Ken Willard speaks
The disparaging remark about my "half hearted" defense of ID is interesting, because it has never been my objective to defend ID. Rather, I defend the right of the scientific view of ID to be heard, discussed, rather than censored from the public school classroom.To claim that this doesn't constitute a defense of ID is pretty pitiful. It isn't censorship to refuse to teach something that isn't considered valid, so the claim that we ought to be teaching ID is itself an endorsement of the nonsense claim that there is anything scientific about it.
If anything, public education should be about teaching students to value truth and to evaluate different viewpoints in a search of truth. That should be especially true in a science classroom. To censor the views of scientist who have a different viewpoint on any scientific point, simply because their position runs counter to the prevailing view, is more akin to indoctrination than education. Censorship of different scientific points of view should not take place in a public school classroom, in my view.
Is it censorship when we don't teach about the phlogiston model, or about the ether, or geocentrism? Science isn't fair to bad ideas. A theory has to prove itself to get through the door, and IDC has yet to do so.
At least we know where he stands.
Willard is opposed by folk artist M. T. Liggett (R), former state rep and Regent Jack Wempe (D), and educator and local school board member Donna Viola (R).