybody on both sides of this debate hopes that their children have the good sense to abstain from sex in their teens years. But the facts are that approximately half of teenagers do, in fact, have sexual intercourse. We can't stop them, but we can teach them what to do so that they don't get pregnant or spread disease.

The sexual revolution has been a tremendous success for adults who did not contract incurable STD's and for publishers of sexually explicit material. For nearly everyone else it has had devastating consequences. Let us make sure that during this process of educating our children that we tailor our information to the tried and true and to the developmental needs of our children.

Somebody needs to tell this guy that the sexual revolution was a long time ago. It ran into a brick wall when herpes became epidemic, and rolled over and died with AIDS. Teenagers need to have information, so they can make the right choices, even when they're making the wrong choices. Maybe your kid is one of the few who gets the facts at home, but what about the kid that your kid is going out with?

David Blakeslee, Psy.D. is a Clinical Psychologist in Lake Oswego, Oregon. He is co-author, along with Warren Throckmorton, PhD is Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the College Counseling Services at Grove City College (PA) of the recent report, Health Education as Social Advocacy, which is available at _http://www.drthrockmorton.com/montgomery.pdf._
(http://www.drthrockmorton.com/montgomery.pdf.)

In sum, Dr. Blakeslee has a story he wants you to believe. It's right in the title -- he wants you to think that "Social Policy Crept into a Sex Education Curriculum." But no, that isn't what happened. The well-established processes for curriculum change were followed. After years -- literally, years -- of discussion, it was decided that the curriculum needed to be brought up to date. All the t's were crossed, the i's were dotted, votes were taken, citizen input was plentiful. The school board made the right choice, but some people can't stand it.

It is extremely important for the people of Montgomery County to take a stance against those who would force their narrow preferences on us. We need to support the board in this.

Turkey, as you know, is working toward becoming a member of the European Union. It is also largely a Moslem country. An emerging problem is noted in this article in the socially-conservative news source, The Daily Standard (web version of The Weekly Standard):

... Before the formal accession process could be begun, the European Union required that Turkey make its laws congruent with European standards. Turkey passed 218 laws which reformed its penal code. Among them were laws making marital rape a crime and treating honor killings of adulterous wives as seriously as other cases of intentional murder.

But as we celebrate, it is worth remembering that Turkey almost didn't make it. Through much of the summer and fall there was one big sticking point. Turkey's government wanted to pass a law that would make adultery by either spouse a crime.

Europe was outraged. The E.U. Commissioner for Enlargement, the German Guenter Verheugen, said the proposed law "can only be a joke." He proclaimed that a law banning adultery would suggest that Islamic law was entering Turkish law, and his spokesman said such a proposal was "alien" to the European way and would indicate "a fundamentalist mentality that the state runs your bedroom."

The Standard article, which is written by a UVa professor of politics, goes on to report some statistics about adultery and its effect upon marriage, which is, as you can imagine, negative.

Europe is in no position to lecture anyone about sexuality whether in or out of marriage. It seems incapable of creating families and societies that meet the most rudimentary criterion for good health--reproducing themselves.

BUT WE MAY have here an opening for America. A 1998 survey of 23 nations by the University of California at Irvine's Eric Widmer found the United States more disapproving of adultery than 15 European nations. Eighty percent of Americans said adultery is always wrong. Only Ireland and Northern Ireland seemed as adamant.

So we can tell Turkey and the rest of the Islamic world that we would never wish to rule out of the company of civilized nations a country whose only offense was taking marital vows seriously. We can remind them that the Bible--as well as the Koran--has something to say on the subject. And we can pledge to work together toward creating societies with laws that strengthen families.

So The Standard sides with the Turks on this one. They think it's a good idea to outlaw adultery, which those effete and dissolute Europeans think is so funny. Dutch blogger Jasper Emmering takes the ball:

In other words, they [The Standard] want the freedom to write Holy Verses into law.

It is important to keep this in mind when reading (social) conservatives on Islam. They hate Islam, but they don't really disagree with Islam on a lot of stuff.

They think it's right for society to demand that women dress demurely, even if they think that the hijab is out of line. They believe in abstinence the way Somalians believe in clitoridectomy, it enhances virtue. They think crime ought to be punished harsher, like in the olden days, even though the chopping off of hands is a bit too much for them. And they think government has a right, nay a duty to regulate the bedroom-behavior of consenting adults. They even got their own bunch of terrorists.

Well, that might be going a little far, don't you think? Mmm, but it is something to think about.

These Christian social conservatives would earnestly like to do everything they can to eradicate Islamist terrorism. Everything, that is, except promote liberalism. But, to paraphrase Tony Blair, to do so would require them to be "tough on terrorism, and tough on the causes of terrorism".

The problem is that these Christian social-conservatives share a lot of values with orthodox Muslims, but at the same time Muslim orthodoxy (fundamentalism if you will) is the basis on which the current batch of -mostly Arab- terrorists have built their organisations. They recruit in Mosques and divert money from Muslim charities to fund their cause. Promoting a more liberal Islam would obviously be in the interests of the United States.

The Unitarian-Universalist web site UUWorld has a clear and interesting article describing religious fundamentalism, Moslem and Christian: The Fundamentalist Agenda. This post is long enough already, I won't quote sections from that article, but the reader may find it very informative.

How would the Taliban feel about the new sex education curriculum? An educated guess: they'd want to recall the entire Board of Education.

Parents are fighting back, after local religious extremists in Dover, Pennsylvania, forced schools to begin teaching "intelligent design" instead of scientific theories in biology classes.

Highlighting the growing national debate over the role of religion in public life, 11 Pennsylvania parents Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit challenging a local school district's order to teach "intelligent design" to public high school students.

The requirement, they said, violates the religious liberty of parents, students and faculty and the constitutional separation of church and state.

On Oct. 18, the Dover Area School District Board voted 6-3 to make biology students at Dover Area High School "aware of gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution and include in ninth grade curriculum the theory of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg on behalf of the parents, say intelligent design is a disguised, more secular form of creationism -- a Bible-based view that God, not evolution, created all species. Parents sue schools over 'intelligent design:' Teaching about 'gaps' in evolution theory violates church-state separation, they claim

If this is what you have to do, people, then this is what you have to do. Take it to court.

"There is a small group of people trying to push a particular religion on everybody," said Joel Leib, a parent who participated in the lawsuit. "It is basically a way of teaching creationism. ... It doesn't belong in science class, just the same as evolution doesn't belong in comparative religion class. "

And listen to what the school district's argument is:

[attorney] Thompson acknowledged that intelligent design "has religious implications" because its proponents can't identify the "transcendent being that created species. But there are religious implications to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as well. If man was an accident and not a directed thing, then you do away with God. The implication of the theory of evolution is, there is no God; it's all forces of nature," he said.

Sad to think that some people feel that God can't exist in the same world with the facts of science. To them, if there's evolution, there can be no God. Can it possibly be that simple?

Hey, here's something the gang that wants to kick out the MCPS school board hasn't thought of yet. They could do like the American Family Association (motto: "Promoting Traditional Family Values") did, and send letters with explicit descriptions of gay sexual behaviors to 65,000 people's homes.

A sexually explicit letter sent to 65,000 homes in Jefferson County is causing outrage, not only in neighborhoods where it was distributed, but also among members of the Louisville Metro Council. The letter urges people to ask their council representative to vote against the "Fairness Ordinance." And as WAVE 3's Maureen Kyle reports, the letter also targets a religious group.

The language is explicit and the message is clear. "I think its very vindictive -- hateful," says Karen Carpenter. She's one of the 65,000 people who received the literature from Frank Simon with the American Family Association of Kentucky. Residents Outraged After Sexually Explicit Letter Sent To 65,000 Homes

See, the Louisville Metro Council is discussing a local civil rights ordinance, and the issue is whether to include reference to homosexuals in it. Interestingly, Martin Luther King's niece, Alveda King, who is shown in the picture here at the left, argues that gays should not be protected. She:

told the council that gays and lesbians don't deserve the civil-rights protections because homosexuality is not "an immutable characteristic" like skin color or ethnicity.

"I feel it is unfortunate to put these two issues (civil rights based on sexual orientation and civil rights based on skin color) together," said King, who came from Atlanta to support ordinance opponents. 'Fairness' fight is in spotlight

It should be noted that King's wife, Coretta Scott King, has said that King himself would have supported the fight for gay rights, if he were alive: Snatching A Piece of King’s Legacy

Hey, this is kind of interesting:

Those who oppose the provisions that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity brought in four people from out of town to talk about the ordinance.

Besides King, they were a former lesbian who now works for the conservative group Focus on the Family, a lawyer from Cincinnati affiliated with social conservative groups and a counseling professor from Pennsylvania who said homosexuality is a choice.

I'll bet I know who that counseling professor was. I'll bet he's the same guy that wrote a 35-page "white paper" criticizing the new MCPS sex education curriculum, which is now posted prominently on the RecallMontgomerySchoolBoard.com web site. The newspaper doesn't say, but I'll just betcha. This guy is on a mission.

The language in this letter also leaves some Metro Council Members asking which group will be targeted next?

"It definitely shows that bigotry is alive and well in the city of Louisville," Weston said.

Well, folks, sorry to say, but it's not exactly unique to your area.

Every year I attend a conference or two on "evolutionary computation." This is where researchers write computer programs based on the principles of Darwinian evolution, and use them to solve really hard mathematical and engineering problems. The thing is, you can have a problem with lots and lots of variables, all interacting with one another, all nonlinear and hard to figure out, and you want to find some optimal combination of them, so you feed your data set to the computer program and it evolves the solution. This is mostly done using methods based on random mutation and sexual recombination, plus "selection," which is like "natural selection" except it's not natural in a computer program -- it's survival of the fittest.

One thing you come away with is an appreciation for the raw power of these simple processes. The problems these guys solve are analogous to the adaptations that organisms make to their environment, like the development of eyes, and camouflaged coloring, and preference for particular foods. Following a few simple steps in a computer program, these computer scientists can find solutions to problems that are way beyond what ordinary mathematical methods can do.

This has given me a special appreciation for evolution itself. It is one thing to look at the complexity of the world and say, this could not have happened by chance, but it is another when you understand the simple elegance and raw power of the evolutionary process itself. Life is constantly changing, organisms adapt over generations, and the complexity of the biological world is, indeed, within the scope of evolution. Randomness and all.

Across the US, there are today religious groups who oppose the teaching of evolution. They believe it is a challenge to their beliefs, and promote the teaching of some alternative "creationist" belief system instead of the scientifically supported one. These groups have had a lot of success around the country, getting school systems to present their fictional theories as if they were actual scientific contenders. Since most people are not evolutionary biologists and cannot expertly evaluate the literature, they take at face value the information that is given them. And when that information comes from religious proselytizers disguised as scientists, it is extremely difficult for the lay person to know what to think.

A website called unscrewing the inscrutable (motto: "I'm not angry, I just don't agree with you") has been posting a very interesting series of biographies of individuals who promote these creationist and "intelligent design" perspectives. The series is called "Know Your Intelligent Design Creationists."

Today's posting is a little different. They call it "Know Your (Honest) Intelligent Design Creationists," and it is about a real scientist who really believes in God, and who also agrees with biologists that life evolves according to Darwinian principles. This evangelical Christian, Glenn Morton, is a petroleum geophysicist with a belief system he calls theistic evolution.

This is the faith based position that the universe, the solar system, the earth, and the history of life up to and including the evolution of anatomically modern humans from earlier primates, were created by God using processes created by same which humans can understand and explain to some degree through careful scientific investigation. In this view there is no contradiction possible even in principle between believing in a Creator and any valid facts gleaned from studying that Creation. Technically this could be considered a form of Creationism as it assumes a Creator Deity which produced the universe and everything in it. But if so, Theistic Evolution is the only form of creationism which is 100% fully consistent with modern science.

Over the centuries there have been numerous collisions between religion and science. Copernicus, Galileo, and their contemporaries were labeled heretics for their findings, but over time the persuasiveness of scientific research overwhelmed the church, and we are now comfortable understanding that the earth moves around the sun, for instance. Darwin brought a shock to the modern world, proposing out loud that humans are simply another species in the animal kingdom, evolved as apes, subject to the laws of nature that affect all species.

Indirectly, Darwin's challenge underlies the controversy over the Montgomery County sex education curriculum. Is it better to think of human beings as physical organisms, with natural emotions they don't understand and can barely control, or to think of us as spiritual beings, created by God with a special blessing to win the struggle against the temptation of the flesh? It is a hard question, and of course your answer will determine not only how you feel about this specific curriculum, but how you manage your own life.

More directly, we should expect a religious challenge to our county's biology curriculum. My daughter tells me her biology teacher already says "some people believe" in front of any statement about evolution; in fact, it would be accurate enough to say "all biologists believe" in the validity of evolutionary theory.

The example of Glenn Morton shows us that it is possible to hold deep religious convictions and accept the findings of modern science. The two are not opposed, really. Because America is a country where religion is very important, it would be foolish to cast this debate as a war between religion and science. A "win" by the religious side leads us directly back to the Dark Ages. The more enlightened outcome is the development of Christian beliefs that are not challenged by evolution and by the observation that humans are part of nature. People need their faith, but it cannot, in the long run, be a faith that is contradicted by fact.

This study came out earlier this year but is right now getting a wave of attention around the Internet, especially on the right-leaning sites. A researcher at RAND did two studies that conclude that, well, as the RAND site puts it:

Exposure to TV Sex May Hasten the Initiation of Sexual Activity Among Teens Does Watching Sex on Television Influence Teens’ Sexual Activity?

A sample of 1,762 teenagers were interviewed about their sexual experiences and what TV they watched, and then a year later they were asked again. The paper is available in PDF form online: HERE

When you study inferential statistics, the very first rule you learn is: Correlation does not prove causation. This RAND study could have been written by a textbook author seeking an example to demonstrate the point.

This study, as it is described in this RAND report, simply does not show what the authors say it shows.

Let's say you have two measures on a sample. You see at Time 1 that some respondents watch sexier TV than others, and you grade them on that. Then, at Time 2 you find that some of the teenagers have had, uh, some degree of sexual activity, and you grade them on that. Raise your hand if you're surprised that the kids who watched sexier TV at Time 1 acquired more sexual experience by Time 2.

The full explanation about correlation and causation is that the two correlated variables (in this case, sex-on-TV and sexual behavior) might have the hypothesized causal relationship, or as is often said A might cause B (TV-watching might cause sex), they may have the opposite causal direction, e.g., desire for sexual experience causes interest in sexy TV, or there may be a third variable at work (C causes both A and B), for instance, there might be personality factors, environmental factors, even physiological factors that cause a kid to be curious about both sex on television and sex in real life.

But these authors entertain only one possibility: that TV watching causes kids to go out and have sex:

Reducing the amount of sexual talk and behavior on television, or the amount of time that adolescents are exposed to them, could appreciably delay the onset of sexual activity.

I can just imagine what the moralists will do when they get hold of this one. America, already the most prudish country in the Western world, is still too libertine for some people. Most people are just not in the position to evaluate this kind of research -- how would they know? Why wouldn't they take these morsels of jargony-sounding stuff as real science? When fake-science "proves" what people hope is true, it's very, very hard to argue against it.

Awhile back we wrote a little bit about the Alabama legislator who introduced the law to ban novels with gay characters from the libraries, and prevent any university from presenting a play with a gay character, and other stuff. He says he does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". The British online newspaper The Guardian has an interview with this character. There are some insights to gain from it.

I ask Allen what prompted this bill. Was one of his children exposed to something in school that he considered inappropriate? Did he see some flamingly gay book displayed prominently at the public library?

No, nothing like that. "It was election day," he explains. Last month, "14 states passed referendums defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman". Exit polls asked people what they considered the most important issue, and "moral values in this country" were "the top of the list".

"Traditional family values are under attack," Allen informs me. They've been under attack "for the last 40 years". The enemy, this time, is not al-Qaida. The axis of evil is "Hollywood, the music industry". We have an obligation to "save society from moral destruction". We have to prevent liberal libarians and trendy teachers from "re-engineering society's fabric in the minds of our children". We have to "protect Alabamians".

Huh? Alabamians??? Is that what they call themselves? Alabamians?

I ask him, again, for specific examples. Although heterosexuals are apparently an endangered species in Alabama, and although Allen is a local politician who lives a couple miles from my house, he can't produce any local examples. "Go on the internet," he recommends. "Some time when you've got a week to spare," he jokes, "just go on the internet. You'll see."

Actually, I go on the internet every day. But I'm obviously searching for different things. For Allen, the web is just the largest repository in history of urban myths. The internet is even better than the Bible when it comes to spreading unverifiable, unrefutable stories. And urban myths are political realities.

...

Since Allen couldn't give me a single example of the homosexual equivalent of 9/11, I gave him some. This autumn the University of Alabama theatre department put on an energetic revival of A Chorus Line, which includes, besides "tits and ass", a prominent gay solo number. Would Allen's bill prevent university students from performing A Chorus Line? It isn't that he's against the theatre, Allen explains. "But why can't you do something else?" (They have done other things, of course. But I didn't think it would be a good idea to mention their sold-out productions of Angels in America and The Rocky Horror Show.)

Cutting off funds to theatre departments that put on A Chorus Line or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof may look like censorship, and smell like censorship, but "it's not censorship", Allen hastens to explain. "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green. 'We have to protect people': President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned. Gary Taylor meets the politician in charge of making it happen

People like Allen think they're just making the world a better place for decent people. To them, this is not censorship, it's just common sense. Gay people are evil -- why would anybody need to see a play about them? It's not hate, it's just common sense.

There was a fascinating pair of letters to the editor in The Post this week, one from the current and past leaders of the Montgomery County School Health Council explaining why MCPS approved the curriculum, and one from a representative of an "ex-gay" group, complaining about it. Let's reprint both in full, for the record:

Tuesday, December 14, 2004; Page A26

From listening to the small but loud group of misinformed and fearful parents and other county residents, one might think that the Montgomery County Board of Education has spearheaded drastic and radical changes to its health education curriculum ["Writing on the Rightness of Sex-Ed Changes; Curriculum Prompts Hundreds to Protest or Voice Support," Metro, Dec. 5].

What the board did was actually twofold:

First, it ensured that health teachers will be able to provide a consistent message to students, through the use of a compelling video about the importance of abstinence, the dangers of unprotected sex and the proper use of condoms.

While these issues have been discussed in health classes since the 1980s, consistency and accuracy were lacking. Parents still have to opt in to this segment of the health class, and they have the right to bar their children from participating. This has not changed.

Second, the board approved a small pilot program, the results of which will be evaluated next summer, to teach students about the importance of tolerance and acceptance of sexual variation. The aim is to dispel stereotypes and bullying.

While we must respect the views of parents who do not want schools to provide this information to their children, those who oppose this curriculum for their children must respect the wishes of the majority of Montgomery County parents who favor it.

TRACY FOX

Co-Chair

HENRY LEE

Past co-chair

Montgomery County School Health Council

Rockville

Short, to the point, Fox and Lee's letter says what was done, says you don't have to agree with it, and notes that the majority of Montgomery County parents are okay with it.

The second letter was from the Executive Director of a group called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays. They don't like the curriculum:

Regarding the article about the controversy surrounding the new sex-education curriculum for Montgomery County public school students:

As part of the curriculum, the Montgomery County Board of Education voted for materials published by gay advocacy groups while censoring other points of view.

For example, one of the board-approved materials urges schools to refer students to select religious groups such as Lutherans Concerned, Dignity for Catholics, Rainbow Baptists and More Light Presbyterians. Advocating certain religions is discriminatory. Nor should teachers be instructed to refer students to religious groups, especially without parental permission. This "resource" has no place in a school setting.

Another board-approved resource discusses whether AIDS is God's judgment on homosexuals and whether homosexuality is a sin. Some of the answers are offensive to people of faith. "Religion has often been misused to justify hatred and oppression," says one.

The source of that information, Maricopa Community College of Avondale, Ariz., took the material off its Web site in response to our inquiry. Although we advised the board of the college's action, it approved this discredited "resource" anyway.

The board refuses to explain why it approved these and numerous other materials as school resources while rejecting materials with other points of view. It should hold a public hearing to explain its actions.

REGINA GRIGGS

Executive Director

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays

Fort Belvoir

This group, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, called PFOX, is an interesting one. The concept of an "ex-gay" person is very helpful to those that would argue that homosexuality is either a choice or a disease, and PFOX exists to tell you that gay people can change. But as the joke goes, there are lots more ex-ex-gays than there are ex-gays -- this bandwagon is famous for the number of people who have fallen off it.

I had never heard of PFOX before the December 4th meeting of the group that wants to recall the school board, but they mentioned them pretty often. You can visit the PFOX website to learn about their activities -- I found that a Google search on "Regina Griggs" turned up many interesting articles, as well. I won't spoil it for you: this is one busy lady.

If you're serious about understanding this issue, there are two other groups you should check out. First is Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays (PFLAG), a group of people who accept their gay family members and love them. This group claims a quarter of a million members and is sometimes referred to as the "rival" of PFOX.

Not surprisingly, there is some strong opposition to the promotion of "ex-gays." The interested reader is pointed toward the Ex-Gay Watch web site, and especially their ABOUT page as a starting point with an overview of this phenomenon. Scroll down, and on the righthand side of their site you will see topics listed. Many of them are very informative.

These are very confused times we live in. It seems that America is undergoing an interior debate about whether to follow the path to scientific knowledge or one that leads to enforced religious obligation. Along the way, the facts get slandered and distorted. Thin strands of evidence carry the weight of great, ponderous conclusions, while mountains of scientific data are brushed off as unimportant or misleading. People reach their conclusions first, then look for anything that will support them. And our schools are right in the middle of it.

We who maintain this site advocate that public school students should be taught empirically-supported facts, as well as they are understood by a consensus of the scientific community, and that topics of faith and values be taught somewhere besides the public schools. The question is not whether people should cherish their faith and live according to their beliefs, but whether religious beliefs should be allowed to overwhelm the teaching of facts in the public schools.