Essay talk:Letter to Florida School Boards

Great and very well-written letter. Unfortunately, though, if things work the same way in Florida as they do here, chances are they'll stop reading after "I have no connection with Florida", which they'll read as "I have no influence over who gets to sit on the board or their decisions." Two ways I can see to get anywhere with this is to either 1) try to get in touch with someone actually in Florida - there are probably groups of concerned parents and such - and offer to let them use your material; or 2) join up with other legal students around the country and make it into a mailing campaign or something like that. Otherwise, I'm afraid you'll just be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, and we all know what happened to that guy. ;-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 19:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Eggsellent. Susan^Purrrrrrr 19:36, 18 January 2008 (EST)

There was some Pandas Thumb post, where a school board member leaked the reason for voting against it: "they've made us a laughingstock," she said, referring to people writing letters in. Cross fingers!-αmεσ (soldier) 19:45, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Wonderful letter, Ames. I greatly enjoyed reading it. The only criticism I have is that, the last section (about previous court decisions on the matter) reads ever so vaguely as threatening. Perhaps, if you could think of a genius way to change that, it would improve the letter. And there's a superfluous "and" in there - I'm going to take it out, but please revert if you wish. --Hoji^die! 20:47, 18 January 2008 (EST)

One thing I sometimes put in similar letter is something like, "I am a Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, and given the number of applicants I have to look over for positions in residency programs, I am unlikely to consider someone from a district that does not accept basic tenets of biology."--PalMD^{-Did that sound a little harsh?} 20:48, 18 January 2008 (EST)

You should think about letting everyone here with any kind of authority - Pal being one of them - make a minuscule edit, or add their own thoughts, and then have it signed by a multitude of people. Or, if you want to (rightfully) keep the credit, let those authorized people co-sign as concurring with your point of view. --Hoji^die! 20:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Hoji, how did you make them keep you at CP so long? Do you have dirt on them???--PalMD^{-Did that sound a little harsh?} 20:51, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Not really - unless you consider that TK's traitorious rants to be "dirt". I want to think that it's because I came in with a good attitude, helped out, and was well-liked. In reality, I think it was because I was useful for grunt work, helped Andy beautify the site, and was a very good, pocket-sized "token liberal". But, hey, most CPers are stupid little brainwashed shits, so it's not like they were going to be honest and keep me around for long. --Hoji^die! 20:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Comments from iPhone

forgive typos. I think we should all send a copy, with different cosigner comments. If you all would want to send it yourself I would so that too; I think volume of letters is a good idea.-αmεσ (soldier)<

Could you remove the politics?

I'm not so convinced that mentioning the Republican party at all is a good idea. The teaching of sound, established science in schools is not a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be. By making it so, you automatically alienate a large percentage of school board members. I think you'd make a more persuasive argument if you left out the political leanings of creationists from the letter.

Instead I'd concentrate on the actual science itself. These people probably aren't scientists themselves, and may not be swayed by technical arguments. Instead, I'd encourage them to ask a few simple, practical questions of the theory they're being asked to support. "What does the latest research in to the nature and character of the designer tell us?" "When does the latest research suggest the act of design took place?" "Where does research suggest the designer resides now?" all these questions are common sense questions that one would expect any serious "intelligent design" theorist community to be asking themselves, but that "scientists" who support the design hypothesis either aren't willing or able to answer.

Appeal to their decency and common sense. How can we possibly teach a "theory" to kids that has so little serious research behind it, and so many fundamental questions without even a provisional answer? While you should probably make it obvious that all serious scientists have grave doubts about the truth value of "intelligent design", you can also persuade the religious minded to vote against the teaching of it simply because there is not enough meat to teach. Or at least, I hope that's the case.

Hope this helps. --Jeēv☭s^{Your signature gave me epilepsy...} 21:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Jeeves, I disagree with you regarding the inclusion of technical arguments. While it is extremely useful to utilize simpler methods for the sake of the layman understanding, the technical arguments should definitely be included, as they are factual statements based on solid evidence. While the simpler methods may very well be the "butter" of the argument, the technical arguments are most certainly the "bread". Perhaps it would be beneficial to use the technical arguments as a segue into a more understandable conveyance of the ideas. I would love to help in this regard, Ames. And Jeeves, I would urge you to help as well, as it is clear that you have many good ideas for this letter.

Now I feel like I'm taking too much ownership - that's not good. Goodnight (rat)wikians! --Hoji^die! 02:48, 19 January 2008 (EST)

World opinion

Would it do any good to note that the rest (i.e. non - US) of the world would be giggling unmercifully a la monkey trial? Cause we would ... honestly ... really ... I mean ... Pulls self together & signs: Susan^Purrrrrrr 03:08, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Not to mention all those Muslim fundamentalists who will see that Christian fundamentalists are just as mad. Susan^Purrrrrrr 03:08, 19 January 2008 (EST)

introduction

In the introduction you state: For the reasons below, I urge you not to teach intelligent design as science, for the reasons that it (1) is unscientific, (2) undermines a student’s understanding of the scientific method, (3) is unlawful, and (4) is unnecessarily divisive. You then then sort of talk about three issues in the following paragraphs. Wouldn't it be better to either have four following paragraphs which explicitly develop these four points; or change your introduction so that reflects your paragraph headings?--Bob^{bing up} 05:31, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Ridonkulously good points

Thanks for all the commentary guys! I think what I'm going to do is (1) cut the partisan references (Thanks Jeeves), cut the threatening tone (thanks Hoji), reword the introduction (thanks Bob), but I don't think I'll add in a bunch more on science.

As for people re-using it, I think that'd be absolutely awesome; since I think the volume of letters the people get will matter more than the number of signatures on a single letter, what I suggest is that anyone who wants to use this letter, please feel free to copy & edit to your heart's content and send it in with your name on it. As long as I can help people to bombard Florida with letters, I am very very happy. So... released to the mob, edit & reuse without attribution freely!-αmεσ (soldier) 12:52, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Minor grammar ...

Unlike Intelligent Design, the Study of Evolution FollowS Scientific Principles Sterile^xx 12:46, 20 January 2008 (EST)

The creationist community expresses itself in its usual intelligent and elegant manner

it's none of your business so stay out of it fucktard ^{— Unsigned, by: 79.142.76.3 / talk / contribs}

Hooray for intelligent criticisms!!! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 00:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And timely, too! ATP (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Now now, I'm sure it took them this whole three years to come up with a criticism that elegant. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 00:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)