Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Kansas Board of Ed. Adopts Intelligent Design

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Nov 08, 2005 09:26 PM
from the why-do-they-have-to-use-the-word-intelligent dept.
Government The Courts Science News
kwietman writes "The Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 to allow science students in public schools to hear materials critical of evolution in biology classes. The new curriculum mentions that theories of life arising from similar building-block molecules through purely random processes can be challenged by recent findings in the fossil record and by molecular biology. Not all were happy, however. 'This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,' said board member Janet Waugh. The new standards will be used in statewide standardized testing; the students are still expected to know 'basic evolutionary principles.' As part of the decision, the Board of Education also went so far as to redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Kansas Board of Ed. Adopts Intelligent Design 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones (18351) * on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:27PM (#13984764) Homepage Journal
    So, why is it that the Kansas board of "education" will not allow science and religion to be separately taught? 1) Primarily because they have an agenda that is religiously biased. 2) Because if they allowed a religion class, they would be hard pressed to only teach their version of religion and not also teach Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc...etc...etc... which these types of people believe would not be acceptable. After all, thinking for yourself is scary.

    Look, before all you ultra right wing whackos start modding me down, you should realize that 1) I am religious and 2) I am also a scientist and see no conflict between religion and science and 3) the Intelligent Design camp are absolutely and completely biased and corruptive of both religion and science. Schools teaching ID are absolutely doing a disservice to the students who are forced to take this curriculum.

    And those in the Kansas government should know that this issue is making Kansas a laughing stock world wide. There is absolutely nothing that you could do to get me to move my family, science or business there. Speaking of business, we are in the initial stages of moving technologies we have developed into the privately funded domain and early estimates are that we are sitting on significantly large markets right out the door with significant expansion likely in a variety of areas. Kansas does not remotely have a chance of attracting businesses like ours given the educational climate required for our work. We need students and employees who are well prepared in the sciences and are capable of thinking independently, and if the school board succeeds in misleading their students, they are of no use to us.

    • Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hhawk (26580) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:29PM (#13984784) Homepage Journal
      The issue here is that they redefine science. Truly a sad day.

      • Just goes to show ... the Board of Education will end up doing more damage to the US than any terrorist group could ever have hoped for. "Get 'm while they're young ..."

        ... and it's spreading ... (any errors in translation from the french are my responsibility)

        Montreal, Quebec
        Tuesday, November 8, 2005

        A Ste-Rose resident plans to appeal a ruling by the Canadian government denying his group tax-exempt status. Monsieur Maurice Duplessis, who now insists on going by the name "Chef Boy-R-Dee", has stated that unless the government reverses its decision, his so-called "Pastafarians" will sue the government for infringing their constitutional right to freedom of religion.

        Apparently, M. Duplessis claims that his sister-in-law saw the face of Jesus as she was finishing a plate of spaghetti. She said, jokingly, that they should offer it on eBay. M. Duplessis claims that when he saw the plate, he felt "an epiphany, a revelation", and that a quick search on the internet revealed the Cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

        "They were offering a reward of $1,000,000 if someone could prove that Jesus was not the son of FSM, so I knew that I was not the only one," said M. Duplessis.

        When asked about his new title, he said "I was named after one of the worst premiers in the history of this province; nobody would take me seriously with a name like that. I had another revelation while we were shopping at Provigo - so now I am Boy-R-Dee".

        Apparently, M. Duplessis has had several meetings with supporters, including their first "church service", held in their home. "Think about it - even the Catholic Church acknowledges the central importance of the breaking of bread and drinking of wine, and the communion by eating of the body of Jesus; these are all elements of pastafarianism"

        When asked how many supporters he had, he declined to give an exact figure, saying it was "more than 10, less than 20".

        Government sources had no comment, citing privacy legislation.
        Is there no end to this, [tt]abernac?!?

      • Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dbIII (701233) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @10:11PM (#13985163)
        The issue here is that they redefine science
        They also redefine Christianity to Christianity-lite.

      • Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @10:16PM (#13985204)
        > The issue here is that they redefine science. Truly a sad day.

        Behe redefined science at the Dover trial, and had to admit under crossexamination that astrology meets his definition of science.

    • Not surprising (Score:5, Funny)

      by Phoenix666 (184391) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:29PM (#13984787)
      That they believe in Creationism. After all, living in Kansas they're probably convinced the world is flat, too...

    • Religions don't even back ID (Score:5, Informative)

      by elfguygmail.com (910009) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:41PM (#13984884) Homepage
      Several religions, including the Vatican, have said that ID has nothing to do with religion. According to them Genesis is a story, telling how the world was supposely made by a higher being, and that only idiots would take it literally. The Vatican actually supports evolution as being compatible with their religion.

      • Re:Religions don't even back ID (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Ramsés Morales (13327) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:58PM (#13985058)
        When I was in school, a Jesuit-run catholic school, one father (priest) explained a group of science/religion-confused girls that the origin of man, and all species, was explained by Evolution, so they should pay attention to the biology prof. (which had a PhD in biology, by the way). He also explained to the girls that Genesis was only a metaphor, with deep theological implications for cristians, but it had nothing to do with the origin of man.

        Of course, for most protestant cristians (as in Kansas), catholics are devil-worshipers, and the pope is Satan himself. So telling this story was just waste of time.

        By the way, I'm atheist, and hold in high regard jesuit priests, for giving me an excellent scientific education, devoid of any supernatural ideas.

      • Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by BWJones (18351) * on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:51PM (#13984985) Homepage Journal
        Just pointing out, you live in Utah. You go to a Utah college. And you think Kansas mixes religion and state?!?

        1) I do not "go" to a Utah college. I am a professor at the University of Utah whose history in computer science, genetics and bioscience have made significant contributions to science.

        2) You are assuming that because I live in Utah and "go" to a Utah college, I must therefore be a part of the moral majority here. You would be mistaken in that assumption and fairly ignorant to suppose it. However, I will tell you that the Mormon contributions to genetics through their recognition of genealogy and genetics has made many advancements in medicine and biology possible.

      • Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by schon (31600) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:55PM (#13985017) Homepage
        You say that it corruptive of reliigon.

        I'm not the parent poster, but I think it's probably because of the fact that it reduces the power of god.

        Basically, ID says that anything we can't directly observe or understand was made by god.

        As we see more and understand more of how our world works, that means (logically) that god is less and less powerful. Right now (according to ID), god is directly responsible for "X" amount of the world around us, where "X" is everything we don't understand, or haven't observed directly. As we are constantly learning, that means that god is less and less responsible for the world around us, up until the point where we understand everything, and hence god (to quote Douglas Adams) disappears in a puff of logic.

      • Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Decaff (42676) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @10:15PM (#13985193)
        Interesting comment--considering that they are teaching Intelligent Design alongside Evolutionary Theory. Your comment seems to indicate that, by teaching ONLY Evolution, that's how we develop Independent Thinking? Tell one side of a story? Somehow, that seems more like indoctrination to me.

        You are missing the point. These classes are supposed to be science lessons, not philosophy or religion. There are plenty of alternatives ideas to evolution that can be discussed in biology classes, such as the ideas that fossils aren't old and the Earth was created recently. These areas are testable, and examining the data that suggests they are false can be highly educational - students learn about rock strata and radioactive dating.

        Intelligent design is not testable. It is nothing more than a series of statements of incredulity - that because we don't yet understand everything about the evolution of life then there must have been intervention by a 'designer'. This isn't science. Intelligent design might be science if there was some sort of valid consistent test for the existence of a designer, but there isn't. Also, because it is likely there there will always be some area of evolution or of biology that is not fully understood, there will always be some room for someone to say 'that must be designed'. This means that Intelligent Design is never refutable; again, making it meaningless in the context of science.

        Science teaching should include the idea that we are simply currently ignorant about some things. Coming up with untestable, irrefutable explanations to cover that ignorance is dishonest and should not be part of the process.

        Imagine this sort of approach being used in other areas of science (e.g. 'We don't yet fully understand the origin of comets, so aliens or gods must have made them') and the results are silly in the extreme.

  • Darwinism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:29PM (#13984783)
    Now it's up to the colleges/universities to teach Kansas schools about natural selection.
    "Going for a science degree, huh? From Kansas, are you? Interesting..."

  • 2006 election (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bananatree3 (872975) * on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:30PM (#13984793)
    Just wait till 2006 when the Kansas State Board of Education will have to face the voters on this issue.

    • Re:2006 election (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WhiteBandit (185659) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:34PM (#13984825) Homepage
      Just wait till 2006 when the Kansas State Board of Education will have to face the voters on this issue.

      Oh goody. So then the 4 people who voted against it will be voted out of office, further solidifying this teaching policy.

      • Re:2006 election (Score:5, Informative)

        by CompMD (522020) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @10:01PM (#13985079)
        Nah, four of the six wacko board members are up for reelection. They are from western Kansas, and that is pretty much what you get from that part of the state.

        The board will never go completely nutjob, there is the KBOE district that includes Topeka and Lawrence that will never turn.

    • Re:2006 election (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Teckla (630646) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:39PM (#13984871)

      Just wait till 2006 when the Kansas State Board of Education will have to face the voters on this issue.

      Yeah, just like George W. Bush had to "face the voters" after his abysmal first term and after starting the debacle in Iraq. The same man who considers Intelligent Design a theory as scientifically as valid as Evolution. Who has publically stated his support for teaching "the other side" (Intelligent Design).

      In case you hadn't noticed, Americans are becoming less and less intelligent as the years go by.

      And now, I must suffer getting voted into oblivion by a million neo-cons. Goodbye, karma.

    • Re:2006 election (Score:5, Funny)

      by Petronius (515525) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:42PM (#13984894)
      They'll be able to experience "survival of the fittest" in Technicolor. muahahahaha.

  • redefined science? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GodHammre (730029) * on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:30PM (#13984794)
    I find it rather humorous that you can redefine science based on the word of some ignorant administration officials. Their definition brings voodoo, astrology, and hollywood into the realm of science.

  • Hey Kansas! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:30PM (#13984798)
    We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!

    -- The World

  • Cue the jokes about... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gardyloo (512791) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:31PM (#13984800)
    ...noodly appendages.

  • Thank God (Score:5, Funny)

    by MarcusX (929644) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:31PM (#13984801)
    Thank God we'd never elect a fundamentalist like this to a high government office; the do enough damage in the schoo.... fuck.

  • Schools... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Poromenos1 (830658) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:31PM (#13984803) Homepage
    I think it is quite wrong to teach ID in schools, not because it's a weird theory but because children in school have learned to believe everything they are taught (I know I was) and don't have the critical thinking required to question those things and decide on their own (that comes later, about at the end of highschool/beginning of college). I remember some pretty outrageous things teachers told us (they obviously didn't know any better) that I believed until much later, and it's a sad realisation when you think that if something like this is false, everything else could be, as well.

    • Re:Schools... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hunterx11 (778171) <hunterx11.gmail@com> on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:39PM (#13984869) Homepage Journal
      Honestly I'd rather have straight Creationism taught in the schools than Intelligent Design. ID is not a "weird theory" but an attempt to subvert the very meaning of theory itself. This is why it is such an important issue: teaching children lies is not the worst you can do, since they can later discover the truth on their own. But if you intentionally cripple their ability to think critically by doing things such as equivocating pseudoscience with science, they can be handicapped permanently.

  • This is truly a sad day.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lucidwray (300955) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:31PM (#13984808)
    I have to say that this is truly sad for the students of Kansas. Not only do they have to waste time learning something as stupid as Intelligent Design, but as they move on into College, they will now be the laughing stock of their class...

    poor, poor Kansas.

  • Tom Cruise, where are you? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jkauzlar (596349) * on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:32PM (#13984812) Homepage
    It's times like this I wish someone like Tom Cruise or someone of similar high-profile would step up and demand that Scientology be taught alongside 'intelligent design.' It would show how ridiculous this whole matter is. I should think his request would have to be granted, constitionally.

    "You don't know anything about the origins mankind! I *do*!"

    And the seven-fold path to wisdom needs to be placed next to the ten commandments on public property!

  • Not material critical of evolution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cgenman (325138) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:34PM (#13984824) Homepage
    allow science students in public schools to hear materials critical of evolution in biology classes.

    This is not at issue here. You can have all of the material critial of evolution you want in any biology class anywhere in the United States. Criticism is a fundamental part of the scientific process. What you can't do is then turn around and say "because we don't have a good explanation, God did it."

    There is nothing wrong with scientifically saying "your explanation is flawed," "that theory doesn't explain all phenomenon," or even "we don't know." But there is a problem, to quote Asimov, with saying that "Dragons must be pushing the moons."

    • Hippocrates also observed this 2500 years ago (Score:5, Informative)

      by MojoStan (776183) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:50PM (#13984973)
      What you can't do is then turn around and say "because we don't have a good explanation, God did it."

      There is nothing wrong with scientifically saying "your explanation is flawed," "that theory doesn't explain all phenomenon," or even "we don't know." But there is a problem, to quote Asimov, with saying that "Dragons must be pushing the moons."

      Wish I could mod you up. 2500 years ago, Hippocrates (think Hippocratic Oath) promoted a quasi-scientific approach to medicine at a time when superstition and prayer were the dominant treatments. From the first chapter of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World:

      In a typical passage Hippocrates wrote: "Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things." Instead of acknowledging that in many areas we are ignorant, we have tended to say things like the Universe is permeated with the ineffable. A God of the Gaps is assigned responsibility for what we do not yet understand.
      "God of the Gaps." I always liked that description.

  • Look at the last part (Score:5, Insightful)

    by motbob (897343) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:34PM (#13984826)
    Look at that last part again--the board rewrote the definition of science. That's astonishing--and by doing so, the board has admitted outright that "intelligent design" isn't science. If it were, they wouldn't have had to change the definition. They're now saying that science class should include supernatural explanations--everything from leprechauns to poltergeists to the balance of bodily humours is now a legitimate part of Kansas' science curriculum.

  • Misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cytoman (792326) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:34PM (#13984827)
    The Kansas Board did not adopt Intelligent Design. Instead it did two things:

    1)It said that schools should present evolution as a flawed theory. This has the effect of students looking at evolution and saying "oh, it's not good enough to explain what we see...". A side effect of this is that the students now become more receptive to kooky ideas like Intelligent Design.

    2)It redefined the meaning of science. According to the new definition, science is no longer is limited to searching for natural explanations for natural phenomena.

    These changes are more damaging to education in the long run compared to adopting Intelligent Design alone.

    • Re:Misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eobanb (823187) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:39PM (#13984870) Homepage
      Exactly. The thing that Christian fundamentalists fear most is children being raised learning that because of evolution, God isn't necessary in any part of the equation of how we came to be. If you remember the whole Creation Science debacle of several years ago, this is just a re-badged attempt, even if not directly saying "since evolution is just a theory, you should believe that God intervened."

    • Re:Misleading headline (Score:5, Funny)

      by c0d3h4x0r (604141) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @10:17PM (#13985212) Homepage Journal
      2)It redefined the meaning of science. According to the new definition, science is no longer is limited to searching for natural explanations for natural phenomena.

      Excellent! So now student "science" fair projects can be about... well, pretty much anything!

  • Non-science debunking science? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nonother (845183) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:34PM (#13984828)
    The theory of evolution has some holes, and it's most likely not 100% correct, but it's a very good working definition. It's just like our understanding of the atom, we have a decent working definition that has need for improvement but that is not to imply that it isn't mostly true. Instead we don't call it too complicated and offer up a non-scientific theory. It all boils down to the fact that denouncing evolution with non-science is unacceptable in a science setting.

  • as usual on slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

    by Clover_Kicker (20761) <clover_kicker@yahoo.com> on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:38PM (#13984866)
    I look forward to an enlightened, civilized discussion about this controversial subject.

  • Big surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by syberanarchy (683968) <spoocewang-at-gmail-dot-com> on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:39PM (#13984872) Homepage Journal
    Awesome, just awesome. I saw one of these proponents speak on an episode of Penn and Teller: Bullshit!, and his logic (or lack thereof) was amazing. "Wouldn't it be great if the state let the parents sit down with their children and choose as a family what they're going to believe?" Uh, no, simply for the reason that SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. You can't ignore facts just because you don't like them. Of course, given that this is the same Middle America (tm) that still believes there is a PROVEN link between 9/11 and Iraq, and that we've found actual WMDS...

  • University Of Kansas an Exception (Score:5, Informative)

    by justanyone (308934) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:44PM (#13984915) Homepage Journal

    As a proud University of Kansas Jayhawk Alumni (1992 Bachelor of Science Computer Science) I have a perspective on this - Not all of Kansas is this conservative.

    There are several isolated centers of liberalism (most notably NOT the oxymoronically named town of Liberal, KS) which include Lawrence, some of Topeka, the Kansas City suburbs, and parts of Wichita. However, the vast majority of the state is very Red.

    This debate highlights several contrasts in Kansas culture. Many small towns resent the power that the bigger population centers hold over Kansas political power, and are more vehemently conservative because of it. They feel they must fight for their views to be heard.

    Another factor here is the ever-more-computer-enhanced jerrymandered redistricting that has been taking place nationwide (most eggregiously in Texas 3+ years ago). As a result, since politicians are more secure in their political bases, they feel free to pander to their most vocal (and most extreme) constituents, since there is no need to appeal to the center. This also selects for more extreme views.

    Lastly, this is a confusing trend in the light of the long Kansas tradition of progressive politics, starting wwwwwaaayy back with the Grange organization, which pushed for social-security-type platforms to support destitute farmers in the 1800's.

    Even more confusing is the last-10-years trend towards confusing conservative social policies (less freedom for the individual to ensure compliance with moral laws) with conservative fiscal and governmental policies (more individual freedoms and less overall government interference). The freedom-to-farm act (an attempt to liberalize the agriculture market and reduce dependence that farmers don't want on subsidies) contrasts strongly with strong corporate farm interests that advocate for greater involvement, which also contrasts with traditional Republican less-government-is-better.

    Also throw in there the strong German-American and now hispanic Catholic elements that, at the recently increasing behest of Rome, are catching on that Intelligent Design is contrary to scriptural meanings, that it confuses the spiritual (some would say 'religious mythical truths') and the scientific truths to the vast detriment of both.

    All in all, things are a bit confused and I suspect that when the voters start pushing for actual policies to solve problems (during the next recession, let's say). I just don't know when they'll figure it out.

  • New bumper sticker (Score:5, Funny)

    by beforewisdom (729725) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:53PM (#13985007)
    New bumper sticker:

    "If you can read this, you are not from Kansas"

    • So far, there hasn't been. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:46PM (#13984925)
      I'll probably get modded into oblivion for this, and I may indeed be quite wrong, but is there anything wrong with allowing "materials critical of evolution" to be taught?
      Not that I can see. The only problem is FINDING anything that is scientific and contradicts evolution.
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there really no scientific basis for any criticism of evolution?
      So far there isn't.

      Evolution is the foundation of our current understanding of Biology. Everything from DNA to resistant viruses is predicted by evolution.
      Isn't it only fair - and rather scientific - to explain both supporting and critical evidence?
      Sure. The problem is FINDING anything that is both scientific and critical of evolution.

    • Re:definition of evolution (Score:5, Funny)

      by Eightyford (893696) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:51PM (#13984984) Homepage
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

      Sigh. Yes, sadly I have, but the Cardinal only moved him to a different church as punishment.

      jk

    • Correction. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheOriginalRevdoc (765542) on Tuesday November 08 2005, @09:52PM (#13984992) Journal
      Evolution is a phenomenon. It can be observed easily, even in something as trivial and obvious as dog breeding.

      Natural selection is a theory that explains why we have the natural species that we do. Sexual selection is a different theory that explains, inter alia, the appearance of species that reproduce sexually.

      Mutation is a theory that explains certain aspects of evolution, and is used in the theory of natural selection.

      All of that aside, we all need somebody to ridicule as yokels. It makes is feel better. Europe has Austria, Australia has New Zealand, and the US has Kansas. It's the natural order of things, and must not be disturbed.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.