Inez Inserts Foot Into Mouth With Critical Analysis Comment......

There seems to be a definite path of the Darwin / ID debate. Let me shed what little light that I have on it. I just got out of the Chas. GOP meeting, accoerding to sources very close to the issue, ID is not being discussed as a curriculum issue, but rather that critical analysis of Darwin be added to the curriculum. The argument is that there are aspects of Darwin that are scientifically incorrect, and that needs to be included. It makes sense, because our kids are taught one thing from Darwin, then taught to forget aspects of it afterwards. It reminds me of phonetics and spelling, where you are taught to spell it like you think it sounds, the retaught correctly ( something I was NEVER a fan of). Where does Inez come in? Well, she is not a fan of questioning Darwin. Apparently she said that some courses need critical analysis, but that science is not one of them...... Holy Cannoli !! The whole field of science is to question , test and verify or dispute.... Imagine if we didn't question if the world was flat. This is why politicians should never be involved in Education, and probably why the position should be appointed. While I'm at it, go to the debates for this seat, and see how weak the field is for this job. A few of them are way over their heads. When Inez says things like this, it shows that her impartiality is out the window, and she's more interested in

pushing an agenda. Luckily , the EOC saw this and voted 10-2 to accept Critical Analysis of Darwin. It goes to the State Board of Ed. next.