I’M TIRED OF THESE MUTHA[redacted] SNAKES IN MY MUTHA[redacted] WHITE HOUSE PT. 2
In an even more mysterious turn of events, the mysterious Evolutionary Biology major has mysteriously disappeared from the Department of Education’s mysterious Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) list. The omission has been dubbed a clerical mistake, but has raised suspicion because it un-mysteriously means that the Federal Government will not be awarding any education grants to students who wish to specialize in theory of evolution.
Under the National SMART (Science and Math Access to Retain Talent) Grant Program, low-income students are awarded up to $4,000 in various iterations of math and science fields, as well as for “foreign languages deemed ‘critical’ to national security.” The SMART Grant uses the Ed Department’s CIP to catalog its own approved courses of study. So when major 26.1303 Evolutionary Biology disappears from the big list, it disappears from the little one too.
The notion that this was in fact a data entry mistake has been viewed with heavy skepticism by the scientific community:
Mr. Nassirian said people at the Education Department had described the omission as “a clerical mistake.” But it is “odd,” he said, because applying the subject codes “is a fairly mechanical task. It is not supposed to be the subject of any kind of deliberation.”
“I am not at all certain that the omission of this particular major is unintentional,” he added. “But I have to take them at their word.”
Scientists who knew about the omission also said they found the clerical explanation unconvincing, given the furor over challenges by the religious right to the teaching of evolution in public schools. “It’s just awfully coincidental,” said Steven W. Rissing, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio State University.
The Government responded: “The theory of Intentional Omission is merely a theory, and is only one of many possibilities for explaining the disappearance of Evolutionary Biology from our list. It is important that we respect all belief systems in reaching any conclusions in this matter, without giving priority to incomplete, inconclusive reasoning.”*
So by Occam’s Theory of Parsimony, we should follow the line of logic involving the lowest number of assumptions. Which is the most likely conclusion?
1) A heavily debated, highly contentious subject on a vast list of subjects is accidentally eliminated by a fluke error.
2) A heavily debated, highly contentious subject on a vast list of subjects is deliberately eliminated by an administrator who has both access and enmity towards that subject.
3) God has determined to prove the veracity of Creationism through the wrath of clerical error, removing the option of federal funding for the study of evolution.
It’s science.
*I did not actually read of any formal governmental response beyond the one in the Times story linked above. I can only assume that this approximates the spirit with which the current government addressed this issue.
Under the National SMART (Science and Math Access to Retain Talent) Grant Program, low-income students are awarded up to $4,000 in various iterations of math and science fields, as well as for “foreign languages deemed ‘critical’ to national security.” The SMART Grant uses the Ed Department’s CIP to catalog its own approved courses of study. So when major 26.1303 Evolutionary Biology disappears from the big list, it disappears from the little one too.The notion that this was in fact a data entry mistake has been viewed with heavy skepticism by the scientific community:
Mr. Nassirian said people at the Education Department had described the omission as “a clerical mistake.” But it is “odd,” he said, because applying the subject codes “is a fairly mechanical task. It is not supposed to be the subject of any kind of deliberation.”
“I am not at all certain that the omission of this particular major is unintentional,” he added. “But I have to take them at their word.”
Scientists who knew about the omission also said they found the clerical explanation unconvincing, given the furor over challenges by the religious right to the teaching of evolution in public schools. “It’s just awfully coincidental,” said Steven W. Rissing, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio State University.
The Government responded: “The theory of Intentional Omission is merely a theory, and is only one of many possibilities for explaining the disappearance of Evolutionary Biology from our list. It is important that we respect all belief systems in reaching any conclusions in this matter, without giving priority to incomplete, inconclusive reasoning.”*So by Occam’s Theory of Parsimony, we should follow the line of logic involving the lowest number of assumptions. Which is the most likely conclusion?
1) A heavily debated, highly contentious subject on a vast list of subjects is accidentally eliminated by a fluke error.
2) A heavily debated, highly contentious subject on a vast list of subjects is deliberately eliminated by an administrator who has both access and enmity towards that subject.
3) God has determined to prove the veracity of Creationism through the wrath of clerical error, removing the option of federal funding for the study of evolution.
It’s science.
*I did not actually read of any formal governmental response beyond the one in the Times story linked above. I can only assume that this approximates the spirit with which the current government addressed this issue.
posted by Mike | 9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home