NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/08/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html
Scientists have chosen to by and large snub the board hearings, believing them to be nothing more than rigged events in favour of Intelligent Design. Do you think that they have made the right decision, or wll this merely make the situation worse?

The article doesnt really give enough information to form an educated opinion. If it was really a situation where they were being invited out of courtesy and the decisions had already been made, then they made the right decision by not going. Why bother going in that case? But if it wasnt such a situation, then they made the wrong decision. Now they have no say in how things are taught in their state, and its all entirely up to the religious community and whoever else does attend.

Well, I don't really know enough about it, but... if the hearing had been truly impartial and fair, they would have done far better to argue their case; if, on the other hand, the outcome was likely to be in favour of the anti-evolutionists no matter what, then they did well to stay out of it. To take part would only have given some sort of validity to a show trial.

It is bizarre, on a slightly different note, to think that such a thing (a serious attack on evolution) could be happening; if someone tried this here (UK), they would be taken seriously by, well, absolutely no-one. I doubt even the C of E would support them!

Here we are, lifted wholesale from another thread to provide context.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More

By JODI WILGOREN
Published: May 6, 2005

TOPEKA, Kan., May 5 - Six years after Kansas ignited a national debate over the teaching of evolution, the state is poised to push through new science standards this summer requiring that Darwin's theory be challenged in the classroom.

In the first of three daylong hearings being referred to here as a direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science's explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator.

Darwin's defenders are refusing to testify at the hearings, which were called by the State Board of Education's conservative majority. But their lawyer forcefully cross-examined the other side's experts, pushing them to acknowledge that nothing in the current standards prevented discussion of challenges to evolution, and peppering them with queries both profound and personal.

"Do the standards state anywhere that science, evolution, is in any way in conflict with belief in God?" the lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, asked William S. Harris, a chemist who helped write the proposed changes.

When a later witness, Jonathan Wells, said he enjoyed being in the minority on such a controversial topic, Mr. Irigonegaray retorted, "More than being right?"

If the board adopts the new standards, as expected, in June, Kansas would join Ohio, which took a similar step in 2002, in mandating students be taught that there is controversy over evolution. Legislators in Alabama and Georgia have introduced bills this season to allow teachers to challenge Darwin in class, and the battle over evolution is simmering on the local level in 20 states.

While the proposed standards for Kansas do not specifically mention intelligent design - and many of its supporters prefer to avoid any discussion of it - critics contend they would open the door not just for those teachings, but to creationism, which holds to the Genesis account of God as the architect of the universe.

For Kansas, the debate is déjà vu: the last time the state standards were under review, in 1999, conservatives on the school board ignored their expert panel and deleted virtually any reference to evolution, only to be ousted in the next election.

But over the next few years anti-evolution forces regained the seats. And now, the board's 6-to-4 anti-evolution majority plans to embrace 20 suggestions promoted by advocates of intelligent design and are using this week's showcase to help persuade the public. "I was hoping these hearings would help me have some good hard evidence that I could repeat," Connie Morris, an anti-evolution board member, said in thanking one witness.

Sighing was Cheryl Shepherd-Adams, a physics teacher who took an unpaid day off from Hays High School to attend the hearings. "Kansas has been through this before," she said. "I'm really tired of going to conferences and being laughed at because I'm from Kansas."

I'm so very, very glad I do not live in Kansas. Then again, I never really saw the attraction.

This sort of thing really drives me mad. Not so much the scientists refusing to attend. I can understand that, to be honest.
But the whole idea that school students should be taught intelligent design as if it were a real theory. I mean, honestly.
I am all for people believing whatever they wish to believe. It says in the bible that these people (the proponents of 'intelligent design') hold to be true that god created the world in 6 days. Fair enough. Go forth and believe it. Teach it to your children. Preach it from your pulpits. Tell it to your neighbours. You want to believe in dogma, I have no real desire to stop you. But stop pretending it is science. It's not.

Blessings
Cyber

I'm torn.

First of all, the leaders of the board have made it exceedingly clear that these "hearings" are a farce. They have already decided to change the curriculum, and nothing said in these hearings will change it.

Second of all, to those who are uneducated in science, ID sounds technical. The fact that it isn't is irrelevant. IDers use scientific terms so, to the laymen, they are science. This is, of course, untrue, but without the people themselves making an effort at becoming educated, their arguments are not going to sound much different from real science.


On the other hand, to some, it may look as if scientists are giving up - and that could be a problem.

In the end, I think that the scientists in Kansas are probably more aware of the social and political situation there than I am.

I think boycotting was a bad idea. They should have shown up with documentary filmmakers, journalists, and anyone who would publicize the hearing. Then they should have proceeded to make the ID people look as dumb and unscientific as ID theory actually is. Maybe with enough publicity of Kansas as a backwards, benighted craphole the people of Kansas would quit trying to force their state into the dark ages. Maybe if the people of Kansas knew they were being laughed at they would wise up.

I think boycotting was a bad idea. They should have shown up with documentary filmmakers, journalists, and anyone who would publicize the hearing. Then they should have proceeded to make the ID people look as dumb and unscientific as ID theory actually is. Maybe with enough publicity of Kansas as a backwards, benighted craphole the people of Kansas would quit trying to force their state into the dark ages. Maybe if the people of Kansas knew they were being laughed at they would wise up.

You are an educated person. Doing this would have made ID look unscientific to you (of course, you already know). To the masses, however, it would not have. This is the unfortunate situation.

You are an educated person. Doing this would have made ID look unscientific to you (of course, you already know). To the masses, however, it would not have. This is the unfortunate situation.
So how do you get the masses to learn some science then? Wouldn't a televised debate between science and pseudoscience accomplish something?

So everyone seems to think themselves personally smart and they often speak of these "masses" out there who are ignorant and uneducated. But, here's the funny thing, the people who make up those masses are you, and they pretty much all walk around thinking themselves smart. I'm one of them also.
We cannot divorce ourselves from humanity, we are part of them.
What the hell is so threatening and dangerous about an idea that it shouldn't even be talked about? Why do you fear this idea so much. It just will not effect your life that much.
Who cares what Kansas wants to do with its school system. If they want to teach that the Easter Bunny drops babies from heaven every Christmas then they are quite welcome to do so.
I have no intention of believing it. I am confident my children will be smart enough to not believe it and that is all I need to know.

So everyone seems to think themselves personally smart and they often speak of these "masses" out there who are ignorant and uneducated. But, here's the funny thing, the people who make up those masses are you, and they pretty much all walk around thinking themselves smart. I'm one of them also.
We cannot divorce ourselves from humanity, we are part of them.
What the hell is so threatening and dangerous about an idea that it shouldn't even be talked about? Why do you fear this idea so much. It just will not effect your life that much.
Who cares what Kansas wants to do with its school system. If they want to teach that the Easter Bunny drops babies from heaven every Christmas then they are quite welcome to do so.
I have no intention of believing it. I am confident my children will be smart enough to not believe it and that is all I need to know.
I for one just happen to think that science classes funded in part with my tax money should teach actual science. Evolution is the grand unifying theory of biology. It changes biology from a bunch of separate facts into a truly effective explanation of life on this planet. It is the foundation for industries like biotech, modern agriculture, and medicine.

If a private school wants to teach religion, which is useless in the real world, in place of science, let them go ahead. Public schools, however, should not teach religion, and should teach what is usefull.

So how do you get the masses to learn some science then? Wouldn't a televised debate between science and pseudoscience accomplish something?

No really. Pseudoscience looks no different to a layman than real science.

That is why we have a such a problem here.

No really. Pseudoscience looks no different to a layman than real science.

That is why we have a such a problem here.
I'm a layman. I never finished college. If I can learn the difference anybody else can.

I for one just happen to think that science classes funded in part with my tax money should teach actual science. Evolution is the grand unifying theory of biology. It changes biology from a bunch of separate facts into a truly effective explanation of life on this planet. It is the foundation for industries like biotech, modern agriculture, and medicine.

If a private school wants to teach religion, which is useless in the real world, in place of science, let them go ahead. Public schools, however, should not teach religion, and should teach what is usefull.

But what happens if Joe Black over there thinks the public schools funded with his tax money should teach ID? Why should your idea be considered any more valid than his? He gets one vote and you get one vote. He believes he is right and you believe you are right. Why, because you have some books and numbers to back you up? But, the ID peoplepull out numbers and write books to back themselves up.
I didn't live millions of years ago, I have neither seen God nor seen proof there is no God. . .round and round and round. . .

it just isn't that important.

But what happens if Joe Black over there thinks the public schools funded with his tax money should teach ID? Why should your idea be considered any more valid than his? He gets one vote and you get one vote. He believes he is right and you believe you are right. Why, because you have some books and numbers to back you up? But, the ID peoplepull out numbers and write books to back themselves up.
I didn't live millions of years ago, I have neither seen God nor seen proof there is no God. . .round and round and round. . .

it just isn't that important.
1 ID isn't science. It cannot be tested in any way because it can fall back on supernatural explanations. Therefore it doesn't belong in science class.

2 ID is religion. It's appologetics for the creation myth in the bible. Therefore it doesn't belong in a public school.

Science classes should teach science, and tax money can't be used to promote a religion thanks to the establishment clause.

I'll come back and check this thready in the morning but right now sleep and my wife are a callin. See ya. :)

I'll come back and check this thready in the morning but right now sleep and my wife are a callin. See ya. :)
Bye.

But what happens if Joe Black over there thinks the public schools funded with his tax money should teach ID? Why should your idea be considered any more valid than his? He gets one vote and you get one vote. He believes he is right and you believe you are right. Why, because you have some books and numbers to back you up? But, the ID peoplepull out numbers and write books to back themselves up.
I didn't live millions of years ago, I have neither seen God nor seen proof there is no God. . .round and round and round. . .

it just isn't that important.

(a) The constitution is clear that public monies should not be spent on religious endeavors.

(b) Unless they are going to change the name of the class to "pseudoscience", I think it is clear that only science should be taught.

You are an educated person. Doing this would have made ID look unscientific to you (of course, you already know). To the masses, however, it would not have. This is the unfortunate situation.


I'm remided of the last couple times the scientists showed up for the debates.... didn't turn out anywhere near what are expecting.

I'm remided of the last couple times the scientists showed up for the debates.... didn't turn out anywhere near what are expecting.
Meaning what?

(a) The constitution is clear that public monies should not be spent on religious endeavors.

(b) Unless they are going to change the name of the class to "pseudoscience", I think it is clear that only science should be taught.


umm constitution does nothing of the sort.

Meaning what?

Sorry got students comming in, I'll explain later, after I get off work.

umm constitution does nothing of the sort.
Most judges agree that the establishment clause prohibits spending government money to promote a religious beleif, like creationism.

umm constitution does nothing of the sort.

If you spend money on a particular religious endeavor, you are establishing that particular religion above all others.

At my school we have a fairly good mix. In Science we are taught the theory of Evolution as what is commonly accepted by Scientists, in R.E we are taught the Creation story as what the Bible tells us and in Philosophy we are told the various views that people hold (taking the Bible literally, seeing it as symbolic of evolution, disbelieveing it etc) and encouraged to make up our own minds.

So everyone seems to think themselves personally smart and they often speak of these "masses" out there who are ignorant and uneducated. But, here's the funny thing, the people who make up those masses are you, and they pretty much all walk around thinking themselves smart. I'm one of them also.
We cannot divorce ourselves from humanity, we are part of them.
What the hell is so threatening and dangerous about an idea that it shouldn't even be talked about? Why do you fear this idea so much. It just will not effect your life that much.
Who cares what Kansas wants to do with its school system. If they want to teach that the Easter Bunny drops babies from heaven every Christmas then they are quite welcome to do so.
I have no intention of believing it. I am confident my children will be smart enough to not believe it and that is all I need to know.

Unfortunately, the stupid people vastly outnumber the intelligent people. Hell, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I'm in the upper .5% of the population in regards to intelligence, and have a more thorough education than a rather large group, beyond that. I also self-educated like mad, while many people graduate high school without being able to comprehend something as simple as Shakespeare.

So, no, educated people aren't the masses, we're just counted as them, and often screwed over by them. As much as I love being one of few people even at a college who comprehends the evolutionary process and is aware that gasp, it's been shown to happen.

Thing is, education is supposed to be what keeps a democracy from going to hell.

What happens if you give someone a BS education?

The country starts stinking up the place.

America is broken.

There is something rotten in your society for this issue to even come up. Look at the rest of the developed world, ID is hardly given a second sniff.

I think America as a nation, and educators in particular, need to look at the roots of such issues.

To reply to this very simply:

Whether God/the Gods/a Creator exists or not, he (I'll stick with he for now, it's easier) is /not/ scientific. He cannot be tested, and he cannot allow us to gain further knowledge of science.

Evolution may be dead wrong. The theory of gravity may be dead wrong -- it may be that there's a giant ball of invisible string inside the planet that's pulling us all towards it. The point is, both the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are /models/. We /think/ they're how it actually work, but it doesn't matter -- they allow us to work things out. Gravity, whether Einstein was right or whether it's all God's doing, allows us to plot orbits around the planet and the sun. Evolution, whether it exists or is just a bundle of evidence dropped on us by God for giggles, is a way of understanding how life works. It helps us in many branches of science, not just the biological ones. Evolution has been used to create electrical systems a lot simpler than how a human designer would do it. It /works/. If we just say 'God created the world, live with it', no one will get anywhere.

If you want to be perdantic, lable evolution as a model, and emphasise that it may be wrong, but it's the best scientific model we have at the moment. Don't throw God at them.

America is broken.

There is something rotten in your society for this issue to even come up. Look at the rest of the developed world, ID is hardly given a second sniff.

I think America as a nation, and educators in particular, need to look at the roots of such issues.
I agree. Here in Europe, even in very Christian countries, most people can't believe that evolution is actually a political issue in the US.

I wonder... will Americans try to pass a law saying that the whole universe revolves around the Earth next?

Short answer: No, they made a mistake. Long answer: Probably not a good idea and definitely a missed opportunity.

The inclusion of ID in any classroom science setting is laughable. Well, it would be laughable if it wasn't becoming more and more common. Science should take whatever stage when offered to oppose infiltration in it's most fundamental tenants. The same exact people who promote ID would be furious if someone championed the idea of teaching the Bible in high school English courses as a work of fiction (even though that's largely what it is, so the teaching of it is a helluva lot more appropriate than ID).

However, part of the reason that notions like ID are becoming so popular is because the world of science has become so fascinated with itself and inbred, that people are mistrustful and wary of it. Science only has itself to blame for this. Like most specialized fields, science requires it's own vocabulary. The trouble is that science and scientists have become so enamored of that vocabulary it has gone from being a way to relay accurate information to being a wall seperating the scientis from the laymen. ID proponents recognize this and use it as the wedge to increase the separation between scientist and layman.

Regardless of any pre-decision by the idiotic Kansas school board, scientists should not have "snubbed" these talks. It only plays further into ID proponents hands and increases the separation, painting scientists as effete intellectuals locked in their ivory towers while making the ID proponents look like some sort of hero of the people, only crusading against an imaginary stranglehold on information.

In today's world, perception is reality. So long as ID proponents exploit this and science doesn't respond in kind, ID and scientific bastardizations of it's ilk will continue to gain popularity as true science becomes more and more distant and reclusive.

Meaning what?


found some time for a quick responce.

In the early 20th century, the mid 30s and then again in the 50s 60s and 70s there were large numbers of public debates between highly educated scientists and highly educated spiritual leaders where a vast majority were dominated by the spiritual leaders. my statement was to say that the majority of these debates would not be as easy as they look.

School children being taught Intelligent Design like it was a fact? Well that a nice step backwards. Glad I don't live in Kansas.

One of the main points behind academics is to only teach things that have benn proven, or almost proven. Not teach them something just because George Bush believes he weilds Divine Authority. How could any educational board even THINK about letting something like this pass the specualtion stage?

I think boycotting was a bad idea. They should have shown up with documentary filmmakers, journalists, and anyone who would publicize the hearing. Then they should have proceeded to make the ID people look as dumb and unscientific as ID theory actually is. Maybe with enough publicity of Kansas as a backwards, benighted craphole the people of Kansas would quit trying to force their state into the dark ages. Maybe if the people of Kansas knew they were being laughed at they would wise up.
Personally, i feel that the quotes by Harris and Holloway were enough to make these rock-suckers gloriously ignorant ...

---
"I was hoping these hearings would help me have some good, hard evidence that I could repeat," said Connie Morris, an anti-evolution board member.

"You can infer design just by examining something, without knowing anything about where it came from," Harris said. "I don't know who did it, I don't know how it was done, I don't know why it was done, I don't have to know any of that to know that it was designed.
*note - then WTF do you know? What the hell are you doing having any input at all on anything scientific?*
.
...Linda Holloway, a member of the 1999 state board that dumped evolution, said the mainstream scientist's failure to participate in the hearings signaled that "they're afraid to be cross-examined, they're afraid to defend their theory."

---

But, all this aside, what does JesusSaves think about all this attempt at a fair and balanced scientific forum?
;)

Short answer: No, they made a mistake. Long answer: Probably not a good idea and definitely a missed opportunity.

The inclusion of ID in any classroom science setting is laughable. Well, it would be laughable if it wasn't becoming more and more common. Science should take whatever stage when offered to oppose infiltration in it's most fundamental tenants. The same exact people who promote ID would be furious if someone championed the idea of teaching the Bible in high school English courses as a work of fiction (even though that's largely what it is, so the teaching of it is a helluva lot more appropriate than ID).

However, part of the reason that notions like ID are becoming so popular is because the world of science has become so fascinated with itself and inbred, that people are mistrustful and wary of it. Science only has itself to blame for this. Like most specialized fields, science requires it's own vocabulary. The trouble is that science and scientists have become so enamored of that vocabulary it has gone from being a way to relay accurate information to being a wall seperating the scientis from the laymen. ID proponents recognize this and use it as the wedge to increase the separation between scientist and layman.

Regardless of any pre-decision by the idiotic Kansas school board, scientists should not have "snubbed" these talks. It only plays further into ID proponents hands and increases the separation, painting scientists as effete intellectuals locked in their ivory towers while making the ID proponents look like some sort of hero of the people, only crusading against an imaginary stranglehold on information.

In today's world, perception is reality. So long as ID proponents exploit this and science doesn't respond in kind, ID and scientific bastardizations of it's ilk will continue to gain popularity as true science becomes more and more distant and reclusive.
Hmmm .... doesn't sound very dissimilar to the FIRST Berk ... that you?
*bows*

Most judges agree that the establishment clause prohibits spending government money to promote a religious beleif, like creationism.
JesusSaves might like it here in Alaska .....

1 MILLION DOLLARS FOR 37 CHRISTIAN STUDENTS IN ALASKA? NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

April 27, 2005

Apr 26, 2005
Lawsuit Filed Over Federal Funding for Tiny Christian College in Alaska
By Mary Pemberton
Associated Press Writer
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - A group advocating the separation of church and state has sued the federal Education Department over funding for a tiny Christian college with a predominantly Alaska Native or American Indian student body.
Alaska Christian College in Soldotna has just 37 students, but has received more than $1 million in federal money in the past two years, according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The college is affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant Church of Alaska.

"This is just promoting religion," Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Wisconsin-based foundation, said Tuesday. The group's lawsuit was filed Thursday in Wisconsin.

The group hopes to prevent the school from receiving $435,000 - an allotment inserted by Republican Rep. Don Young in a federal spending bill passed last November. He obtained $400,000 for the school the previous year.

Young did not immediately return a call for comment about the appropriations.

Alaska Sens. Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski also got the school $200,000 for a counseling center, according to the group.

College President Keith Hamilton said Tuesday the college, which offers a two-year degree, undergoes a rigorous process before receiving the money.

"Throughout this granting process ACC has acted with integrity and honesty and has spent the money in the manner that has been approved by the Department of Education," said a statement issued Tuesday by the college.

Hamilton said the college helps students make the transition from village life to larger schools; he said half of the students next year will be matriculating at Kenai Peninsula College.

Students also have had credits transferred to various other colleges and universities, including the University of Alaska Anchorage and the University of Alaska Fairbanks, he said.

Soldotna is a city of about 3,800 on the Kenai Peninsula, 150 miles south of Anchorage.

If you spend money on a particular religious endeavor, you are establishing that particular religion above all others.
Seemed like a good place to reprint this.....


The Crusaders - p.41-42 Rolling Stone April 21, 2005
...
Meet the Dominionists - biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency - all the way until Jesus comes back.
"most people hear them talk about a 'Christian nation' and think, 'Well, that sounds like a good, moral thing,' says the Rev. Mel White, who ghostwrote Jerry Falwell's autobiography before breaking with the evangelical movement. "What they don't know - what even most conservative Christians who voted for Bush don't know - is that 'Christian nation' means something else entirely to these Dominionist leaders. This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Water Act is about clean water."
The godfather of the Dominionists is D. James Kennedy, the most influential evangelical you've never heard of. A former Arthur Murray dance instructor, he launched his Florida ministry in 1959, when most evangelicals still followed Billy Graham's gospel of nonpartisan soul-saving. Kennedy built Coral Ridge Ministries into a #37 million-a-year empire, with a TV-and-radio audience of 3 million, by preaching that it was time to save America - not soul by soul but election by election. After helping found the Moral Majority in 1979, Kennedy became a five-star general in the Christian army. Bush sought his blessing before running for president - and continues to consult top Dominionists on matters of federal policy.
"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.
...
"We're going to turn you into an army of one," Gary Cass, executive director of Reclaiming America, promises activists at one workshop held in Evangalism Explosion Hall. The Dominionists also attend speeches by supporters like Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida, who urges them to "win back America for God."
...
"The First Amendment does not say there should be a separation of church and state," declares Alan Sears, president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a team of 750 attorneys, trained by the Dominionists to fight abortion and gay marriage.
..."We have a right, indeed an obligation, to govern," says David Limbaugh, brother of Rush and author of "Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity."
..."Activist judges have systematically deconstructed the Constitution," roars Rick Scarborough, author of "Mixing Church and State." "A God-free society is their goal!"
Activist judges, of course, are precisely what the Dominionists want. Their model is Roy Moore, the former Alabama chief justice who installed a 5,300-pound granite memorial to the Ten Commandments, complete with an open Bible carved in its top, in the state judicial building.
...Activists at the conference pose for photographs beside the rock and have circulated a petition urging President Bush to appoint Moore - who once penned an opinion calling for the state to execute "practicing homosexuals" - to the U.S. Supreme Court.
...
It helps that Dominionists have a direct line to the White House: The Rev. Richard Land, top lobbyist for the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, enjoys a weekly conference call with top Bush advisors including Karl Rove. ... He takes particular aim at the threat posed by John Lennon, denouncing "Imagine" as a "secular anthem" that envisions a future of "clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn."
...
In the conference's opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream of hearing in every classroom: "I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe."
Cass urges conference-goers to stack school boards with Dominionists. "The most humble Christian is more qualified for office than the best-educated pagan," says Cass, an anti-abortion activist who ledd a takeover of his school district's board in San Diego.
...
Amway founder Rich DeVos, a Kennedy ally who's the leading Republican contender for governor of Michigan, has tossed more than $5 million into the collection plate. Jean Case, wife of former AOL chief Steve Case – whose fortune was made largely on sex-chat rooms – has donated $8 million. And Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino’s Pizza, is a major source of cash for Focus on the Family, a megaministry working with Kennedy to eliminate all public schools.
...
Kennedy has also created the Center for Christian Statesmanship, which trains elected officials to “more effectively share their faith in the public arena.” Speaking to the group, House Majority Leader Whip Tom DeLay – winner of Kennedy’s Distinguished Christian Statesman Award - called Bush’s faith-based initiatives “a great opportunity to bring God back into the public institutions of our country.”
…
The most vivid proof of the Christianizing of Capitol Hill comes at the final session of Reclaiming America. Rep. Walter Jones, a lanky congressman from North Carolina, gives a fire-and-brimstone speech that would have gotten him laughed out of Washington thirty years ago. In today’s climate, however, he’s got a chance of passing his pet project, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which would permit ministers to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, effectively converting their tax-exempt churches into Republican campaign headquarters.

Yes for two reasons:

Firstly, and by far most importantly, these proceedings cannot be legitimized or dignified with the participation of serious people. They are disgraceful farce.

Secondly, the outcome is by all accounts predetermined.

Yes for two reasons:

Firstly, and by far most importantly, these proceedings cannot be legitimized or dignified with the participation of serious people. They are disgraceful farce.

Secondly, the outcome is by all accounts predetermined.

Exactly. Participation in a rigged situation such as this would be far more damaging than the alternative of boycotting it.

Exactly. Participation in a rigged situation such as this would be far more damaging than the alternative of boycotting it.


Yup, and beyond damaging it is simply beneath the dignity of serious scientists.

They honestly have better things to do, like research.

Short answer: No, they made a mistake. Long answer: Probably not a good idea and definitely a missed opportunity.

The inclusion of ID in any classroom science setting is laughable. Well, it would be laughable if it wasn't becoming more and more common. Science should take whatever stage when offered to oppose infiltration in it's most fundamental tenants. The same exact people who promote ID would be furious if someone championed the idea of teaching the Bible in high school English courses as a work of fiction (even though that's largely what it is, so the teaching of it is a helluva lot more appropriate than ID).

However, part of the reason that notions like ID are becoming so popular is because the world of science has become so fascinated with itself and inbred, that people are mistrustful and wary of it. Science only has itself to blame for this. Like most specialized fields, science requires it's own vocabulary. The trouble is that science and scientists have become so enamored of that vocabulary it has gone from being a way to relay accurate information to being a wall seperating the scientis from the laymen. ID proponents recognize this and use it as the wedge to increase the separation between scientist and layman.

Regardless of any pre-decision by the idiotic Kansas school board, scientists should not have "snubbed" these talks. It only plays further into ID proponents hands and increases the separation, painting scientists as effete intellectuals locked in their ivory towers while making the ID proponents look like some sort of hero of the people, only crusading against an imaginary stranglehold on information.

In today's world, perception is reality. So long as ID proponents exploit this and science doesn't respond in kind, ID and scientific bastardizations of it's ilk will continue to gain popularity as true science becomes more and more distant and reclusive.

I'm not sure I agree on that point. For one thing, I've made a point to read Steven Hawking and Stephen Gould, two of the most influential scientists of the last 50 years, and both of them are very articulate, very clear writers. From many of the other things I've read, I would say that these aren't necessarily in the extreme minority. For another, if it were the case that the insularity of science was the culprit, we'd be seeing similar campaigns arising in Europe and Australia, but we aren't.

The real reason I think is that at root America is a nation that has a long history of wacky, extreme religiosity, and currently we are going through what I strongly suspect is the opening phases of what historians will later call the Third Great Awakening. The Puritans were a bunch of Anglicans who were too extreme for the same Anglicans who waged a bloody civil war in England, culminating in the execution of Charles I and the establishment of an Anglican Dominion of England under Oliver Cromwell. The South in turn has long been subject to periods of extreme religious fervor dating back to the late 1600's. We're just in the middle of another one of those periods, the last clear Great Awakening happening in the 1830's.

I'm not sure I agree on that point. For one thing, I've made a point to read Steven Hawking and Stephen Gould, two of the most influential scientists of the last 50 years, and both of them are very articulate, very clear writers. From many of the other things I've read, I would say that these aren't necessarily in the extreme minority. For another, if it were the case that the insularity of science was the culprit, we'd be seeing similar campaigns arising in Europe and Australia, but we aren't.

The real reason I think is that at root America is a nation that has a long history of wacky, extreme religiosity, and currently we are going through what I strongly suspect is the opening phases of what historians will later call the Third Great Awakening. The Puritans were a bunch of Anglicans who were too extreme for the same Anglicans who waged a bloody civil war in England, culminating in the execution of Charles I and the establishment of an Anglican Dominion of England under Oliver Cromwell. The South in turn has long been subject to periods of extreme religious fervor dating back to the late 1600's. We're just in the middle of another one of those periods, the last clear Great Awakening happening in the 1830's.


Well, if that's the case I hope it's over soon, though I would doubt it. The other such "phases" lasted more than 5 years, right?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/08/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html
Scientists have chosen to by and large snub the board hearings, believing them to be nothing more than rigged events in favour of Intelligent Design. Do you think that they have made the right decision, or wll this merely make the situation worse?
Kansa has scientists? Who knew. Did they import some recently?

Well, if that's the case I hope it's over soon, though I would doubt it. The other such "phases" lasted more than 5 years, right?

Ten to fifteen years, IIRC. They tended to burn themselves out over time, as there is only so much hellfire and brimstone a nation can take before they simply stop paying attention.

Did they make the right decision. Probably. Psuedoscience always seems like its right over real science to people who haven't been taught about scientific method. In real science nothing is certain. While psuedoscience is always certain, no matter how wrong they actually are. We call evolution a theory, and creationists (I refuse to call them Intelligent Design, whether or not there is a creator is an entirely different debate from evolution versus creationism) use that as a weapon, requiring textbooks to state that 'evolution is only a theory'.

Creationists point to scientists, sometimes even athiest scientists, who have said that the current model of evolution is inadequate. And use that to imply that its wrong.

On top of all of this, they frequently deny scientists the chance to give a proper rebuttal, or bring up questions that have not been resolved, so that it would be unethical to take a specific stance.

As far as the government funding for religion/seperation of church and state thing goes. Here's how it works:

The first ammendment states that 'Congress shall pass no law respecting a religion, or favoring one religous establishment over another.'

The fourteenth amendment extends all of the protections in the contitution to every level of the government.

:headbang:

But over the next few years anti-evolution forces regained the seats. And now, the board's 6-to-4 anti-evolution majority plans to embrace 20 suggestions promoted by advocates of intelligent design and are using this week's showcase to help persuade the public. "I was hoping these hearings would help me have some good hard evidence that I could repeat," Connie Morris, an anti-evolution board member, said in thanking one witness.


This paragraph is why I agree with the boycott.

The board has already made the decision, 6-4, before hearing anything. It was to be a "showcase," not a discussion.

Maybe this is a bit of a misguided opinion, depsite the fact that I was born and raised in Kansas, but here goes.

In my experiences from middle and high school science (though it was several years ago.....I haven't had a science class since sophomore year in HS and I'm in college now....), our teachers didn't give two hoots about what the state or the school board told them to teach. In the case of my biology class, when it came down to it, our teacher gave us the choice of which to learn, and assigned us appropriate materials and homework depending on which. I chose both, and regretted the workload. (However, this is the only good thing the teacher ever did, as she later broke the State's education laws by failing me for the dissection unit, as I had a signed waiver to not cut up a rat, rather than provide alternative educational material).

Granted, I can't speak for all of Kansas, because I'm from the richest county (I lived in the Kansas City area) and one of the top 3 richest public schools in said county, but I was at least under the impression that other teachers in major cities (Lawrence, Topeka, parts of Wichita.....one or two from Manhattan) were doing the same thing as ours.

But anyway. I know I didn't really take a stance on that....I just figured I'd let you know how it was being done for the major schools, to my knowledge.

Edit: I honestly don't pop onto the boards too often, so if you'd like to discuss this you can email me at painted.morning@gmail.com, or IM me (there's a link by my name up there), I'm usually online.

Evolution is a logical theory. (By the way: What do creationists say to the fact that the were Neanderthals and before dinosaurs and not yet humans? Or dont they recognize this.)
But scientists were not yet really able to explain how life itself first came into being. And here one can not say: "It is impossible that a supernatural power had something to do with it.", because it has not been proven that something supernatural does not exists (and I guess you wont be able to do so anyway).
So it is a legitimate theory.

But scientists were not yet really able to explain how life itself first came into being.
That has nothing to do with evolution though. The theory of evolution states the mechanisms by which species evolve and differentiate, not how life came to be.

Simonist']In my experiences from middle and high school science (though it was several years ago.....I haven't had a science class since sophomore year in HS and I'm in college now....), our teachers didn't give two hoots about what the state or the school board told them to teach. In the case of my biology class, when it came down to it, our teacher gave us the choice of which to learn, and assigned us appropriate materials and homework depending on which. I chose both, and regretted the workload. (However, this is the only good thing the teacher ever did, as she later broke the State's education laws by failing me for the dissection unit, as I had a signed waiver to not cut up a rat, rather than provide alternative educational material).

You call that a good thing? Do you really think it is a good idea to teach something that is not in any way biology in a biology class, regardless of how much the student may want to learn it? Would you think it was a good thing if history teachers gave students the choice of either learning about the holocaust or learning that it was incorrect?

I personally believe the scientists made the right choice. This sort of ignorant posturing should not be lent credibility by making it look like an actual threat to real science. They had a lawyer there with the rational faculties to completely shred the other side's arguments, and that should be enough. We've been through this once, it doesn't need to come back around again.

Evolution is a logical theory. (By the way: What do creationists say to the fact that the were Neanderthals and before dinosaurs and not yet humans? Or dont they recognize this.)
But scientists were not yet really able to explain how life itself first came into being. And here one can not say: "It is impossible that a supernatural power had something to do with it.", because it has not been proven that something supernatural does not exists (and I guess you wont be able to do so anyway).
So it is a legitimate theory.

Neandertals show up after anatomically modren humans, actually. You're thinking of Homo Sapiens Archaic.

Evolution is a logical theory. (By the way: What do creationists say to the fact that the were Neanderthals and before dinosaurs and not yet humans? Or dont they recognize this.)
But scientists were not yet really able to explain how life itself first came into being. And here one can not say: "It is impossible that a supernatural power had something to do with it.", because it has not been proven that something supernatural does not exists (and I guess you wont be able to do so anyway).
So it is a legitimate theory.
It is NOT a legitimate scientific theory. It fails a number of points to be deemed so. It is a theory, yes. A scientific one, no.

As such, it should not be taught in science classes.

You call that a good thing? Do you really think it is a good idea to teach something that is not in any way biology in a biology class, regardless of how much the student may want to learn it? Would you think it was a good thing if history teachers gave students the choice of either learning about the holocaust or learning that it was incorrect?
What the hell science class did YOU learn evolution in, if not Bio? You must've missed my point entirely, or worded something so that I totally don't see yours. We were given A CHOICE. I live in an area that's essentially split between super-Christian families who DEMAND their children have the Creation information available to them, and science-appreciating families who would either want their children learning Evolution or to choose. The most important thing is that it was up to THE STUDENTS to decide what they wanted to learn. How is that NOT a good thing? That we're not forced into one or the other, and therefore bypass all the bullshit fighting that the parents would otherwise go through to teach "their way" to all students?

I think you totally misunderstood what I was trying to say, and I apologize that it went over your head. As for your horribly out of context Holocaust comment, there's no basis of comparison there. NEITHER EVOLUTION NOR CREATION CAN BE PROVEN. However, the Holocaust is fact. What would you propose as an alternative? You want to bring in an ape and God and have a panel discussion?

Ridiculous.

So everyone seems to think themselves personally smart and they often speak of these "masses" out there who are ignorant and uneducated. But, here's the funny thing, the people who make up those masses are you, and they pretty much all walk around thinking themselves smart. I'm one of them also.
We cannot divorce ourselves from humanity, we are part of them.
What the hell is so threatening and dangerous about an idea that it shouldn't even be talked about? Why do you fear this idea so much. It just will not effect your life that much.
Who cares what Kansas wants to do with its school system. If they want to teach that the Easter Bunny drops babies from heaven every Christmas then they are quite welcome to do so.
I have no intention of believing it. I am confident my children will be smart enough to not believe it and that is all I need to know.
no, were talking about Kansas.

I'm a layman. I never finished college. If I can learn the difference anybody else can.
clearly not. i think you overestimate the critical thinking power of the average American. isn't the fact that these retarded debates are going on in the first place, evidence enough?

But what happens if Joe Black over there thinks the public schools funded with his tax money should teach ID? Why should your idea be considered any more valid than his? He gets one vote and you get one vote. He believes he is right and you believe you are right. Why, because you have some books and numbers to back you up? But, the ID peoplepull out numbers and write books to back themselves up.
I didn't live millions of years ago, I have neither seen God nor seen proof there is no God. . .round and round and round. . .

it just isn't that important.
theres this thing called the Bill of Rights. the First one on the list is pretty important perhaps you should actually try reading it.....

umm constitution does nothing of the sort.
read it again.

Evolution is a logical theory. (By the way: What do creationists say to the fact that the were Neanderthals and before dinosaurs and not yet humans? Or dont they recognize this.)
But scientists were not yet really able to explain how life itself first came into being. And here one can not say: "It is impossible that a supernatural power had something to do with it.", because it has not been proven that something supernatural does not exists (and I guess you wont be able to do so anyway).
So it is a legitimate theory.
abiogenesis is a popular theory, but it is seperate from evolution

Simonist']What the hell science class did YOU learn evolution in, if not Bio? You must've missed my point entirely, or worded something so that I totally don't see yours. We were given A CHOICE. I live in an area that's essentially split between super-Christian families who DEMAND their children have the Creation information available to them, and science-appreciating families who would either want their children learning Evolution or to choose. The most important thing is that it was up to THE STUDENTS to decide what they wanted to learn. How is that NOT a good thing? That we're not forced into one or the other, and therefore bypass all the bullshit fighting that the parents would otherwise go through to teach "their way" to all students?

I think you totally misunderstood what I was trying to say, and I apologize that it went over your head. As for your horribly out of context Holocaust comment, there's no basis of comparison there. NEITHER EVOLUTION NOR CREATION CAN BE PROVEN. However, the Holocaust is fact. What would you propose as an alternative? You want to bring in an ape and God and have a panel discussion?

Ridiculous.
so long as parents can freely practice and teach their religion, then no one is stopping them from giving their kids the information. you want to know the problem?
the problem is that tax payers money is going towards a government institution in which (your world) is teaching a completely christian idea. not only that, they are passing it off as a valid scientific theory in a biology class. You can not and should not be allowed to use tax payer money to spread religion. thats why the Constitution exists.

so long as parents can freely practice and teach their religion, then no one is stopping them from giving their kids the information. you want to know the problem?
the problem is that tax payers money is going towards a government institution in which (your world) is teaching a completely christian idea. not only that, they are passing it off as a valid scientific theory in a biology class. You can not and should not be allowed to use tax payer money to spread religion. thats why the Constitution exists.
Nice try, but actually in our case the teachers are independently funding all extra materials needed, and they're not saying either way is correct. Or that either way is more generally supported. Or that either was in any way able to be proven. Our teachers did that so that we could learn according to whatever we chose to support, at NO EXTRA COST to the taxpayers (because they'd be just as upset if their tax money funded education they didn't support), but through class discussion they made it entirely clear that neither system was "Right" or "Wrong".

Now, you wanna mouth off about more you don't know about, related to our district? Or were you there and I just totally missed you in class all that time?

Simonist']Nice try, but actually in our case the teachers are independently funding all extra materials needed, and they're not saying either way is correct. Or that either way is more generally supported. Or that either was in any way able to be proven. Our teachers did that so that we could learn according to whatever we chose to support, at NO EXTRA COST to the taxpayers (because they'd be just as upset if their tax money funded education they didn't support), but through class discussion they made it entirely clear that neither system was "Right" or "Wrong".

Now, you wanna mouth off about more you don't know about, related to our district? Or were you there and I just totally missed you in class all that time?

I do! The reason giving the students a choice is not a valid option is because...

Evolution is a science, and therefore should be taught in science class. Creationism is not a science, and therefore should not be taught in science class.

Why? Well, I've posted this in these forums multiple times, but I'll post it here again.

A scientific theory is a theory which is used to explain evidence. Evolution is not considered infallable. There are known issues with it, and the theory will continue to be molded to fit the ever growing body of evidence which it supports it, and to fit it more accurately. New evidence (supporting or denouncing) is always welcome, and new theories (based on the evidence) are as well. Currently, evolution is the best explanation science has, and it fits our evidence very well.

Creationism is an attempt to use evidence to support a theory. It is backwards to science. It is considered by its supporters to be infallable, and therefore not open to change in any way, no matter what new evidence is introduced. If said new evidence is introduced, it will either be ignored, disputed, or changed to fit the theory.

Of course, the Scientific Method (of inquiry and analysis) is fundamentally derived from the earlier Socratic Method, and so pre-dates this here new-fangled Christian mythology.

I say stick with what's tried and true - let them fast-talkin' Christian fellers cool their heels awhile and maybe we'll all just get along fine.

Simonist']What the hell science class did YOU learn evolution in, if not Bio?

Of course I learned evolution in Biology. It is a theory that is derived from biological studies.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not, in any way shape or form, biology. As such, it has no business in a biology course.

Simonist']You must've missed my point entirely, or worded something so that I totally don't see yours. We were given A CHOICE.

And it was as stupid choice, akin to letting students decide that they want to learn 3+8=99 in math class. We don't teach non-math in math class. Why should students have the choice of being taught something that is not science in a science class?

Simonist']I live in an area that's essentially split between super-Christian families who DEMAND their children have the Creation information available to them, and science-appreciating families who would either want their children learning Evolution or to choose.

I don't care what they demand. If they want their children to learn Creationism as science, they can take them out of the public schools and teach bad science on their own time.

Simonist']The most important thing is that it was up to THE STUDENTS to decide what they wanted to learn. How is that NOT a good thing?

Would you say that children having the choice to learn that multiplying 3x4 means subtracting 3 from 4 was a good thing? I doubt it. So why do you think having the choice to learn something that is not, in any way, science in a science class is a good thing. That isn't learning - it is allowing ignorance.

Simonist']That we're not forced into one or the other, and therefore bypass all the bullshit fighting that the parents would otherwise go through to teach "their way" to all students?

It has nothing to do with the parents' "way". In science class, you learn the science way. Period.

Simonist']I think you totally misunderstood what I was trying to say, and I apologize that it went over your head.

Not in the least. I understood it, and I take issue with it. I certainly don't want my child choosing to learn to read backwards because some idiot gave them the choice of learning that Z=A. By that same token, I don't think we should teach bad science to our children. We should teach them the proper scientific method and the theories that arise out of it.

Simonist'] As for your horribly out of context Holocaust comment, there's no basis of comparison there.

Yes, there is. One is history, the other is just some idea someone has. Likewise, evolution is a scientific theory, the other is just some idea that some people have. I don't really care who believes in Creationism, but teaching it as science is no better than any of the examples I have listed here, including teaching that the Holocaust didn't happen just because some people claim it.

Simonist']What would you propose as an alternative? You want to bring in an ape and God and have a panel discussion?

Ridiculous.

I propose only teaching science and the theories derived using the scientific method in a science class. Anything else is boldfaced lying to our children. If parents want their children to learn Creationism, they can either institute a comparative religion class in the schools, or they can teach it at home or church. It is not, in any way shape or form, science, and thus does not belong in a science class. The fact that you think it is great that kids have the choice to learn exactly what not to do in science as correct in a science class is ridiculous.

Simonist']Nice try, but actually in our case the teachers are independently funding all extra materials needed, and they're not saying either way is correct. Or that either way is more generally supported. Or that either was in any way able to be proven. Our teachers did that so that we could learn according to whatever we chose to support, at NO EXTRA COST to the taxpayers (because they'd be just as upset if their tax money funded education they didn't support), but through class discussion they made it entirely clear that neither system was "Right" or "Wrong".

So your teachers were not science teachers, I take it? Obviously, no one can say for certain if Evolution or Creationism are right or wrong. But we can say with absolute certainty that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, and Creationism is not.