What's the matter with Kansas?

tristano's ghost · May-17th-2005, 09:14 AM

Ya know, there ought to be an "earth is flat" option for these kids to learn about as well. Two sides to every coin and all that:

Quote:

Greg Saunders:
The Verdict Is In
Not that you should be too surprised by the rigged outcome :

The mock trial of Darwin's theory by Kansas' Board of Education, which concluded on May 12, included testimonies and cross-examination of and by pro-evolution and pro-creationism experts.

The board's trial voted 6 to 4 in favour of bringing the concept of "intelligent design" within the methods of teaching science in schools. Over two dozen scientists, teachers and lawyers said the state's science standards be amended to incorporate alternative thinking.
. . .
At the centre of the trials is Steve Abrams, a veterinarian and Republican, who among other things believes that earth is only 5,000 years old, a view propagated by Christian conservatives, as opposed to 4.5 billion years as argued by scientists.

Abrams as the board chairman has challenged the validity of evolution as the only valid explanation of life. He has said evolutionary biology is inadequate in terms of evidence and there ought to be an intelligent designer at the helm.

Dan Perkins:
Now let's put aside the obvious fact that the folks pushing intelligent design are the same ones who think the Bible code is real, are looking for Noah's ark, and think dinosaur bones were hidden underground by the devil. On its own merits, intelligent design is complete horseshit.

First of all, if you're an ID advocate, stop using the word "theory". You don't get to use that word. What you're trying to push is a hypothesis, which is always trumped by a theory. Just ask one of the kids whose science classes you're trying to screw up. When scientists have an idea about how the world works, they come up with a hypothesis that they can test. If it stands up to repeated scrutiny, it eventually gets labeled a scientific "theory". There's a few decades of research and peer review to do before you earn the right to use that word.

Before that happens, you should also deal with the fact that intelligent design is a crappy hypothesis. It would be one thing if your "alternative thinking" was based on an observation of some sort, but it's just a half-assed inferrence based on a lack of evidence. Looking at nature's complexity and jumping to the conclusion that it must have been to the work of a "designer" holds about as much scientific merit and assuming that thunder is the sound god makes when she's angry.

So if you're serious about the "Gosh, the world sure is complicated. It must be god's work." hypothesis, go back to the drawing board. Stop concentrating on what you percieve to be evolution's weaknesses and try working on ID's strengths. Find a way to incorporate your beliefs with every bit of evidence that the scientific world has previously discovered and figure out how to test the damn thing. Submit your new hypothesis to some scientific journals and pray that the free marketplace of ideas favors your side.

It bears repeating that ID advocates already tried to get some respect for their hypotheis in the scientific community back when it was called "creationism". They failed. This route isn't about getting respect for intelligent design, it's about trying to take a short cut (and in the process cripple the next generation of scientists) by appealing to the beliefs and exploiting the ignorance of school board members. As much as I want to religion out of public schools, my big concern here is protecting the integrity of our educational system from being slowly eroded by a flood of pseudoscience.

Slurpy · May-17th-2005, 12:20 PM

Umm..........errr...............aaaaahhhhhhh.

Are there really people out there that believe dinosaur bones were hidden underground by the Devil?

Brian Olewnick · May-17th-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slurpy

Umm..........errr...............aaaaahhhhhhh.

Are there really people out there that believe dinosaur bones were hidden underground by the Devil?

Can you prove they weren't? Huh?

Noj · May-17th-2005, 12:29 PM

I demand that the story of Santa Claus be taught alongside evolution and intelligent design. Kringle SEES you when you're sleeping. He KNOWS when you're awake. That's heavy shit.

Slurpy · May-17th-2005, 12:33 PM

Kansas is gonna have to start protecting their border with Nebraska. Look at what those crazy liberals in Nebraska are doing. I went to the Family Research Council's webpage to get the fair and accurate story:

"On May 12, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon of Nebraska struck down that state's constitutional provision prohibiting same-sex "marriage" or civil unions.

FRC President*Tony Perkins responds, "This is a blatant display of judicial arrogance where a non-elected federal judge has shown a total disregard for what 70% of Nebraska voters stated: marriage is between one man and one woman."

Man, oh man, the FRC is slipping. That should read "non-elected liberal, activist federal judge".

Slurpy · May-17th-2005, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Can you prove they weren't? Huh?

Um, well...I mean, me personally?!?!

OK, OK, I believe.

Brian Olewnick · May-17th-2005, 12:36 PM

In point of fact, there's significant debate on whether the dinosaur bones were placed there by Satan to confound us or by God to test our faith. Tricky question. Causes me sleepless nights.

Noj · May-17th-2005, 12:37 PM

I've heard that Satan cat works a mean shovel.

Slurpy · May-17th-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

In point of fact, there's significant debate on whether the dinosaur bones were placed there by Satan to confound us or by God to test our faith. Tricky question. Causes me sleepless nights.

Whew! That's too deep for me.

I can't get past wondering why, if Jimmy cracks corn and nobody cares, why does he keep doing it?

clinthopson · May-17th-2005, 12:49 PM

Like I said, if Kansas, Florida and Texas left the Union, they wouldn't be missed.

Slurpy · May-17th-2005, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Like I said, if Kansas, Florida and Texas left the Union, they wouldn't be missed.

F**K!

I'm still part of the axis of ignorance, I see.

RBS · May-17th-2005, 01:01 PM

I think it's fine to debate whether or not God created everything. Just don't do it in the schools. Leave it between the parents and child.

Kansas sucks. Let 'em secede.

Juju · May-17th-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clinthopson

Like I said, if Kansas, Florida and Texas left the Union, they wouldn't be missed.

Thanks, guys, but I got a little secret: Don't lump the people of Lawrence in with the rest of Kansas. It's not like the rest. I know, I know ... you're going to take your cheap shots, but trust me on this.

Anyways, the worst hasn't even begun, take a look at this rubbish:

By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer
Mon May 16, 6:33 PM ET

TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.

"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.

The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.

State and national science groups boycotted last week's public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.

Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.

The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."

Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals.

One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as "a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." That's close to the current definition.

The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.

The Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards in 1999, but elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives recaptured the board's majority in 2004.

Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas.

"I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."

Evolution defenders scoff at the notion.

"In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."

Darryl G. Thomas · May-17th-2005, 02:10 PM

The following is from an interview with biologist Richard Dawkins:

Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?

It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.

My American friends tell me that you are slipping towards a theocratic Dark Age. Which is very disagreeable for the very large number of educated, intelligent and right-thinking people in America. Unfortunately, at present, it's slightly outnumbered by the ignorant, uneducated people who voted Bush in.

But the broad direction of history is toward enlightenment, and so I think that what America is going through at the moment will prove to be a temporary reverse. I think there is great hope for the future. My advice would be, Don't despair, these things pass.

The complete interview can be found at:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ins/index.html

May-17th-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juju

Thanks, guys, but I got a little secret: Don't lump the people of Lawrence in with the rest of Kansas. It's not like the rest. I know, I know ... you're going to take your cheap shots, but trust me on this.
."

That's right, Lawrence has a long history of radicalism (hey, it's where Williams Burroughs chose to live!) which is spelled out in Tom Frank's book, which is the same title as this thread.

Doc Martin · May-17th-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noj

I've heard that Satan cat works a mean shovel.

Somebody is shoveling something, and it's not The Devil.

Sergio Zamora · May-17th-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?

It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion.

Geez, I mean, they weren't as hardcore as other bands, but still...

Dawkins must be more of a Black Flag kinda guy.

MRS · May-17th-2005, 03:10 PM

I think we'd be better off without New York, Massachusetts and California tumbling into the sea.

Juju · May-17th-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Schaumann

I think we'd be better off without New York, Massachusetts and California tumbling into the sea.

Do you mean "with" or "without"? Schaumann, surely you can endorse Lawrence as an oasis from the Irrational.

Root Doctor · May-17th-2005, 03:22 PM

If it weren't for a Massachusetts native, there'd be no Lawrence, KS.

Juju · May-17th-2005, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

If it weren't for a Massachusetts native, there'd be no Lawrence, KS.

Wasn't John Brown born in Connecticut? Not that it matters, but ...

Root Doctor · May-17th-2005, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juju

I know what you're getting at, but what's your definition of a native?

Also, wasn't John Brown born in Connecticut? Not that it matters, but ...

Amos Lawrence was born in Groton, MA.

Juju · May-17th-2005, 03:37 PM

Nice trivia, Root. I hadn't thought of that ...

GoodSpeak · May-17th-2005, 03:40 PM

Same thing that's wrong with Florida.

MRS · May-17th-2005, 03:41 PM

I was just trying to make a little hay like I always do when people blame states for their problems. Start nuking states with more electoral votes first.