Kansas Board of Ed. Adopts Intelligent Design 2136
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.'"
You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Is there no end to this, [tt]abernac?!?The Flying Spaghetti Monster Does Exist (Score:5, Funny)
~S
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I grew up exposed to both evolution and genesis, and even as a very, very young child could see that details of the Genesis story were contradicted even in the Bible in different places... and was entirely unsupported by evidence... and people even used to get tetchy when I asked perfectly innocent questions about details of their faith ("If Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, who did Cain and Abel marry to have kids?"). I concluded (as the majority of intelligent people the world over have also done) that Genesis was intended as a metaphor - a helpful story to teach you important lessons, not the literal truth.[1]
In contrast, evolution (while, obviously "only" a theory) was supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It was also the simplest answer to the problem (don't tell me that "successive gradual beneficial developments being passed to offspring" is a more convoluted proposition than "positing the existence of an omnipotent, self-created being who can violate known laws of physics at will, create an entire universe and yet who still has a parochial interest in one tiny, unremarkable corner of it... and often displays suspiciously human motives and emotions").
And please don't trot out the old saw about "giving the students more choice" - many of the students are already indoctrinated from birth with ID/Creationist/fundamentalist propaganda, and have Comparative Religion classes, so they have plenty of exposure to both sides of the "debate".
ID is not science. By any meaningful definition of the term, it does not belong in Science classes. This is not about giving students a choice between two scientific theories, but about weakening the whole of science in favour of faith.
Frankly, and finally, my feelings on Creationists' beliefs in a literal interpretation of Genesis were pretty much summed up when I first read the Illuminatus trilogy, by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea:
'Nuff said.
[1] Important point, related to this. This whole furore about evolution isn't an example of "Science" crushing "Faith". It's about science disproving one narrow, frankly daft interpretation of one religion, that (primarily because of said daftness) is hugely in the minority in the world.
Many people with more enlightened faiths happily balance science and faith together, and see no conflict there. Most of the rest of the religious world (even the Pope!) watches the actions of a few US fundamentalists with amused bemusement.
The creationists and ID proponents in Kansas are no different to those who screamed and ranted at Copernicus, for exiling us from a special place in the universe. Or Aristotle, for proving the earth was round. Science moves inexorably onward. Sometimes it disproves or counter-indicates even ideas we hold very dear to our hearts. These ideas are wrong. Get over it.
Re:independent thought (Score:5, Insightful)
I never understand why Creationists keep insisting that they know how God did things.
How do you know that evolution by natural selection was not God's intended way of creating life? If God designed us as 'overevolved pond scum' who are you do disagree?
I don't believe that God was involved, but if He was, it seems incredibly arrogant to insist that you have special knowledge as to how he did it.
Also, If your children know this, why put them into science classes where there is supposed to be debate and discussion of alternatives?
We're here to do the right thing and to help those around us.
And this relates to the debate how? Anyone with a reasonable understanding of evolution knows that altruistic behaviour does not conflict with natural selection in any way.
They know that their children and their ideas are how they will be judged. Independent thought is a requirement, and can't be trained out of a person anyway.
Independent thought? You mean like them knowing that they are Created? How independent is that?
So take care when spouting off about things you don't understand.
Indeed.
Re:independent thought (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't accept that!
I can consider it, as an hypothesis, but I will NOT simply accept it outright, without any kind of proof. No thanks.
If we're gonna be talking about the scientific method, someone saying "I've been like this as long as I remember" is not proof of a congenital trait. Do you remember all of the significant developmental anecdotes of your first two, three years of life? You don't have to stone people for having sex with people of the same gender, but you don't have to buy all of their claims about how they came about being that way either. Middle ground, dude.
Maybe they were born that way, maybe they were exposed to hormones at an early age that affected their devellopment, we don't know.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Behe redefined science at the Dover trial, and had to admit under crossexamination that astrology meets his definition of science.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Informative)
Even better (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The true sadness is that Kansas will produce a generation of children who have been taught;
"Don't bother questioning why things work the way they do. The answer is beyond your understanding."
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no chance that an entire generation of Kansas schoolkids will grow up in a new dark age of scientific misunderstanding. Because of this controversy, science might actually appear interesting to some of them, and that would be good.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be the best thing to happen for everyone else. Once Kansas becomes the victim of a self-imposed economic failure, even most religious fundamentalists will realize that factual science is a necessity.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Funny)
You sir, are a genius.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Informative)
No.
You appear to be confused. Evolution is the (observed) change in species. Darwinian natural selection is the currently best theory to explain evolution. Neither of these has anything to do woth the big bang.
Huh? Like I said, cosmology. Nothing to do with evolution.
Huh? What are you talking about? Man is an ape, no bridge is needed.
Or maybe you think scientists are claiming that "man evolved from apes"? No, it is known that man and our ape cousins had a common ancestor.
Huh? What "NASA scientists"? Enrico Fermi didn't work for NASA. How have you calculated the "odds"? What has this to do with Darwin?
Well, evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory.
Huh? Darwin shouldn't have published "On the Origin of the Species" 'cos he didn't have "incontrovertable proof"? If you know anything about science you know that we can never have incontrovertable proof. If we could it wouldn't be science.
There are no alternate (scientific) theories at the moment.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no fan of what the Kansas Board is doing, but your concern about the sanctity of the "definition of science" is misplaced.
The difference between Newton and ID is that newton was doing science and ID is poorly wrapped Creationism. His concern is well placed.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Newton was probably more dissatisfied with his inability to explain gravity than anybody. But falling back on "the only way species could exist today is because an intelligent designer made it that way" is a gigantic step backwards (like saying "the only way the planets could move the way they do is because an intelligent designer made them that way"), and redefining science such that it seems as hokey as the bullshit is truly something to be concerned about - some kids might fall for it, and move further towards believing science is indistinguishable from magic - occult magic. You know, The Devil.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Interesting)
"You know, Rachel, God created all of this."
"I know that Grandma. What I want to know is *how* God created it."
The idea or belief of Intelligent Design does not excuse someone from trying to understand the design and our place in it. As you say, most ID supporters use faith as a cop-out to try to prevent people from asking questions. To somewhat paraphrase Kant, saying that God is good and what God commands is good is circular; it does not provide a foundation for moral thought or right-action. Belief in God does not free us from the need for either moral or scientific reasoning.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
some kids might fall for it, and move further towards believing science is indistinguishable from magic - occult magic. You know, The Devil.
You, my friend, are exactly on top of this matter - you've hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Why do fundamentalist christians dislike Sci-Fi and Fantasy? Why the outcry against the Lord of the Rings, against Harry Potter, against Dungeons and Dragons?
Two reasons:
1.) Inability to tell fact from fiction.
This derives directly from the fact that their core belief system - the bible - contains things that by any measure are "magic". Water into wine. Rising from the dead. Turning to a pillar of salt. Parting the red sea. Flaming swords guarding the garden of eden. Visions and prophecies and
2.) These things are a competing product.
If magic exists, and only magic in this book is good magic, then everything else must be bad magic; and bad magic can only be attributed to "the Devil". Yes, Christians, there is a global satanic conspiracy - we want your kids to watch Harry Potter, because it will lead them to the Occult, it will make them curious about casting their own spells, and before you know it, they'll be levitating cars and leading hoardes of undead to disrupt your pot-luck picnics. Either that, or it's an amusing work of fiction, which tickles the imagination.
They've done such a good job throwing DnD, Harry Potter, and everything else under the bus. It's a politically correct climate that they can try to do it with science, now, too. If they can lable "evolution" as "bad magic"... think how far it will put the rest of us back.
Ah, but here... here, they're intruding on my religion. My god is the scientific method. I rely on facts, collected, verified, and reproducible. I don't deal in myths or untestable conjectures; I deal in science.
You won't tread on my religion.
~Will
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Darwin's "slow gradual change" is still taught in schools, which the fossil record doesn't (probably) support (with some tolerance being granted from a very spotty fossil record). If you want to yell about something, yell about that.
I would be interested if you were capable of going into more detail on this. Bear in mind you are talking to a qualified geologist. I think the above is deliberately deceptive, or very ignorant.
The point where ID better koshers with observations than life as a collection of random processes
You've lost me here (or are deliberately constructing a strawman). Evolution is not 'a collection of random processes'.
There's an unaccountably low amount of vestigal processes, especially in processes that would have no competitive advantage
Interesting. How many 'vestigal processes' does evolution predict? Where is this prediction made (references, please) so that we can have an 'unaccountable low' number of such processes? Or are you simply making things up so support a conclusion you have already arrived at?
If you claim that biochemical pathways are well designed, here is a question for you:
Ribulose is the enzyme complex used by plants for fixing Carbon Dioxide for sugar synthesis. It is, to put it mildly, extremely important for life on this planet. Yet it has a massive design flaw - it is poisioned by oxygen! Oxygen causes it to run backwards, burning the very sugars a plant is trying to make. This makes sense from the viewpoint of evolution; photosynthesis evolved when there was no atmospheric oxygen, so it was not a problem, and now the ecological niche for photosynthesis is filled; a better solution has no space to evolve. Yet a designer could 'drop in' a complete new pathway at any time; the conspicuous failure of this to happen being a problem for ID, usually dealt with by sidestepping or ignoring.
It's interesting that you would want to ask medical students, who are typically taught huge volumes of facts without much underlying theory (for entirely pragmatic reasons; medicine to biology is basically engineering to physics), instead of palentologists or biologists.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And no - you can't falsify intelligent design, because the way the question is formed makes it unfalsifiable.
Project: Prove that no intelligent being had a hand in the creation or evolution of life.
Can't be done - it's a textbook example of proving a negative - logically insoluble. The only way you can prove a negative is by empirical evidence - I don't *know* that we're not actually being held down by thousands of tiny invisible fairies flapping their wings, but I *do* know that things in a vacuum fall done at the same rate, and flapping wings can't help you fly in vacuum, so I consider this theory disproven, so empirically I can prove that no fairies meeting this description are causing the illusion of gravity.
Intelligent Design has no such empirical test - the theory that we're being pulled down by tiny invisible fairies is in fact a scientific theory in a way that I.D. isn't, because I can design a test to disprove it. Go through enough iterations of my testing the theory, and modifying the theory to fit the new test (They're unbreathing fairies, with tiny 'lil rubberbands holding them down), and we'll find that eventually I have 'fairies' that look astonishingly like gravitons. Personally, Physics is easier than stubbornly staying with the fairies theory, but the nature of the scientific method means I will, after many iterations, home in on the same truths.
Not all Truths are reachable in this fashion. Godel's theorem would seem to me to indicate that there are truths unreachable through any scientific method, just like there are unreachable truths in any other axiomatic method.
But if Intelligent design is in that range, then it doesn't belong in a science course by definition. The very fact that Intelligent design is being put forward as an alternative to the falsifiable and scientific theory of evolution seems to indicate that it's not among that rarified group of unscientific things that still happen to be true.
Anything else is just sloppy thinking.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Funny)
What a clever and intelligent response. Did you go to school in Kansas?
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is 100% wrong! The scientific method is not up for debate. The reason people at the time were wrong to condemn Newton's notions of gravity is PRECISELY BECAUSE these people were not using the scientific method, and he was!
"Part of what is at stake in scientific controversy is what the proper definition of science is."
This is just false. It is easy to define science: it is the advancement (or state of) human knowledge acquired through the scientific method. If you need a definition of the scientific method, any grade school science textbook will give it to you. Empirical falsification of theory and subsequent theorizing is uniquely responsible for the incredible state of technology today. Philosophers' ponderings in their atriums, witch doctors' reasoning from 'first principles,' priest's divine revelations: none of these have yielded any significant and sustained advance in technology EVER. These goddamn rednecks who have decided to redefine science are killing a sacred cow. Science is not whatever you want it to be, it's not a political philosophy, and it's certainly not the expression of religious beliefs in a modern world. It's a single process that has proven throughout history to GET RESULTS. By trying to force it out of the classroom, these imbeciles are doing their children just as much of a disservice as if they replaced mathematics with numerology, astronomy with astrology, or economics with finger-painting.
Gravity is a hard problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that education does overemphasize the "facts" of science and history at the expense of the process. I had a few classes in college that really opened my eyes to the holes in our knowledge of these fields. But we won't fix these holes by just waving our hands and mumbling "intelligent design". In fact ID is the EXACT equivalent of saying "we don't know how this works". That's not an explanation; it's a placeholder for further work. Our educational system just needs to work harder on saying "we're never really sure how everything works, but here's our best explanation so far."
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet scientists don't, and regardless happily go about improving hte world.
I'm not convinced that scientists should have control over our public schools' science curriculum any more than I'm convinced that priests should set the curriculum for (comparative) religion classes.
Your analogy is flawed. Comparative religion isn't a subject in which a priest is an expert. Comparative religion is, depending on the exact nature of the class, either a branch of cultural study (anthropology, etc), or a branch of philosophy. Personally, I think an anthropologist or a philosopher who has studies cultural philosophy would make a fine person to set the cirriculum for a comparative religion class.
Public education is so crucial to our society that it should be set by the people or their duly elected representatives, not some unelected technocracy.
That presupposes that democratic processes are always better than their alternatives. This has shown to be emperically false (most corporations and households are not democracies), and indeed is hardly the principle under which our country was founded.
Not surprising (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
First, you should look up the meaning of the word 'theory'. There you will see that in the pure and natural sciences (but not in maths) a theory cannot be proven. No theory can therefore be the 'end all, be all'.
Second, there are currently no scientific theories that explain the development of life as well as evolution does. It is the most widely accepted theory by a huge margin.
Thirdly, the issue here is that they want to teach religion in a science class to further their ideological goals. Inteligent Design should not be given 'fair weight' in a scientific context, as it has nothing but the slimmest scientific backing.
Fare Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen, brother!
Let's start with
Re:Fare Wait (Score:5, Informative)
You forgot to mention the 4-day Time Cube!
You are stupid and evil and you don't even know it because you're so stupid and evil. Equal time of the 4-day must be given to the Time Cube!
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Not for long. This sort of anti-scientific sentiment will run out all of the real scientists. As you show, there are many opportunities outside of Kansas. Without a solid scientific and technical base, the economy of Kansas will become irrelevant. And these days no community survives without a solid economy.
Religions don't even back ID (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Religions don't even back ID (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Religions don't even back ID (Score:5, Insightful)
Want proof.
Fine, where are the papers on ID that have been accepted to respected conferences. None? Ok.
Where are the professors speaking up in favor of it. None?
Ok.
See, this is the difference between science and a political agenda... science is science, and a political agenda is a political agenda. See? Science is discussed at conferences, by scientists. If your theory isn't peer reviewed, in science, it's not "science." It's a theory that you've posited.
What these people are doing is wrong. They're trying to make their religion true by calling it science. There's a funny thing about faith. You're just supposed to believe it. If your faith isn't strong enough to stand up to even a basic test, then perhaps you just don't have faith.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Informative)
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, Funny)
What does "the heart of america" nonsense really mean? Do you mean rural america or are you trying to lay claim to being a part of some moral majority? Did the founding fathers label some particular part of the United States as the heart and other parts as some other kind of body part? I think you've been watching to many chevrolet advertisments.
One thing's for certain; nobody is labeling rural america as the "brain of america", and with kansas on your side, that's not likely to change anytime soon.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:You are only hurting yourself you know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
ID's greatest sin is that it closes doors to scientific research. If God miraciously intervened and created the eye then there is no reason to try to find an explanation. God did it so leave it alone and don't question it. Obviously if a million believers can't figure it out what could a scientist accomplish? And if this can be done in evolution then why can't it be done in other sciences? The creation of the universe is too complex to really comprehend so all this fluff about researching gravity really doesn't have to be done because we can just attribute the really interesting mysteries to God.
ID isn't science. It's the same old shit that pioneers in science had to fight against and be abused by centuries ago.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
ID vs. Lamarckianism (Score:4, Interesting)
There are implications, I believe, for our present American situation: parasitic governments, namely, have something to fear from Darwin; what exactly, remains to be seen.
Darwinism (Score:5, Insightful)
"Going for a science degree, huh? From Kansas, are you? Interesting..."
Re:Darwinism (Score:5, Funny)
Or as an alternative...
"'Science'? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Re:Darwinism (Score:5, Funny)
"Okay, you're gonna want to sit down for this."
no joke (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Darwinism (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Darwinism (Score:5, Funny)
2006 election (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:2006 election (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
redefined science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey Kansas! (Score:5, Funny)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!!
-- The World
Cue the jokes about... (Score:5, Funny)
Thank God (Score:5, Funny)
Schools... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Schools... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is truly a sad day.. (Score:5, Insightful)
poor, poor Kansas.
definition of evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Re:definition of evolution (Score:5, Funny)
Sigh. Yes, sadly I have, but the Cardinal only moved him to a different church as punishment.
jk
Correction. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Tom Cruise, where are you? (Score:5, Interesting)
"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!
If it ever comes to Arizona (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd have a hell of a time squirming out of that one.
Not material critical of evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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:
"God of the Gaps." I always liked that description.Look at the last part (Score:5, Insightful)
Misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Misleading headline (Score:5, Funny)
Excellent! So now student "science" fair projects can be about... well, pretty much anything!
Non-science debunking science? (Score:5, Insightful)
An Apology (Score:4, Insightful)
- The Crusades
- Republicans
- Focus on the Family
- Galileo and many others (their persecution)
Seriously, I'm sorry. Please don't think that someone cannot follow Jesus and try to be at peace with the world. Don't mod me funny, I mean it. I'm sorry.I'm happy, and I'm sad (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sad, because as Kansas continues to deterioriate into a rabidly backward and conservative area, more and more destitute as each year goes by, government handouts will be seen as the only way out.
You reap what you sow. As the (some of the) rest of the U.S. watches Kansas deteroriate into nothing, I hope we have the intelligence to leave them in the gutter.
as usual on slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Big surprise. (Score:5, Interesting)
Intelligent Design is NOT science, and here's why: (Score:4, Informative)
Besides, even if they did have evidence for ID (as opposed to merely lack of evidence to the contrary, which is all they actually have), it still wouldn't be science, because it explicitly requires an influence that's not bound by natural laws. No experiment can be designed to test the "theory," because the point of it is that it's untestable.
There might be an "Intelligent Designer," or there may not be. Who knows? But it doesn't matter anyway, because the issue is outside of science!
It's not disprovable, you mean. (Score:5, Informative)
ID is not a scientific theory because it is not disprovable. I suspect this is why they had to change the definition of "science".
University Of Kansas an Exception (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The President will stop this (Score:4, Insightful)
The very top of this country's leadership advocates ID; so begins the slow spiral into a dark age of education and science. Other then voting most of this addle-brained out of office there will be little the plebian society can do to stop this onslaught of dark age metality.
This *is* a sad day. As one with a very young child soon to start in the school system, the moment any School board in my area begins this debate I will pull her out of public education, as well I will campaign to stop this spread of illogical thought. Maybe it is time to promote the damn Speghetti monster theory of evolution in Kansas since they have opened the door for any crack pot scheme.
God Save the children of Kansas for their parents surely are lost.
This is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no scientist, and I don't have any deep knowledge of evolution and the proof and theory behind it (at least that hasn't stuck with me from 10th grade biology,) but to my knowledge, evolution has deep scientific background, despite not being a proven fact.
In an alternative vein, Intelligent Design/Creationism does have a few specs here and there that support it, but not nearly enough that would indicate the theory without some religious notion already in place.
I am a big contendor of the seperation of church and state. I believe that anyone, religious or otherwise, should be. Why? While Christianity may be the leading religion in America right now, people should think about how it could be if Islam or other religions were the mainstream, and how their beliefs could affect Christians in that kind of world. Just as I don't want to follow their beliefs, I should not try to make them follow mine. This goes with atheism, too.
If there is another scientifically backed theory that states an alternative progression of life, then it should be taught alongside evolution. Intelligent Design is not that theory, and this "Board of Education" is using personal presumptions and beliefs to affect the education of thousands of children, many of whom will probably go on to perpetuate this.
And redefining science? That's just ludicrous. Next, they should redefine math to remove all calculus and algebra; this will make it easier for these children to pass standardized tests after going through a lackluster education.
And people wonder why America is looked down upon these days. Boo to you, Kansas. Boo to you.
(For the record, I believe in a mix of creationism and evolution; God created stuff, and evolution happened, with God nudging it here and there.)
New bumper sticker (Score:5, Funny)
"If you can read this, you are not from Kansas"
It really doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
During school, I denounced evolution regardless of their teachings, and argued with friends, teachers, and my dad's side of the family. But I still learned critical thinking and by the time I was 19 and on my own, I proclaimed myself an athiest and started to grok the evolutionary, organic nature of our world.
Not that such is the ultimate goal -- go with whatever works for you. But I don't buy that school makes or breaks critical thinkers, and I don't think that hearing conflicting (even idiodic) ideas poisons the mind. Any of the kids in Kansas who are going to believe in ID are going to do so regardless of what the curriculum says. Ditto for evolution.
And I don't even think the blow to science matters. Education is pretty much a mess anyways. It's not like we ever taught critical thinking in school. Or even basic logic. It's mostly memorization, without even the context to make use of the info. Most people seem to pick up any useful knowledge on their own.
Cheers.
(PS - I'm a high school drop out who went on to a fairly successful tech career... my opinion on the matter might be a bit skewed
UC Berkeley won't give credit for this (Score:5, Informative)
People + Religion = Confusion & Counterintuiti (Score:5, Informative)
Robyn Williams: Professor Derek Denton from the University of Melbourne has just published something of a critique of intelligent design in The Age newspaper, suggesting that some parts of our bodies are so botched that it's an insult to poor old God to hold him responsible.
Derek Denton: There is obvious evidence against such an idea operating in living creatures. The gut is supported by being enclosed in a big membrane called the peritoneum. The peritoneum is attached to the backbone. This is fine for a four footed animal, however, given an animal with an upright posture, for example us, the gut falls to the bottom of the abdominal cavity. The common outcome may be various types of hernia, prolapse of the uterus and vaginal wall and haemorrhoids.
The big maxillary sinuses or cavities are behind the cheeks on either side of the face. They have the drainage hole in the top, which is not much of an idea in terms of using gravity to assist drainage of the fluid. Ear, nose and throat specialists sometimes have to knock a hole through the side of the nose near the bottom of the sinus to help drainage of puss. Apart from horses, which have a very small opening, most four-footed animals operating with head down rarely get sinus problems. It would seem that knowledge of gravity has not been a strong point in the repertoire of the intelligent designer.
The digestive system of grass and herbage eating animals includes a large organ next to the secum, the vermiform appendix in which cellulose is digested. In the human it's rudimentary, it gets matter caught in it, becomes inflamed sometimes causing sever peritonitis and death. Why the intelligent designer put it in at all is conjectural, unless in fact it is an evolutionary remnant from an earlier beneficial function.
One of the marvels of backboned animals is the eye. Indeed, Dr William Paley, a clergyman, whose writings were used to challenge Darwin considered it as the shining example of intelligent design. Paley likened the situation to that of finding a watch abandoned in an open field: it must have a maker who formed it for a purpose. The eye might be compared with a designed instrument such as a telescope, he concludes, 'that there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it'. That is the eye must have had a designer just as the telescope had.
In considering the eye as the marvel, there are facts now known which were not known in Paley's time, about 1801. In our eye and of all other vertebrates the optic nerve carries over a million fibres each leading from a cell in the retina. It is part of a system receiving data from about 125 million photocells. Whereas it would seem a designer would point the photo cells towards the source of light with the wires leading back to the brain, it would be poor design to have the photo cells pointing away from the light with their nerve processes departing on the side nearest the light. This is what happens in all vertebrate eyes, the wires or nerve processes have to travel across the surface of the retina to a place where they all go through a hole, creating what is called the blind spot, to form the optic nerve. The design principle is really not very good. The extremely interesting fact is that with the octopus the wires from the photocells don't point to the light but do indeed go backwards. The octopus eye in this respect is a better-designed effort by the putative intelligent designer than the eye of mammals. How did this come about?
Well, Ernst Mayr, the great Harvard biologist argued that photo receptors in some form evolved independently some 40 to 60 times in animals ranging from worms, molluscs to vertebrates. In the octopus eye it is formed by an infolding of the surface cells on the head, which become thickened to form eye components and it i
An Atheist's chuckle (Score:5, Informative)
I have to say, to an Atheist like myself, all religions pretty much sounds like a chorus of stupidity. At some point a person indocrinated many otherwise rational people with a crazy notion-- in every part of your life but ONE, you will use rational thought to critically think. Why? It's so unbelievably obvious that religion is a good way to be in tune with your fellow man, and a terrible way to describe the empirical world. Faith, in this context, is another word for "lazy."
The difference between Atheists and religious fundamentalists is that it's a rare day you find an athiest pushing their point of view on another person. I don't care what you think. I *want* you to think what you feel is right, and I want you to leave me the F alone. Fundamentalists (not speaking of level headed religious people) insist on making everyone else believe what they believe. They will lie, steal, and cheat their way at any cost under the belief they are working for a great good. This country was founded on freedom of speech, religion (or lack of), and diversity. Live and let live. Sadly, this mentality was driven into them in one of two ways: as a small child or in a time of weakness. In both cases these are times in people's lives when they are vulnerable to suggestion. Sounds abhorrent to me.
At it's core, Fundamentalists dig their heels in about Evolution because it challenges the single most important principal in their worlds-- humans are at the center. We're created in god's image, and "he" is the creator of us. (Yes not all religions, but let's go with this in the context of the Kansas situation.) So, if we're not all that special, where do fundamentalists find their purpose? Their entire worlds come crashing down. Nothing seems more "secular" to me than thinking you're the only unique speck of life in the universe. The sad twist is that people like myself, who believe in Science as a way to understand our conditions of existence, rarely think our place and the world around it is any less special. It's amazing! It's wonderful. We're wonderful. And we should damn well let our neighbor think what they want. That goes for anything shy of inflicting bodily harm on another. I don't think teaching the evolution of humans counts as bodily harm, do you? How about we keep Religion at home, where the Bible thumping Fundamentalists are supposed to be indoctrinating their children with creation myths.
So now we sit and watch Kansas, a state my Aunt and Uncle live in, become the laughing stock of the developed WORLD. I just sit back and think on all the other recent evangelical religion based events that have been so similar, and backfired so badly. Now we can add one more to that endless list. This is the new Monkey trial, folks. It will take some time, but this won't last for long. Reason will prevail.
And if you don't agree with me-- fine. I want you to think for yourself. Just keep Religion at home, please.
Re:Science isn't science anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
ID is a supernatural explanation of phenomena.
Re:Mind-boggling (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good For Them (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good For Them (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jesus? (Score:5, Funny)
So far, there hasn't been. (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution is the foundation of our current understanding of Biology. Everything from DNA to resistant viruses is predicted by evolution.Sure. The problem is FINDING anything that is both scientific and critical of evolution.
Re:What is it Evolutionists are afraid of? (Score:5, Informative)
Which is not true. Amphibians have more DNA in all than we do, and rice (of all things) has more genes than we do. Surely you would agree that we are higher lifeforms.
Sure, dogs are bred to weed out undesirable traits and to accentuate desirable ones, yet this is still a dog. In 100,000 years of breeding, I'm not going to get a dog that has the slightest bit more genetic material than the one I started with 10,000 years ago.
10,000 years is a rather short timespan during which to perform your experiment. Breeding of dogs hasn't been around even that long, so the fact that dogs are genetically similar to their predecessors acounts for nothing.
The basis for radiometric dating methods assumes three things: a constant rate of decay, an isolated system where neither the radioactive element nor the decay product is added nor removed, and third that the initial ratio of parent to decay product is known.
The rate of decay of elements falls out of nuclear science. Nuclear science is not something ID folks want to take on --- nuclear scientists can bury you in equations in a way evolutionists cannot. The other two bits are assumptions, but good ones. Barring unforseen vectors, radioactive carbon simply does not add itself to the system. Certainly not in ways that cannot be checked for in contamination tests. Tthe assumption aboout knowing the initial ratio of parent to decay product is a good one too. The chemistry of life, as compared to its genetics, is something that is remarkably constant throughout the biosphere.
For myself, I have many other pieces of evidence that provide me with a 'preponderance of the evidence' indicating the fallability of evolution.
Better than these sad examples?
I would hope, that creationism, pastafarianism, and others should welcome and stand on their own merit.
And their merits are poor.
Unless you're afraid of what you might find, that there actually is a God of universe.
Yep, I see a whole lotta fear out there.
The entertaining thing is that if there is a God, he's going to be far happier with the scientists for advancing the state of humanity than with religious-but-otherwise-unproductive. Yes, this a belief, like yours, but since it is a belief, there is no way for you to prove me wrong.