Mike! McGavick comes out in support of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
The Stranger caught Mike! ahem speaking his mind in Redmond this week. It seems someone wanted to know his stance on teaching intelligent design (why do people capitalize that nonsense? I guess using the logic that leads to capitalizing id, I could write that I'd like to put some Orange Marmalade on my Toast.), and despite his stance against speaking on state issues, he decided to weigh in (repeatedly claiming he doesn't know why people weigh in on the issue...).
Much to my surprise, he came out in support of teaching Flying Spaghetti Monsterism in our science classrooms!
What I want taught is how science regards it. That's what I would want taught, is what is the full measure of support and opposition to these ideas, because I want students to have broad minds. I want students to have available to them all the different theories that could be. I want them to be fully informed about different views or comparative support or lack of support.Unfortunately, Mike! doesn't seem to understand how a science curriculum works. From the Superintendent of Instruction's website:
1. Systems: The student knows and applies scientific concepts and principles to understand the properties, structures and changes in physical, earth/space, and living systems.Oh, my. That's a lot of words. What could it mean? I certainly don't see anything in there about learning "how science regards" things, or controversy, or support or opposition. Instead, I see teachable things called systems. Understanding of how thing A works with thing B in the context of thing C using scientific tools that id specifically avoids such as: testing, critical thinking, actual physical evidence, etc. I also see the words "nature" and "natural" coming up quite a bit - what I don't see are the words "mystical", "unseen", "creator", "purposive" or "supernatural".
Mike! makes the same mistake that all id proponents make - assuming that evolution claims to provide us with an origin of life. Rather, science and the study of evolution strive to show how life works. You know, in nature. (btw, just took a break to read several articles from Discovery Institute's website about id. First, I feel yucky. Second, I've never heard of a scientific "theory" that would write such dense articles, yet never actually reach a conclusion or openly state its point. These papers do nothing but list a series of actual testable scientific theories and opine about why they might not be the right answer. At least one of them had the balls to come out and suggest that perhaps the origin of life might not be natural in the author's opinion, but mostly they go to great lengths to conceal what they're trying to get across. They seem to exist only to try and cast a blanket of doubt around actual science.) You know, by observing things as they happen and analyzing what actually happens.
sigh Well, hopefully Mike! wouldn't try to undermine the state's goal of providing these things:
If you're curious about what our children are actually required to learn and be able to demonstrate in the sciences, you can read it here (pdf; adobe required).
For what it's worth, Mike!, I do hope He touches you on the campaign trail with His Noodly Appendage.