As with the other few times I’ve felt compelled to rail on about something political in nature, I’ll preface this article by saying I take very little interest in political topics and generally have very little to say about them. As such, I am no expert. Still, today, I have a thought…
Most of you have heard by now that the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday, in a 6-4 vote that suggests doubt on the theory of evolution and is seen as a victory for “Intelligent Design.” My personal opinion on the matter, while not particular relevant to this article, is that Intelligent Design is not science and has no place in the science classroom. Intelligent Design (ID) may or may not be a valid theory about the creation of this earth, but either way — it’s core tenants fly in the face of the scientific process.
But this article isn’t about the evolution vs. ID debate. I want to talk about the election process itself…
After the vote came down, I got curious as to which Board members voted for the new standards and which voted against them. Here’s what I found:
Pro-evoloution * Janet Waugh, Kansas City (District 1) * Sue Gamble, Shawnee (District 2) * Carol Rupe, Wichita (District 8) * Bill Wagnon, Topeka (District 4)
Pro-Intelligent Design * Kathy Martin, Clay Center (District 6) * Kenneth Willard, Hutchinson (District 7) * John W. Bacon, Olathe (District 3) * Iris Van Meter, Thayer (District 9) * Connie Morris, St. Francis (District 5) * Steve Abrams, Arkansas City (District 10)
Here’s what you may not know about my home state of Kansas: Northeastern Kansas is primarily urban and suburban. There are a number of larger cities in this region (Kansas City, Topeka, Lawrence, Overland Park, Olathe, etc.) In the rest of the state, we find almost exclusively small towns and farming communities — Wichita is really the only notable exception. Northeastern Kansans are, by and large, upper-middle class moderates. Northeastern Kansas is well-populated and holds a large percentage of the state’s overall population. Western Kansans are, for the most part, successful farmers and small town conservatives. Western Kansas is much, much more spread out, with far fewer people per square mile. Southeast Kansas (including Wichita), falls somewhere in between the two — the people here are more conservative and have more of a “small town lifestyle” than in Northeast Kansas, but less so than in Western Kansas. Of course, I’m making very broad generalizations, but I think everyone will agree they’re mostly accurate.
Now, consider this map of district boundaries:
A quick look at the Board Member’s votes relative to the map shows a clear separation between the two sides of the state. All four pro-evoloution votes are from Northeastern Kansas (KC, Wichita, Topeka, and Shawnee). Five of the six pro-ID votes are from the more rural parts of the state (Clay Center, Hutchinson, St. Francis, Arkansas City, and Thayer). The lone exception, embarrassingly, is the vote from my hometown of Olathe, which is a Kansas City suburb that voted pro-ID.
Finally getting to the point: what we have here is a classic case of Red vs. Blue. We’re dealing with a situation in which the state is divided into 10 districts, giving the less-populated areas of Western and Southeastern Kansas six of them, compared to Northeast Kansas’ four (yes, I realize in this particular vote one of the Northeast Kansas votes went pro-ID, and the Wichita vote went pro-evoloution. Still, my point remains.). This is precisely the same problem we see in presidential elections, where the popular vote doesn’t matter — only winning the electoral college votes does.
So it took me a while to get there, but what I’m trying to say is that this Kansas school board election may be just another example of why this “electoral college” type of system doesn’t work. It’s not accurate and it’s easy to manipulate (which is probably why the politicians have kept it around so long). With the technology we have today, there’s no reason we can’t simply count individual votes on these matters instead of the votes of ten school board members, which are only supposed to be representative of their segment of the population.
The sort of demographic disparity we see here is not exclusive to Kansas. Texas comes to mind as a state which has some very progressive elements (particularly around Houston and Austin, I believe), that are often overshadowed by a large conservative contingent. New York and California are other states that probably have similar issues. In reality, every state has this issue to some degree.
Would a popular vote have changed the Kansas School Board decision? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not. But I do know this: if they’d let me have a vote in this matter by instituting a popular vote, then I’d not very well be able to complain about the School Board’s decision, would I? Seems like a win-win to me. I get my say and they don’t have to listen to me bitch.
Now, to those of you far more knowledgeable about this stuff than me: am I making any sense here? Discuss.
001 // Ryan Berg // 11.10.2005 // 5:27 PM
Hopefully science teachers here in Lawrence include the Flying Spaghetti Monster in their new, “scientific” instruction.
002 // Brian Ford // 11.10.2005 // 5:54 PM
The good news is that most of the board members who voted to change the standards are up for re-election in the next cycle.
Dover, PA is going through the same thing right now (even as far as going to trial over the issue) and just had 8 of their conservative members ousted in favor of more moderate pro-science liberals. I suspect that when we’re given the chance, many of those on the school board aren’t going to be reelected here, either.
The fact of the matter is that sort of vote should be able to be overturned once it becomes clear that it’s wrong.
003 // Jennifer // 11.11.2005 // 6:01 AM
Did you vote on this issue?
004 // Jeff Croft // 11.11.2005 // 9:12 AM
Nope. And my point of the article is sort of that my vote wouldn’t have been heard anyway, just like it isn’t heard when I vote for president.
The school board voted, not the people.
005 // Brian Ford // 11.11.2005 // 10:01 AM
I’m not sure I understand Jennifer’s question.
There wasn’t really an opportunity to vote for or against the new Standards. (Unless you count voting in those who on the Board of Education.
Many voted with their voices in an attempt to make the school board see reason. An advisory panel voted with their advice (advising against the new standards) and the board completely ignored that advice. (They also ignored our voices.)
One can only hope that they hear our voices when they are voted out onto their asses in the next election. I cannot wait to be told by Pat Robertson that I’ve voted God out of Kansas and that the next time their is a natural disaster I should not bother to pray for my salvation.
006 // Thomas M. // 11.11.2005 // 10:19 AM
Considering we live in a Republic and not a Democratic society, and that there have been no less than seven hundred Congressional attempts to reform, re-legislate, or abolish the Electoral College system in the nations history [1], the electoral will remain in effect … Unless you want to vote on every single issue that would otherwise come before the state legislature, and be educated on each issue, I’d suggest getting involved in a Politcal Action Committee that has the ear of your elected Representative.
People can bemone the the fact that our votes are note counted individually, but if we lived in a true democracy, where each persons vote counted, we still might not solve the problem - who’s to say that people voting would be educated on the subject … Maybe educated as far as the television, their church, their co-workers, or the internet informs them … That’s why Hamilton wanted “a small number of persons, selected by their fellow citizens from the general mass, [who] would be most likey to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”[2] … I suppose, now a days, Burr wouldn’t be the only one who would want to shoot Hamilton.
Is there a simple solution? Is there ever and easy solution to a delimma? … I majored in Political Science, at KU, and saw an Iron Triangle system manipulated by PACs and each level of government often run by an “old boys” school where independents are often silenced. Things will have to get a LOT worse before any change is made. But will that change be to a Democratic form of government where one person has one vote and that’s what’s counted?
Oh .. and as for the Pro-Evo/Pro-ID debate … Both are theories … Both are religions … Now, I’m no scientists, but has the Big Bang theory, or a world being created in seven days, been replicated in a lab setting? To me, it’s amazing that scientists can say the “unbending” laws of thermodynamics [3] can both prove and disprove either theory (some scientists say Thermodynamics would prevent Evolution, while some say it proves Evolution can occur - BRILLANT!). Take Entropy [4]: everything moves from being Ordered to Unordered, yet Evolution states that things came from and unordered mess and were made Ordered … (I can see this little cartoon of atoms (and wondering if they were created or evolved) bouncing around and then suddenly BANG they form a universe of planets and suns - Damn that’s funny!). Yes, I can see people believing in Evolution as being a MUCH more trustworthy voter than those in believing in creation through ID. At some point in time, in each of our lives, we’ll have to make some choice as to what we believe (what we’ll place our trust and faith in - in science, religion, or ourselves). At some point in time, we’ll know if we made the right choice (although, if you believe this life is it (no after-life, heaven, purgatory, hell, re-incarnation, etc.) , and there’s nothing else, you’ll be the only one who doesn’t. ;-)
Geez, Jeff, you really hit a nerve with me on this one. Stop it!
Besides, you should know the only thing that matters to a KU grad is that the losing streak continues for K-State in basketball. ;-)
007 // Jeff Croft // 11.11.2005 // 10:31 AM
Thomas…
I’m not smart enough on these issues to respond intelligently to most of what you said, so I’ll just make two points:
Thanks for your comments. They’re obviously well thought-out and well-researched. And thanks for including the links, too!
I’m a KU fan who just happens to have gotten a job at K-State. I’ve been a KU basketball fan all my life, so I too, hope the KU beating K-State streak continues. :)
008 // Luke Lanchester // 11.11.2005 // 10:35 AM
My science teacher laughed when I told him about ID (I live in the UK). As for the voting, it should definetly be more open and return the general consensus.
009 // Thomas M. // 11.11.2005 // 10:41 AM
Jeff …
Political science taught me one good thing .. know your sources and be prepared to share them ;) .. and if you can’t, bullsh*t your way through the rest and make it smell sweet.
Good man! … Personally, I’d love to move back to the area just to see Big XII action again. I’m sick of the Big (can’t count to 11) 10 - they must be the ones in charge of our Electoral process.
010 // Brian Ford // 11.11.2005 // 11:06 AM
I’m certainly not schooled enough in Politics to argue with Thomas about that aspect of his post, but I think he misses the boat on the Evolution vs. I.D. issue.
I.D. is not a scientific theory, plain and simple. He lists a few things that are indeed confusing about science, but then… most of us aren’t educated Scientists. He doesn’t mention that an overwhelming majority of Scientists and EVERY major Scientific Organization worth noting supports the Theory of Evolution. It’s their job to understand those things that we find to be difficult to understand. Rest assured scientists are very skeptical of new science, and wouldn’t allow something to pass muster if it didn’t. The first thing they do when someone proposes a new idea is to scrutinize the hell out of it in order to find out if it passes the test. The foundations of Evolution have passed through this scrutiny for years unscathed.
Religion isn’t about scrutiny. I.D. isn’t about scrutiny. ID doesn’t even offer an alternative to Evolution. When you think about it, ID’s only stance is that Evolution is wrong. They are in fact like a parent who when asked “why?” answers “….because I said so.”
Still, this isn’t even the argument in the first place. I.D. is not Science, and therefore should not be included in a Science class. Evolution is Science and doesn’t have to answer to those who question it without suggesting viable alternatives. (And whose questions have been proven baseless.)
The argument that “all of this will be sorted out” at the end of our lives doesn’t make it okay to replace Science with Religion now. If we continue to do so, we’re sacrificing a great deal of information that can be used to better our lives. (Evolutionary studies have been utilized in many ways that have been very helpful to us.)
Many people have lived their lives perfectly well without making a choice between Science and Religion. That’s like making a choice between Dinner and Dessert. You can have both separately, but it would taste pretty shitty if you mixed them together.
011 // Peter Holloway // 11.11.2005 // 11:13 AM
I appreciate Thomas’ comments. Neither position is scientifically provable. From the perspective of a Christian understanding of the creation of the earth I have found Answers in Genesis to be a great site. Check out this page in particular.
012 // Jeff Croft // 11.11.2005 // 11:25 AM
Peter-
Even if neither theory is absolutely provable, certainly you accept that there is hordes of scientific evidence from the past two hundred years supporting evolution, which there is very little scientific evidence to support ID.
I suppose it’s fair to say that either theory requires a leap of faith to believe it, but certainly everyone can agree that the leap is much, much, much larger for ID than evolution.
Bottom line: the main premise of ID — that this world is too complex to be explainable by natural elements and therefore must be the work of a higher power — flies squarely in the face of the scientific process. The scientific process seeks truth and doesn’t just “give up” and say, “well, I couldn’t figure it out, so it must have been God.” Even if he/she truley believed that God had a hand in a particular event, he/she would still continue seeking truth and explanation if he/she was a scientist. He/she would not simply be content with chalking one up for the higher power. That’s not science. That’s faith.
Not that there’s anything wrong with faith — it’s just not science.
I don’t believe that science and faith must be at odds with one another. I believe the two can co-exist peacefully. However, faith should not be taught in science classrooms. It should be taught in churches, families, seminaries, theology classes, etc.
Even if you believe in ID, you must be able to recognize that it’s not science — right?
013 // Jennifer // 11.11.2005 // 11:35 AM
Jeff- My point with the question was have you ever voted for anything? We all have a voice that needs to be heard and until people start forcing people to listen, nothing is going to change. I think Thomas makes a good point- we have to get involved in the process on some level. Not all of us can (or want) to know everything about ever issue, but I think we need to have some basic understanding and involvement in the issues that concern our local governments. This is the second political posting I’ve read of yours recently- I hope you continue to be moved by the political system- that’s the only think that will motivate you (and other young adults) to get involved.
as a Christian and a geneticist my views on this specific debate are a little complicated and may distract my point, which is: GET INVOLVED!!
014 // Jennifer // 11.11.2005 // 11:39 AM
On last point- why do ID and evolution have to be mutually exclusive?
015 // Jeff Croft // 11.11.2005 // 11:39 AM
Jennifer-
No, I’ve never voted. i’ve never voted because I’ve never felt there was an issue, or a candidate, I felt strongly enough about to make it worth my time — especially in this perpetually red state. However, I think that’s going to change pretty soon. I think I’ll be voting for the first time in the near future.
016 // Jeff Croft // 11.11.2005 // 11:44 AM
Jennifer-
I don’t think ID and science do have to be mutually exclusive (although some people will disagree with me on that one). Like I said in my last post, I believe science and faith can co-exist peacefully in the mind of any individually. However, that doesn’t change the fact that evolution is science and ID is faith — which means ID has no place in a science classroom.
I’ve never said anywhere that I think ID is a load of bull. I don’t know enough about it to say that. My only point is that it’s not science.
017 // Thomas M. // 11.11.2005 // 11:58 AM
I would agree that science and faith do not need to be at odds, but I’d be careful on how you throw “science” around - and saying one side is or is not “science” or “scientific” … According to Merriam-Webster [1], Science is the state of knowing - or knowledge as distinguished from ingnorance or misunderstanding … Both Evolutionism and Creationism can base their arguments through a knowledge gained through testing (although both sides may not agree in their findings) Second, Science is defined as a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study (one can study the science of theology or physics or chemistry). The 2b. definition (something that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge) can also be applied to those who study evolutionism or creationism. Third, it’s defined as a knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws specifically obtained and tested through scientific method. Scientists on boths sides of the debate must test their ideas through scientific methods to prove their points … or disprove the other. Now, despite the testing, we still have our human understanding to interpret what we’ve found - which can be limited and finite at best. Finally, Science is defined as a system or method of reconciling practical ends with scientific laws … Now, as I said earlier, scientific laws are used to prove and disprove both sides.
Does one belief have a true advantage over the other? Does creationism have a water tight argument against Carbon Dating? Does evolutionism have a water tight argument on how the eye evolved? Well, each person has their own opinion to those answer. How you were raised, what type of education you have, and personal experiences could all have an impact on your answer - and thus creating a short leap to either side.
But seriously both sides should have an -ism after their name. And, in my opinion, neither has an overwhelming slew of concrete evidence.
Okay .. I really need to get some work done today, so start talking about the evils/praises of developing and application in VB versus C+ or something like that.
018 // Thomas M. // 11.11.2005 // 12:13 PM
Bah .. Jeff, just disregard (or delete this and the comment) above … I totally went off subject. Sorry
019 // Jeff Croft // 11.11.2005 // 12:15 PM
Thomas-
I’m not sure I’m a fan of M-W’s definition of science, then. To me, science is the pursuit of knowledge. The big problem I have with ID as science is that it seems to give up that pursuit and just decide that the world is unexplainable. It’s fine if an individual chooses that they don’t need to understand something fully in order to believe it — but it’s abandoning the scientific process and choosing to “have faith,” instead. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this — it’s just not science, to me.
I’d say both sides do have an -ism, only for evolution they chose to use the word Theory instead of the -ism suffix. It’s really the same thing. Both concepts have their holes, but the Theory of Evolution has stood up to the scrutiny of scientists for years and years, whereas ID has not. Perhaps someday it will have. We’ll see.
As for VB versus C+…once again you’re proving to be out of my league, so I don’t think I can really start that discussion with you. :)
020 // Jeff Croft // 11.11.2005 // 12:17 PM
Thomas-
I don’t see the comment as off-topic or in need of deletion, but if you don’t want it here, I’ll certainly delete it. Let me know if you want me to remove it. otherwise, I think it’s worth keeping. :)
021 // Brian Ford // 11.11.2005 // 12:57 PM
Both concepts have their holes, but the Theory of Evolution has stood up to the scrutiny of scientists for years and years, whereas ID has not. Perhaps someday it will have. We’ll see.
Except, how can it? Proponents of ID have been told time and again that they have got to come up with a testable “something” in order for ID to be taken seriously as Science. They’ve yet to do that.
Thus far I.D. essentially equals: “Evolution isn’t the answer.”
Behe, to be fair, came up with irreducible complexity, and it so far has failed when scrutinized. (Also, Irreducible Complexity isn’t the same as I.D… If it had passed with flying colors, it wouldn’t necessarily point to an Intelligent Designer.)
Thomas’ comment about M-W’s definition of science is misleading in the same way that ID proponents use the phrase “theory.”
For something to be held as scientific by the scientific community, they have to have a way to test it and put it through peer review. The Scientific Method and all that jazz. I.D. doesn’t meet this requirement, and that’s what we mean when we say it isn’t Science.
Thomas… how do you propose that one test for creationism? Or, lets substitute ID for creationism.
why do ID and evolution have to be mutually exclusive?
Because those who support intelligent design (and the definition of Intelligent Design) put it at odds with Evolution. If you had said “Why do Creationism and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive?” I”d say, “they don’t.” -Most- religious organizations would say they don’t. Creationists… bless their heart, don’t try and pretend it’s science, at least. I.D. is the brain-child of a fundamentalists. It’s creationism in Science clothing. (It’s shouldn’t shock you to find out that quite a few ID proponents also believe the earth to be only thousands of years old. Including some on our board of education.) I.D. isn’t compatible with Evolution because it’s -whole point- is to undermine the idea of Evolution in order to sneak divine power into science.
Again, ask yourself why NO OTHER scientific theory is under attack here.
022 // Brian Ford // 11.11.2005 // 1:05 PM
And, in my opinion, neither has an overwhelming slew of concrete evidence.
Evolution is supported by tons of evidence. Even a cursory google search will find you source after source discussing the facts that Evolution rests upon.
There is “no” evidence for a Intelligent Designer. Even -if- the claims of holes in Evolution are accurate, that doesn’t provide evidence for I.D… it merely provides questions about Evolution.
I’m certainly no Scientist. But I just don’t get why so many people suddenly think that it’s “faith” to trust the work of years and years of Scientists and numerous Scientific Organizations. (Indeed, every one that matters.) To give an analogy, when someone goes to the doctor… if they’re diagnosed with a heart defect… do you question that? And, if you DO question that, you get a “second” opinion. Why? Because they’re doctors, and they know more than you. Why then is it difficult to accept the research of millions of Scientists who all agree that Evolution is not controversial?
023 // Jeff Croft // 11.11.2005 // 1:19 PM
Because those who support intelligent design (and the definition of Intelligent Design) put it at odds with Evolution. If you had said ‘Why do Creationism and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive?’ I’d say, ‘they don’t.’ -Most- religious organizations would say they don’t. Creationists’¦ bless their heart, don’t try and pretend it’s science, at least. I.D. is the brain-child of a fundamentalists. It’s creationism in Science clothing. (It’s shouldn’t shock you to find out that quite a few ID proponents also believe the earth to be only thousands of years old. Including some on our board of education.) I.D. isn’t compatible with Evolution because it’s -whole point- is to undermine the idea of Evolution in order to sneak divine power into science.
Again, ask yourself why NO OTHER scientific theory is under attack here.
Brian, this might be the most intelligent thing you’ve ever said on this site. :)
Seriously, you’re exactly right. Science and faith don’t have to be at odds, but the ID community has intentionally marketed their “solution” as an alternative and a competitor to evolution.
To give an analogy, when someone goes to the doctor’¦ if they’re diagnosed with a heart defect’¦ do you question that? And, if you DO question that, you get a ‘second’ opinion. Why? Because they’re doctors, and they know more than you. Why then is it difficult to accept the research of millions of Scientists who all agree that Evolution is not controversial?
Again, very well said. Another question we have to always be asking is “what is the agenda of the people trying to push ideas on me?”
It would generally seem to me that thousands of scientists over hundreds of years have had no political agenda — only a scientific one. They’ve studied evolution inside and out for one reason: to explain where we came from. Sure, there have been exception, but by and large, I feel I can trust the science community.
I’m not sure sure I can trust a handful of religious leaders who only recently packaged up creationism in a veil of science, called it Intelligent Design and then tried to manipulate it into the school systems.
In other words — the ID people appear to have a political agenda, whereas the science community, by and large, does not seem to have one — to me. You mileage may vary, of course.
024 // Brian Ford // 11.11.2005 // 1:31 PM
I might substitute the word “personal” for “political” but Jeff is right here. The fact that their personal values have become a political topic is merely unfortunate.
025 // Brian Ford // 11.11.2005 // 1:32 PM
I also apologize for driving this off topic, but I know so little about how the politics “work” and feel I have little to add to that discussion. It’s the results of politics that interest me.
026 // Jennifer // 11.11.2005 // 5:45 PM
Two quick comments/ questions 1) Brain, thank you for correcting me- I should have said ‘why do creationism and evolution have to me mutually exclusive’. With all my studies of genetics and biology I can not deny evolution- in my opinion it’s obvious that is exists. (And of course, I think it’s crazy that KS won’t teach it). However, I have not found any ‘scientific source’ that can explain where the very first molecule came from. I personally turn to religion for this answer- so for me a combination of creationism and evolution exists. Because there are so many beliefs (religious and scientific) in this world, the schools will never be able to teach everything the way ‘we’ want it taught. No matter how the school boards rule, there are always going to be supplements that will need to be taught at home. I think it’s important that we teach our kids how to think critically. I also plan to teach my kids about faith and religion (I know many of you think this goes against critical thinking, but I think you’re wrong).
2) “I know so little about how the politics ‘work’ and feel I have little to add to that discussion. It’s the results of politics that interest me.”- For this very same reason, I’m taking an active role in educating myself about the political process. The results impact all aspects of our lives and too many people our age don’t seem to care or notice- frustrating!! We all need to get involved in the political process to make a difference.
027 // Brian Ford // 11.11.2005 // 5:58 PM
For this very same reason, I’m taking an active role in educating myself about the political process.
For what it’s worth, I feel I’m fairly politically involved, but I definitely don’t know a lot of the finer points of the political system. I vote for who I feel is the best candidate, and that’s enough for me to know. (And I feel it allows me to bitch and complain when I feel like it.)
028 // Peter Holloway // 11.12.2005 // 3:26 PM
Jeff,
Only just read your comments. I’m not arguing for ID in the sense that you have encountered it. I would suggest that the main premise of evolution is that there can be no God, therefore another solution must be found.
EG. Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic
from this web site
Contrary to your understanding, many Bible believing Christians who take the biblical account of creation as true do so on as scientific a basis as any evolutionist. Many of our best scientists have been and still are Bible believing Christians. Science fits perfectly with Scripture unless you first assume there is no God.
Regarding what should be taught in schools, I think that what is being sought is at the very least an admission of this a priori assumption so that both versions of our beginnings can be taught fairly.
I would strongly suggest that any scientist would positively encourage a fair examination of all the evidence.
If we take faith out of science classrooms (which seems quite right to me), then the faith assumption of no God must go too.
BTW - It is good to see a good natured discussion of this subject online :)
Thanks for the input.
029 // Jeff Croft // 11.13.2005 // 10:46 PM
Contrary to your understanding, many Bible believing Christians who take the biblical account of creation as true do so on as scientific a basis as any evolutionist. Many of our best scientists have been and still are Bible believing Christians. Science fits perfectly with Scripture unless you first assume there is no God.
I’m pretty sure I’d said multiple times in this thread that I believe science and faith do not have to be at odds. However, just because faith is compatible with science doesn’t mean it should be taught in a science classroom.
If we take faith out of science classrooms (which seems quite right to me), then the faith assumption of no God must go too.
I generally agree with this sentiment, I’m not sure that science does assume there is no God. I certainly never felt like my Kansas science teachers were insisting there was no God, anyway. Certainly many scientists are not Christians, but as you pointed out, many are, as well.
030 // France // 11.13.2005 // 11:33 PM
Olathe here too. So very embarrased. You’re not alone there, Olathe is Johnson County’s bible belt.
Great discussion here. I tend to keep it simple and state that theologic ideas have no place in my kids’ curriculum.
I had a mildly disturbing experience at my brother-in-law’s high school (SMNW) soccer banquet last week. Just before chowing down, the coach spouted out the most blatantly biased-towards-one-religion form of grace I’ve heard yet.
I can understand giving thanks by keeping it generic, but it was insulting and damn presumptuous - I had no appetite for the barbeque.
Sorry for steering this off-topic.
031 // Jeff Croft // 11.14.2005 // 6:56 PM
I saw this comment on another forum, and thought it was so perfect I had to reprint it here. It’s by a guy named Ed, who just may be The Creator:
From where I sit, it seems like the layman doesn’t understand science at all. Science is self-correcting. Scientists police themselves. Throughout history there have been thousands of incorrect scientific beliefs and postulations and yes, even theories, and scientists (as a population) questioned all of them. For instance, in the beginning earth was the center of the universe, (balanced on top of a turtle), then observations and calculations showed that the earth revolved around the sun. Then the Sun became the center of the universe. More observation and we found that we spun in an indistinct arm of an unremarkable (except for the fact that we live in it) galaxy, and it was just one of billions of other galaxies. So we don’t go around teaching the earthcentric point of view as an alternative to the Big Bang. At most, it is a footnote to see how far we have progressed.
Scientists are just like any other person, they have their own ideas and beliefs that they cling to. But when confronted with enough evidence and facts, most scientists are open minded enough to change their viewpoint.
They simple don’t respond to “There isn’t enough evidence to prove A, therefore B is true”
We are NOT frightened of having an opposing “theory” or that we will be proven wrong. But we are frightened of unqualified individuals (Kansas BOE) telling us how to teach science. Going through the school board is not how new science should get into classrooms. New science should first go through scientists. It is tested, evaluated, written about, argued over, peer reviewed, scrutinized, examined, and then if it is generally accepted, it is considered for inclusion in school textbooks. Maybe it is not accepted as absolute fact, but at least accepted as a valid idea that students can be taught about (think string theory). Someone else made this point, but high school isn’t necessarily the place for new out of the box ideas, but a place for laying the foundation of basic knowledge. I know there have been countless examples of highschoolers coming up with great idea, papers, experiments and projects, but I’m just generallizing.
Next week I’m proposing the idea that I, Ed, created all life. And I think that it should be met with an open mind, and it should be taught in high school biology classes. Before you scoff, remember, I brought you into this world, and I can take you out!
032 // Brian Ford // 11.14.2005 // 7:41 PM
Well said. Unfortunately, the same thing has been well said in any number of online forums, and the same thing has been well-said -to- the Kansas Board of Education. (They had an advisory panel and chose to ignore the advice given them.)
There’s no two ways about it, you cannot argue with someone who is unable to see past their own narrow point of view. Those who changed the policy do not care about Scientific definitions, and they do not care about who approves what. They set their minds to introducing Religion into the Science classroom and they’ve either come to believe that ID is Science or are willing to repeat that ID is Science over and over whether they believe it or not. The only way to win this battle is going to be with our votes next spring.
Until then, we can continue to trumpet the truth every chance we get, but it will do little good. You can’t yell at a deaf person.
033 // Derek K. Miller // 11.17.2005 // 2:40 AM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New “Intelligent Falling” Theory
Brilliant, because the argument is logically the same as the ID one.
034 // Barrie North // 12.07.2005 // 7:36 PM
OK, so here is the funny thing about the evolution debate (please note I am a science teacher). There is no debate!!!!
Evolution is an observable phenomenom in nature, its real damnit! What these people are arguing is the theory which is NATURAL SELECTION. The fact that they can’t even tell the difference between the evidence and the theory that explains it makes me realize that the main problem is being overlooked. The woeful state of affairs of science education, of which these board members are the result (rant off)
035 // Sean Tevis // 12.14.2005 // 3:50 PM
Olathe here, too. While I’m with you on the vestigial Electoral College, the school board needs individuals to observe, propose, and implement changes as needed in the school system. Huge voting populations can’t do that. However, we could do like California and have Referendums on major hot topics. The downside is that it’s entirely possible that the public at large might support I.D.- I think the gay marriage ammendment passed 70%/30%, for example.