Thursday, March 7, 2013

Ed Charle Answered Creationism Question Last Year

Board Member Ed Charle's campaign website from March 2012 is still up.   There's a page with an interview from before last year's election.   One question and answer was:
Do you think Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught in public school?
Evolution forms the backbone of so much of our scientific theory.    Creationism may be taught in religion classes.  As to the bill that requires the religious beliefs of evolutionary theorists be taught, that’s not a topic for a science class.
So this question is not unprecedented in the district.  No one accused the questioner of doing anything wrong by asking.   Can we move on?


  1. Dean,

    For someone so obviously well-educated, I am surprised you complete your comment above with a question befitting an innocent and well-mannered child, not a snake. You meant to say, "can we now slither away?", right?

    You certainly are not so naive as to think you can pass off the DELIVERY of the Barth letter in the same context as the question posed to Ed Charle at last year's candidates forum, are you?

    That's right, it was not the question, the topic, or the request for "legitimate information." It was the delivery. The classic powder keg with fuse lit. And once the explosion went off, the innocent, "Oh, did I do that? I'm so sorry."

    I must say it remains an effective political ploy. Cast doubt and create controversy to cloud an issue and stir up enough fog to keep a candidate on the defensive, and by golly you end up with the right T.E.A.M on the Board.

    But I don't have to explain this to you right? Your smug comment above shows you are satisfied you've accomplished your mission, and you are ready to move on (to the next target). Good luck to you and your loose affiliation with FORE. OH, that's right, you are not a card-carrying member or anything like that. You are just the mouthpiece.

  2. Hi Cal. Thanks for your comment. And for calling me well-educated. Mom is kvelling.

    I don't have a mission on this one, Cal. I have no idea whether the controversy helped or hurt Carl or any candidate. When the story broke I was working on a list of questions for all candidates (including on creationism, coincidentally), and I was hoping to get back to that before it's too late, which it already may be.

    I wouldn't have worded the letter like Bob did. But he did, we had our tempest, and I was hoping we were done. If we're not, so be it. I had nothing to do with Bob's initial letter, and have otherwise just posted his and other letters as they were emailed to me. I've given my opinion like I would on any topic that appears here.

    The only messages about moving on I've received were from your side of the debate. Even when I agree with you guys I get flack.

    As for me and FORE, I'm not denying that I like many of the people in FORE. I like you too, Cal. As for being their mouthpiece, not so. They have a site of their own and a bunch of clever people, so they're quite capable of speaking for themselves. My opinions are solely my own, and may or may not coincide with FORE's. For example, I've never heard anyone at FORE be skeptical about the new HVAC project or the reserve fund proposal.

    But presumably I agree with FORE that Kenny and Tom should be elected. Has FORE even endorsed Kenny, one of their own? I haven't seen it. They didn't endorse anyone last year, either. One reason I'm not in FORE is it would be frustrating to me to be part of an organization that seems less than bold at election time. Being on my own, I don't need any meeting before I post.

    You'll note my concerns with Carl focus mostly on his inexperience and lack of engagement until the last possible moment. I've consistently said I'm glad he's gotten involved, and I hope he stays involved even if he loses. I personally don't believe Carl has any intention of trying to screw around with the curriculum.

    - Dean

    P.S. ​The Charle question wasn't from the candidate's debate.

    1. You should just merge this blog with the Oy'Vey one and have a one stop place for community members to read multi-viewpoint pieces. Plus...our Facebook page has 331 likes!

    2. Oh, my bad Dean. So you mean the Ed Charle question wasn't even posed in a public forum? Only in a quiet, respectful (no possibility of staged or rehearsed) polite manner in a civil and mature community we could all be proud of? Oy'Vey!

      Sorry for going off like I did, but sometimes I think the dirty pool is over the top in a town where we value our intelligence and educated backgrounds. After all, I have a relative who was involved in a sleazy financial scandal, too. I've had a president who was doin' Monica Lewinsky in the oval office. I've got N. Korea threatening to Nuke us, astroids coming in, and Yellowstone ready to blow!

      All I want is to provide my kids a public education in a secure and nurturing environment. Then have enough money left over to send them to college for about 70K a year. That is unless I could get them in on a full-boat scholarship, I wouldn't care if it was the Jesuit School of Monks!

      We should start trying to work more collaboratively in this town, and be a little less vicious to those who have stepped up to serve our community.

      By the way, I don't think Carl would screw with our curriculum either, so we can say we at least agree on one thing!

      Best to you,


  3. I think Ed was asked the question when Dean interviewed him. (I asked Dean to ask Dr. Charle.)
    I will point out that Dr. Charle did not get huffy, he just answered the question honestly.

    Clearly and concisely.

  4. Hey, I wrote replies to Cal and Seth that blogger seems to eaten. They were very insightful, I can claim now that they're lost forever.

  5. Quick summaries of two long, lost comments:

    Seth: Thanks for the invite, but no thanks. I have an absurd number of sites and email accounts I check regularly and it would be nice to cut down. Maybe when I post about something from OyC'mon I could disable comments and refer people back there to comment.

    Cal: Bob B isn't running for anything, Carl P answered the questions, no one's vicious, Jesuits are excellent educators. Lewinsky? Really?

  6. It just popped in my head when I was thinking of sleazy scandals. Clinton is not off limits is he? I remember Ruth mentioning Reagan once when she was making a point.

    My point is none of us are perfect. The Lewinsky affair was a red-faced scandal for the White House. Did it make Clinton unqualified to be my commander-in-chief? No. I actually think Clinton was a good president. I have the capacity to understand the difference between issues relevant to public service and issues that are not. I understand personal vices, prejudices or attitudes are part of the makeup of any person (we all have our political opinions, religious (or non-religious) opinions, and opinions about what makes us patriotic). I also recognize we all have to be able to corral our attitudes and be civil and professional in our jobs and dealings with each other in the public arena. I trust you have that capacity as well. In fact, I'm quite certain you do.

    So let's beat a dead horse and parallel the Lewinsky scandal to the Kach tweets. His tweets were offensive. Granted. But I know and you know they were harmless ravings of a codger who grew up in the Archie Bunker "All in the Family" era, just like we did. Did they make him unqualified to be on the School Board? No. No more than it was for Bill Clinton. The Kach controversy was no different than the creationism controversy of today. A fabricated sideshow to effect the outcome of the election. That's just the way I feel about it.

    Now I have to go set my clocks ahead 1 hour.

    I wish you continued success with your blog.