Pharyngula

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Goodbye, Kansas

It's a sad day for American science. We've lost Kansas.

Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The 6-4 vote was a victory for "intelligent design" advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools, in violation of the constitutional ban on state establishment of religion.

All six of those who voted for the new standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted no.

For the next few years, a lot of schoolkids are going to get taught slippery twaddle—instead of learning what scientists actually say about biology, they're going to get the phony pseudoscience of ideologues and dishonest hucksters. And that means the next generation of Kansans are going to be a little less well informed, even more prone to believing the prattlings of liars, and the cycle will keep on going, keep on getting worse.

This, for instance, is baloney.

The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.

The proponents of these changes don't have any idea what the fossil and molecular evidence says, and they are misrepresenting it. There is no credible evidence against common descent and chemical evolution; those concepts are being strengthened, year by year. What does this school board think to gain by teaching students lies?

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

Rewriting the definition of science seems a rather presumptuous thing for a school board to do, I think, especially when their new definition is something contrary to what working scientists and major scientific organizations say is science. As for removing the limitation to natural phenomena, what do they propose to add? Ghosts, intuition, divine revelation, telepathic communications from Venusians? It's simply insane.

The clowns of Kansas don't think so, of course.

"This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do," said board chairman Steve Abrams. Another board member who voted in favor of the standards, John Bacon, said the move "gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today."

John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said changes probably would come to classrooms gradually, with some teachers feeling freer to discuss criticisms of evolution. "These changes are not targeted at changing the hearts and minds of the Darwin fundamentalists," Calvert said.

The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports challenges to Darwinian evolutionary theory, praised the Kansas effort. "Students will learn more about evolution, not less as some Darwinists have falsely claimed," institute spokesman Casey Luskin said in a written statement.

Casey Luskin is a toady for the DI, so what does he know? There is a straightforward body of evidence for evolution to which students should be introduced—evidence that high school curricula barely touch on as it is. Adding a collection of false and confusing claims about what scientists say is only going to diminish the legitimate science that can be taught. And teaching absurdities, such as that science deals with the supernatural, represents a load of garbage that instructors at the college level are going to have to scoop out of the brains of these poor students. At least, that is, out of the diminishing number of students who will pursue genuine science, rather than the dead-end vapor of Intelligent Design creationism.

Goodbye, Kansas. I don't expect to see many of your sons and daughters at my university in coming years, unless the teachers of your state refuse to support the outrageous crapola their school board has foisted on them. I hope the rest of the country moves on, refusing to join you in your stagnant backwater of 18th century hokum.


Since I got a useful list of the pro and con members of the board in the comments, I thought it would be a good idea to bring it up top and spread the word.

Here are the Kansas good guys. When they come up for re-election, vote for them.

Pro-evolution, the heirs of the Enlightenment:
Janet Waugh
Sue Gamble
Carol Rupe
Bill Wagnon

Here are the Kansas bad guys. Vote against them whenever you can.

Pro-intelligent-design, the wretched sucktards of Ignorance:
Kathy Martin
Kenneth Willard
John W. Bacon
Iris Van Meter
Connie Morris
Steve Abrams


Trackback url:

Comments:
#47828: — 11/08  at  09:57 PM
I checked this place every 10 minutes, knowing you'd say something about it. It is unfortunate, we'll have to see how dover turns out.

-----
"As with all of ID, the important thing is first to have the concept. Production can then follow as a matter of course.” -Dembski



#47830: — 11/08  at  09:59 PM
We have NOT lost Kansas.

This happened there six years ago, and the IDiots were voted out at the next election. They went back in with stealth candidates once the voters stopped paying attention. The people of Kansas will bounce the clowns off their school board this time, too.

-jcr



#47831: — 11/08  at  10:02 PM
One wonders if the national mockery will result in a flip next election cycle. I have my doubts Kansans will be so fortunate a second time.



's avatar #47834: PZ Myers — 11/08  at  10:16 PM
And bounce 'em right back in again. Meanwhile, it's the kids who are turned into shuttlecocks in the middle.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#47838: — 11/08  at  10:50 PM
I know that on the KSBE, four members voted for rationality. Three of them are Janet Waugh, Sue Gamble, and Carol Rupe. Does anyone have the fourth? These four should be thanked and congratulated, emailed kudos and encouraged to keep up the good fight.

Their opponents, of course, should be pilloried as the dark ages goons they are.



#47839: J — 11/08  at  11:01 PM
Hopefully Kansas will bounce back. But the fact that there is still a debate is kind of disheartening, and that the real victims are children's minds. I'm entering science as a physiology major so this evolutionary/IDiotic debate has caught me by the neck-- and the more it goes on, the more I admire the way science pursues knowledge.



#47842: Shinka — 11/08  at  11:24 PM
I have to say, though I find this decision appaling, as I've wrote about in my blog, I can't seem to find the evidence in the new science standards that supports this particular part of the article:
"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."
I'm sure I'm just missing it, but I would like to see exactly the language in the document that supports this.



#47843: Kristine Harley — 11/08  at  11:34 PM
The standards probably won't go into effect until 2007. There is a lot to do before then. We have to find ways to hold the IDiots feet to the fire. They win at blabbing, but actions speak louder than words.

Here's an idea that I've been tossing around: what if all medicines and treatments were labeled with the sticker, "This product was brought to you by the theory of evolution." After all, won't all those homeschoolers want to know the "ideology" behind the manufacture of their children's medicine? Naturally, in the name of "balance" they would clamor for labels for ID medicines, but of course there aren't any ID medicines.

Maybe that would drive the point home. I don't know. Wacky idea?



#47844: — 11/08  at  11:35 PM
I say let them go. We'll run a grand experiment in the vein of the old-timey not-all-that-moral work done in the 1920s. We let them teach their kids absolute bunk for a decade or two, and see what it does to test scores/admission rates/etc. At the end of it, we can point to the result and see who's right. The one downside to this would be that creationists aren't exactly known for paying attention to data. But hey, it never hurts to try.

Rrawr!



#47845: — 11/08  at  11:48 PM
Science course standards are approaching "apalling" pretty much all over. On Monday a first-grade teacher informed me that cold water sinks because it weighs more than does warm water. Not just denser, but heavier. It's getting pretty scary.



#47847: Jeremy — 11/08  at  11:54 PM
Actually, from what I read in the Fark thread on this, Kansas' education standards are completely meaningless and teachers teach what they want to teach. So teachers that taught strict evolution will continue to do so and teachers that taught creation or ID or other baloney will also continue to do so.

I'm not sure that's true (and it didn't really sound like it could be that simple) but that's what somebody said.



#47850: Jeremy — 11/08  at  11:58 PM
Megan: That's a first-grade teacher. Don't worry about it. The kid isn't stuck with that definition for the rest of his/her life. It will be corrected.

My geometry teacher's son once told his kindergarten teacher that she had drawn a trapezoid, but she told him she was wrong. Turned out that she meant to draw a square, drew a trapezoid, and either didn't see it or didn't know what a trapezoid was. Probably the latter because she asked my geometry teacher about it at parent's night and drew a trapezoid for him and told him the story.



#47853: — 11/09  at  12:11 AM
"Maybe that would drive the point home. I don't know. Wacky idea?"

Science, evidence, reason, these things mean less than nothing to a fundie. They are active evils to be exterminated. It's the wide and crooked path away from salvation. They truck in authority (TM) and it's not the kind of authority involved in going to the doctor. It's the kind involved in calling the priest because little Johnny is having seizures and is "clearly" possessed.

If you put the label on medicine, they'd either scratch it off (and lose the dosage information and all of that too) or stop using it. I don't really care of consenting adults opt into misery, pain, and death that way but their children would suffer for their convictions too.

Oh yeah, and it would be more grist for the "We're persecuted!" mill. Persecutors always need to feel persecuted.



#47860: ekzept — 11/09  at  01:01 AM
as soon as anyone has a link to the text of the new standards, and to the online minutes and determinations of the meeting of the Kansas State Board deciding this, this reader would appreciate a link.

thanks.



's avatar #47863: — 11/09  at  01:08 AM
I understand that as from 2007 creationism will be taught in science classes as the scientific alternative explanation for evolution. In Kansas, creationism is officially science. How they did it? Without any scientific evidence, without the support of any academic institution, against the opposition of the whole biology research community?

As from now, do we have an "official" science and an "alternative" science? Here in Israel, the medical establishment gave up fighting alternative medicine and in each hospital you can find a department that offers alternative or parallel (non scientific) medicine like herbal teas, yoga, traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, etc. Hospital directors say (in private) that alternative medicine is unexpensive and requires no complex instruments, take make sure that it is harmless, and the "clients" go home satisfied and happy.

Maybe this attitude should be adopted, and "alternative biology institutes" should be openly established within the universities. In fact, we have some of them under all kind of names. It is not the end of the world. It is compromise.

As for jaimito, I find compromise always insincere and fake, I couldn't do it. I am for integrity, truth and intellectual honesty. Creationism is religion and no science, but in Kansas today it has proved that it is real and that it is strong. The question what we do with it.

Quod natura non sunt turpia



#47864: Federico Contreras — 11/09  at  01:40 AM
"Maybe this attitude should be adopted, and "alternative biology institutes" should be openly established within the universities. In fact, we have some of them under all kind of names. It is not the end of the world. It is compromise."


No. It is pandering to ignorance and contributing to the success of charlatans. For evil to triumph, the inaction of good people is enough. So fight pseudoscience and baseless belief wherever you find it, because it it the stuff of nightmares.

Coming from Israel, I would imagine you are familiar with how far people will go to prove they have the better imaginary friend.




#47868: — 11/09  at  02:18 AM
Damn it. How many times are Kansas going to fall for that crap? Kansas is always refered to when people talk about bad science teaching, and it looks like it's with good reason.



#47875: — 11/09  at  05:48 AM
YESTERDAY:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

TODAY:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com



#47876: Tom — 11/09  at  06:08 AM
Here's the contact information for Kansas' Board of Education:

http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdaddr.html



#47877: — 11/09  at  06:55 AM
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.



I love it…Since Kansas science curriculum no longer has to follow naturalistic or materialistic methods, I propose that a Kansas chemistry teacher incorporate the Arts of Black magic into his/her daily lesson plans. That should stir up some of the fundies.

MOM:: Well Johny what did you learn in chemistry class today?

SON:: Mom, it was great, Mrs. Willson had us combine tongue of newt, dried elderberry and invoke a druid chant to create a vortex into another realm.

MOM:: Oh..dear



#47878: — 11/09  at  07:05 AM
...And I'm not kidding. If I were a chemistry teacher in Kansas, I would be preparing my 06/07 lesson plans with a good dose of Archaic Black Magic. If they want to redefine the basic definition of science to include the supernatural, then they have to let me play er..I mean teach in that realm also.



#47879: Orac — 11/09  at  07:07 AM
This is truly depressing. I'm going to have to e-mail Pat Hayes my condolences...

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#47880: ajmilne — 11/09  at  07:09 AM
Notwithstanding complaints above that it might not be terribly good journalism, somehow, the absurdity of the 'redefining science' bit above just puts it all in perspective for me. A Douglas Adams moment if ever there was one:

In a place called Kansas, in the meanwhile, a group of neotenous apes declared solemnly that an invisible sky fairy created them in its own image--which, if there actually were invisible sky fairies, would probably have insulted them--and that this was science, because they said so.


The very, very small bacterium evolving in the yawning pockets in their gums--itself a distant relation of theirs and of the apes--the same very, very small bacterium which would eventually become the very, very nasty little beastie which would wipe out all neotenous primates above the age of 15 lacking a full set of teeth--took no notice of their declaration.


... with apologies to Adams' heirs and fans.



#47883: — 11/09  at  07:42 AM
This reminds me of the time in the 1800's when a midwestern legislator introduced a bill to change pi to 3 because he thought that mathematicians had just made the number up, and he wanted to simplify things for school children.



#47885: Jeffrey Harmison — 11/09  at  07:53 AM
I am glad that Kansas is doing this. Evolution is not a fact...and having a few little unconnected bone fragments here and there doesn't make it true...despite all the glitzy computer animation produced by Nature/Discovery Channel.

Very bold and brave to stand up....good job folks!


wink



#47886: — 11/09  at  08:00 AM
I've always wondered why those who embrace Darwinian biology don't want any skeptical opposition of evolution being discussed in public schools. What is dogma? If Darwinian evolution is such an incontrovertible scientific fact, then why did the Darwinists have to come up with punctuated equilibrium? There are gaps in the evidence for the theory. The open discussion of the gaps in evolutionary theory would serve as a way to teach critical thinking in schools. Assume Darwinist evolution is scientifically correct. How do you win over people who think otherwise without permitting presentation of another position? Darwinism rules in the textbooks, but surveys show most people don't believe it. Darwinian biologists lost their argument long before Kansas. Science recognizes all knowledge is not known. The scientific approach is limited by the fact it can only present a hypothesis and determine if evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. It can eliminate what is false, it can't determine what is true. Science is built upon inquiry, testing ideas, open discussion. If any other theory aside from evolution is bogus, it should become readily apparent, given that the schools allow its case to be heard.



's avatar #47888: PZ Myers — 11/09  at  08:07 AM
You don't get it: we encourage informed critical analysis of evolutionary biology. We bring up legitimate debates within biology all of the time.

ID is not credible.

This really is like legislating that we have to teach the flat earth theory in geology, the phlogiston theory in chemistry, and all about N rays in physics. Those are subjects we will discuss (and dismiss!), but it's damn silly to legislate the bad examples into the curriculum.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#47890: — 11/09  at  08:12 AM
It's a sad day for serious debate. We've lost civility.
I turned to S.A. for honest input and debate on the KS decision. It was very disappointing forum.
In the name of science, PZ Myers ironically adopts the position of ideologue by attacking those who dare to disagree. It's one thing to attack someone's ideas with real evidence. Attacking them personally is the marked sign of someone with nothing more intellectual to say.
Here is a sample of the intellectual words chosen by M. Myers:
...slippery twaddle, phony pseudoscience, ideologues, dishonest hucksters, less well informed, prattlings of liars, baloney, don't have any idea, misrepresenting, teaching lies, presumptuous, insane, clowns, toady, false, confusing, diminish the legitimate, absurdities, garbage, dead-end, crapola, stagnant backwater of 18th century hokum...

Further threads seemed to delight in how many times the word "idiot" could be used. Showing a bumper sticker of those who disagree as "toothless hicks" or from the "land of oz" does not improve their position. It also ignores the scores of PhD's who have doubts of Darwin's theory and those who find evidence for ID. Let's debate at a level worthy of science, not with the name calling and stage antics of a bad Geraldo Rivera show.



#47892: — 11/09  at  08:20 AM
Maybe the Kansas School Board could include information from this site in their curriculum.

http://www.venganza.org/



#47893: — 11/09  at  08:26 AM
The arguments presented by Bill are flawed, to say the least. The idea that bogus theories will be debunked in the high school classroom sounds reasonable only to someone who is oblivious to the realities of high school science. Students who are struggling to grasp the basic concepts of science, as well as only beginning to develop the ability to critically analyze information and ideas, are not going to successfully wade through the material presented to arrive at an independent, informed conclusion. Especially since this is only one section of a biology course, which will last only two semestersat most.

The laughable suggestion that curriculum should reflect the results of surveys of popular opinion would horrify anyone if applied to all subject matter. Science would not be alone. Geography, history and literature (including the Bible) would all undergo significant revision if their contents were edited to reflect popular belief and ignorance.

The scientific approach does indeed provide a forum for challenging established ideas, or "dogma", as some are choosing to call it. That forum is NOT the high school classroom, nor education standards. It is in the laboratories, meetings and publications of scientists. And if an idea cannot make it there, then it must either patiently gather compelling evidence or be shelved. The courts of popular opinion have no jurisdiction here.



#47894: Alon Levy — 11/09  at  08:36 AM
Why, of course pi = 3 - intelligent division says so. Only godless remainderists cling to the view that there are numbers that require so-called infinite decimal expansions.



#47896: Dr. Virago of Quod She — 11/09  at  08:46 AM
Yet another sad day for my home state. I wonder if my brother and sister-in-law will finally take my niece out of public school over this. (Though I imagine in their yuppie suburb of KC competitive schools are likely to ignore these "standards" or at most teach kids what's wrong with all this. They want their kids to get into the best colleges, after all. Not all of Kansas is so damn, well, Kansan.) And PZ, you may still get Kansas kids -- they'll just come from private schools, perhaps, ironically, from Catholic schools, especially the Jesuit ones, where they still teach real science. (They teach religion, too, but in a different class!)

PS -- long time reader, first time commenter.



#47898: Evolving Squid — 11/09  at  08:51 AM
I wonder when they'll change the cirriculum for medical schools to bring back the theories regarding humors, and faith healing.

I think part of the deeper issue is that HISTORY is not being well taught, because clearly these people didn't learn about the dark ages and what it was like back then.



#47899: — 11/09  at  08:53 AM
As someone who went to high school in Kansas (and I have relatively good memories of the education I got there) and went on to pursue a career in biology, I felt very sad when I heard this. But I think that the greater damage will be done to the children of Kansas, and not largely because I think they'll be taught creationist garbage. I think most biology teachers will likely still teach appropriate material, despite the new standards. However, I think students applying to colleges and universities are being harmed, for precisely some of the attitudes articulated above. If Kansas high school students are dismissed as toothless hicks when they apply to schools outside of Kansas, that'll be the true tragedy.
Pat Burkett



's avatar #47903: jinx — 11/09  at  09:12 AM
Kansas as defined by The Devil's Dictionary X.



#47905: — 11/09  at  09:21 AM
This reminds me of the time in the 1800's when a midwestern legislator introduced a bill to change pi to 3 because he thought that mathematicians had just made the number up, and he wanted to simplify things for school children.

That's a really poor oversimplification of what really happened. Petr Beckman's A History of Pi details the story, and Wikipedia's entry on Pi provides a summary.

To be even more brief, a mathematical crank got his nigh-impenetrable and uttery wrong essay on 'squaring the circle' introduced as a bill in the Indiana Legislature. It did pass the House, but was postponed indefinitely in the Senate. The essay doesn't explicitly offer a value of Pi, but several statements would require different values of Pi ranging from 3.2 to 4. An argument for adopting the bill in the House was apparently that the author had copyrighted his "discovery", and would allow the Indiana schools to use it for free.



#47908: — 11/09  at  09:24 AM
Louis - just a few civil comments in reply:
...slippery twaddle, phony pseudoscience, ideologues, dishonest hucksters, less well informed, prattlings of liars, baloney, don't have any idea, misrepresenting, teaching lies, presumptuous, insane, clowns, toady, false, confusing, diminish the legitimate, absurdities, garbage, dead-end, crapola, stagnant backwater of 18th century hokum...

Well, if it s the truth...

Further threads seemed to delight in how many times the word "idiot" could be used. Showing a bumper sticker of those who disagree as "toothless hicks" or from the "land of oz" does not improve their position.

Maybe not, but it is hilarious.

It also ignores the scores of PhD's who have doubts of Darwin's theory and those who find evidence for ID.

Funny thing, it has been more than ten years, and all they ve got to show for it are a couple of crummy articles sneaked into obscure journals by shady methods, a few books that have been totally discredited, and a political machine that engages in lies and fraud. Evidence - we don t need no stinkin evidence!

Let's debate at a level worthy of science, not with the name calling and stage antics of a bad Geraldo Rivera show.

Aw, Geraldo Rivera can be fun! Anyway, a trial just finished in Dover, PA. Do a google search and enjoy watching the IDeologues getting their asses as well as their hats handed to them in a federal civil forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



#47909: Orac — 11/09  at  09:26 AM
Evolving Squid:

You don't have to wonder when they'll change the medical school curriculum to bring back ideas about humors and faith healing. It's already happening. Some of the more dubious and religion-based alternative medicine concepts, like energy healing, Qi, etc., have already found their way into nursing schools:

timetolean.blogspot.com/2005/06/speak-of-deviltherapeutic-touch-update.html

Worse, more and more medical schools are adding alternative medicine topics to the curriculum without necessarily teaching the critical evaluation of the evidence (or mainly lack thereof) for the efficacy of these modalities.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#47913: — 11/09  at  09:46 AM
There's no need to slander Oz with such a map comparing it to creationist-loving Kansas! Oz contains many great scientists and engineers.

Tik-Tok the Clockwork Man was from Oz, after all, who do you think built him, Jerry Falwell? No, he was made by Smith and Tinker. Smith was an artist so talented he painted a river that he fell into and drowned, and Tinker was such a good engineer than he built a ladder that reached to the moon.

Johnny Dooit was also an expert enegineer - he built a boat that sailed on the sand to get Dorothy and the Shaggy Man to Winkie Country. (It wrecked because he forgot to build brakes.) He wore a leather apron, had a broad stuck-up nose and merry twinkling eyes.

And think about the Tin Woodsman, a marvel of bioengineering if there ever was one. Nick Chopper, cursed by the Wicked Witch of the East to chop off a part of his body every time he swung his axe, you'd think he'd despair and turn to Jesus, hating gays and killing brown people, but what did he do? He went to Ku-Klip, who built him replacement cybernetic parts! Ku-Klip also built Captain Fyter, a brave soldier who had a similar affliction, and, from the discarded parts of both, the fully artificial person Chopfyt. (Admittedly he did not merely use science, he did have some help from the Wicked Witch's Magic Glue.)

And education is a high priority in Oz. Why there's Bookman. There's Grunter Swyne, the Professor of Cabbage Culture and Corn Perfection. Professor Nowitall and his brilliant student, Mr. Highly Magnified Wogglebug, Thoroughly Educated, who became Ozma's Public Educator (and Public Accuser, a prosecutor-like position at times). Would Mr. H.M. Wogglebug, T.E. approve of the measures taken in Kansas? Nonsense, he would say, and make some spectacular pun.

I say up with Oz! Queen Lurline made it, I believe it, and that settles it! Ozma forever!



's avatar #47920: Nullifidian — 11/09  at  10:00 AM
At least Casey Luskin is right about one thing. They will be teaching more about evolution: they'll be teaching crap in addition to the truth.

On behalf of all Kansans, I apologize.

At least I was there to give a loud groan of dissatisfaction.

"We are obliged, therefore, to spread the news, painful and bitter though it may be for some to hear, that all living things on earth are kindred.” Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire



#47923: Sam — 11/09  at  10:03 AM
Oh please, God, let us all read a Kansan blog about this. Er, I mean, did I say God? Maybe I meant...Oh hell, I'm so confused.

http://utlm.blogspot.com



#47924: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:04 AM
ah, a move that's bound to be popular with the kids: include several from the Harry Potter series as textbooks in chemistry.



#47926: — 11/09  at  10:05 AM
I'm somewhat perplexed at the extent of furious emotion engendered by the decision to allow schools to teach one THEORY alongside another THEORY.

The notion that transspecies evolution is "the right answer" would've come as an astonishing surprise to Darwin himself, who agonized over the eight revised editions of his admittedly flawed theory.

Of course, that's not to say the flawed theory may not one day prove to be correct, but it's still just a theory based upon the observation of intraspecies adaptive evolution. It seems churlish of me to say so, but the leap of faith required to adopt this "evolutionism" answer is pretty much the same as that required to adopt that other unmentionable theory, doesn't it?

I guess both are religious icons, one for those who worship at the altar of secular humanism (and the supremacy of the human intellect, which is kinda funny, reading this stuff) and the other for those who choose to believe in "divine intervention" of some sort.

Whichever you choose, please stop shooting at the other side!



#47929: — 11/09  at  10:12 AM
Don't worry, this problem will take care of itself.
Because, you see, these dimwits don't fit.



#47930: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:12 AM
well, i think the sensible thing to do for kids in Kansas is to offer free biology classes outside of the public schools, taught perhaps by university profs, and have kids understand what's real and what isn't. whether the kids want to take on any science teacher that pushes ID is up to them, of course. but, being teenagers, i bet some would just love to take on not only such science teachers but the high school administration and the district.

good lesson in civics and protest besides.



#47934: — 11/09  at  10:15 AM
Sorry, Amazed, but you're just spouting crap.

Look up the definition of scientific theory, because it is different to the colloquial meaning, and then you will find that:

* Evolution is a scientific theory.
* ID is an unscientific hypothesis.

Learn the difference, and why it is significant. Also, read PZ's latest post.



#47935: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:18 AM
... having a few little unconnected bone fragments here and there doesn't make it true ...
"What is truth?" (attributed to Pontius Pilate)

"What is sin?" (attributed to Dr Felix Hoenikker)



#47936: — 11/09  at  10:19 AM
If the theory of evolution is considered proven why do peopole get all excited when it's questioned? You have all the answers, right?



#47938: — 11/09  at  10:19 AM
Ayn Rand once said: "Errors of this magnitude are not committed innocently". These aren't simple misguided fools promoting this crap. I see a campaign to undermine the clarity and objectivity of science. Why? So they can tell us global warming is not a danger, drilling for oil in the arctic does no harm, vehicles with high CG are safe, and maybe sell us The Endangered Species Cookbook.



#47939: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:22 AM
The scientific approach is limited by the fact it can only present a hypothesis and determine if evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. It can eliminate what is false, it can't determine what is true.
gosh, and i thought all those CSI types on TV were real scientists, boo-hoooooooooooooooooooh!



#47942: Yugan — 11/09  at  10:27 AM
What's sad is, those potato-brains on the Board of Education are weakening the US. Education in America is lousy enough already without their sabotaging kids' nascent ability to think and to learn. Everywhere else in the world, students learn rigorous scientific concepts, but in Kansas, they are fed mush. Garbage in, garbage out. Cut funding for musical education and you get rap. Undercut scientific reasoning, and.... you'll get more like Bush in high office.



#47944: — 11/09  at  10:28 AM
"If the theory of evolution is considered proven why do peopole get all excited when it's questioned? You have all the answers, right?"

Sorry to go all Godwin, but if the theory of the Holocaust is considered proven why do people get all excited when it's questioned? That may be hyperbole, but only just. The ID movement is an anti-science movement. Its goal is to end scientific inquiry by saying "God did it" whenever we can't yet explain something fully. It is not a coincidence that there is no academic research supporting ID, because the ID hypothesis actively prevents research. I repeat, ID is a movement to stop science. That is why scientists "get all excited" about it.



's avatar #47945: Nullifidian — 11/09  at  10:29 AM
<quote>I've always wondered why those who embrace Darwinian biology don't want any skeptical opposition of evolution being discussed in public schools.</quote>
To be blunt, the "skeptical opposition" to evolution is founded on lies and distortions. Furthermore, biology class is the time to discuss issues in biology. Creationism and its variants, like ID, are far outside of the field of biology. They discuss biology, sure, but in such a flatly wrong way that working biologists dismiss what they say or pay no attention at all.

<quote>What is dogma? If Darwinian evolution is such an incontrovertible scientific fact, then why did the Darwinists have to come up with punctuated equilibrium?</quote>
Punctuated equilibria has nothing to do with "Darwinian evolution," as even Darwin himself noted that the pace of evolution could be irregular. And the reason some paleontologists came up with punctuated equilibria is because that's what the fossil data indicated for certain evolutionary transitions in populations, as in Phacops rana.

<quote>But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular. I am far from thinking that the most divergent varieties will invariably prevail and multiply: a medium form may often long endure, and may or may not produce more than one modified descendant; for natural selection will always act according to the nature of the places which are either unoccupied or not perfectly occupied by other beings; and this will depend on infinitely complex relations.</quote>
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th ed.

<quote>There are gaps in the evidence for the theory.</quote>
True, we haven't managed to exhaustively document all evidence for evolution. So what? That's the nature of science. There are always new things to be learned, but the new things are based upon the foundation of the old things. Evolutionary biology has proved so useful a predictive model that it is appalling to think that colleges will be duty bound to reinvent the wheel by re-teaching students concepts that they should have learned accurately the first time. But that's what's going to happen by allowing creationism into biology class. Creationism cannot succeed on the merits; creationists only make headway by lying about evolution. Therefore, it will be up to college professors to remedy the intellectual mess left by the Kansas BoE creationists.

<quote>The open discussion of the gaps in evolutionary theory would serve as a way to teach critical thinking in schools.</quote>
Not really. Creationists want nothing less than genuine critical thinking. A geniune critical thinker would go to the biology journals to find out the extent and importance of the so-called "gaps in evolutionary theory" (of which you haven't even given any examples). Creationists, however, want children to unconditionally believe lies about evolution. To put it bluntly, they want to raise a generation of credulous idiots.

<quote>Assume Darwinist evolution is scientifically correct. How do you win over people who think otherwise without permitting presentation of another position?</quote>
Presumably by putting the evidence to them.

<quote>Darwinism rules in the textbooks, but surveys show most people don't believe it. Darwinian biologists lost their argument long before Kansas.</quote>
There are no such entities as "Darwinian biologists." I think the word you're searching for is "evolutionary biologist."

And evolutionary biologists have not lost their argument. Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of biologists, and only a trivial minority disagree and have not been able to formulate a scientifically sound and evidence-based argument for it.

<quote>If any other theory aside from evolution is bogus, it should become readily apparent, given that the schools allow its case to be heard.</quote>
What a remarkable view of science. High school students as the final arbiters of bogus ideas in science. Why we don't have to present new views in the scientific journals, we can simply bring new ideas to the students and let them judge. After all, who better to give their learned opinion on the merits of string theory vs. loop quantum gravity than a group that hasn't even learned general relativity yet?

"We are obliged, therefore, to spread the news, painful and bitter though it may be for some to hear, that all living things on earth are kindred.” Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire



#47948: — 11/09  at  10:36 AM
The article defames the 18th century, which was the height of the Enlightenment. I would make this more like 16th century hokum.



#47949: — 11/09  at  10:36 AM
I think people in Kansas should start citing the standard in lawsuits.

Just imagine the possibilities if accusations of telepathic mind control and hoodoo spells become viable in court!



#47951: Elf M. Sternberg — 11/09  at  10:39 AM
It's better to say that Kansas has lost us, rather than to say than we have lost Kansas. While I admit to some apish admiration of those who stick it out in their home state out of a sense of terroir, the real truth is that Kansas is going to experience a brain drain of Biblical proportions. The school board is apparently unaware that scientists and engineers, like everyone else, have children, and the smart ones don't want their children learning that "supernatural explanations can be incorporated into scientific investigations."



#47952: — 11/09  at  10:40 AM
Further suggestion:

Let the first such lawsuit be filed against pro-ID members of the school board.

I bet they'll become true-believers in natural explanations real quick.

Then, their hypocrisy can be used against them.



#47953: — 11/09  at  10:42 AM
The fourth member who voted against the change was Bill Wagnon. So, let's just round it out here:

Pro-evolution
Janet Waugh -
Sue Gamble -
Carol Rupe -
Bill Wagnon -

Pro-intelligent-design
Kathy Martin -
Kenneth Willard -
John W. Bacon -
Iris Van Meter -
Connie Morris -
Steve Abrams -

You can get their home phone numbers here:
http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdaddr.html

Now me, I think all life on Earth was created from the corpse of the frost giant Ymir. People were licked out of a stone by an immortal cow. I wouldn't exactly call it "intelligent" or "design" either for that matter, but at least I don't have to justify why an all-powerful, all-benevolent god fscked up the world so bad. It was all unintentional really. People weren't supposed to make it this far. See, doesn't that make sense? Only those egg-headed dogmatic scientists get hung up on "evidence". To paraphrase, Science is a one trick pony. It only has one trick; rational thinking. But when you're good and crazy, whoa! the sky's the limit!

;->

Now go write some emails.



#47954: — 11/09  at  10:42 AM

If the theory of evolution is considered proven why do people get all excited when it's questioned? You have all the answers, right?


Nobody gets excited when evolution is questioned. Evolution has been questioned methodically for 150 years, which is why our current understanding of evolutionary theory bears a number of differences from what Chuck Darwin put in his books. And there are competing *scientific* theories as to the mechanisms therein.

What people are getting bent out of shape about is the fact that we're now expected to teach people that something is a competing theory just because someone says it is. ID is not a competing theory - it's non-predictive, not based on observable evidence, and overall just intellectually lazy - saying "god/aliens/a wizard did it" doesn't tell us anything useful or lead to new study, regardless of whether it may or may not be right. Saying "someone designed life" isn't going to lead to new drugs for antibiotic-resistant infections, for example.

The current Theories of Evolution may be wrong. I doubt you'd find any biologist today who would say that our current understanding of evolution is complete and 100% accurate. However, ID doesn't offer a useful alternative, just some supernatural handwaving. That's why people are in an uproar. It's a stealth attack not just on evolution, but on science and natural pilosophy as a whole.



#47955: ekzept — 11/09  at  10:43 AM
Whichever you choose, please stop shooting at the other side!
who's shooting? there is no "other side", just ghosts of vitalism there.



's avatar #47959: Nullifidian — 11/09  at  10:51 AM
I'm somewhat perplexed at the extent of furious emotion engendered by the decision to allow schools to teach one THEORY alongside another THEORY.

It's not teaching one theory alongside another theory. It's teaching garbage about an existing theory (in the scientific sense, which is not synonymous with "wild ass guess") to satisfy a religiously-motivated group of cranks.

Should we not be upset when a school board decides, by majority vote, to lie to students?

The notion that transspecies evolution is "the right answer" would've come as an astonishing surprise to Darwin himself, who agonized over the eight revised editions of his admittedly flawed theory.


1) Speciation has been observed. This would be an astonishing surprise to Darwin, since he believed that speciation would take too long to be directly observed. He would also be astonished by the fact that we have been able to extract and sequence DNA evidence. That's about the only thing you got correct. But the fact that Darwin might well be astonished at the sheer mass of evidence in favor of evolution is hardly evidence against it.

Kepler would be astonished that we are able to launch probes and, using his laws, predict exactly how and when to launch so that we can do fly-bys of other planets and investigate them. Does his presumptive astonishment mean we should stop teaching the laws of planetary motion?

2) Darwin isn't the end-all and be-all of evolutionary biology. In fact, he's just the tip of the iceberg.

3) There were only six editions of On the Origin of Species and your failure to get that basic fact right does call your competence into question.

4) Admitted by whom? I can't think of a single biologist I know personally who thinks evolutionary biology is fundamentally flawed.

Of course, that's not to say the flawed theory may not one day prove to be correct,

Yes, but until it does, we shouldn't teach intelligent design creationism in science classes.

but it's still just a theory based upon the observation of intraspecies adaptive evolution.

Wrong. You'd be wrong even in Darwin's time. On the Origin of Species lists several types of evidence for evolution, and only the first chapter, on the varieties of animals which emerge under domestication, has anything to do with observation of intraspecific evolution.

It seems churlish of me to say so, but the leap of faith required to adopt this "evolutionism" answer is pretty much the same as that required to adopt that other unmentionable theory, doesn't it?

Well, then I guess it's a good thing I just accept plain old evolutionary biology, rather than "this 'evolutionism.'"

I guess both are religious icons, one for those who worship at the altar of secular humanism (and the supremacy of the human intellect, which is kinda funny, reading this stuff) and the other for those who choose to believe in "divine intervention" of some sort.

I've got news for you: scientists are not unintellectual anti-religious reactionaries who will recoil from evolutionary biology by reflex when you throw a little religious language about.

The implication is deeply insulting.

Whichever you choose, please stop shooting at the other side!

Why? The creationists deserve to be shot down in flames, and your insulting and inaccurate rhetoric is hardly going to smooth the troubled waters.

"We are obliged, therefore, to spread the news, painful and bitter though it may be for some to hear, that all living things on earth are kindred.” Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire



#47968: Keith Douglas — 11/09  at  11:06 AM
This is indeed unfortunate. What are the legal and other recourses Kansans et al have?



#47972: — 11/09  at  11:17 AM
If any Kansas schools teach psychology, they must allow astrology to be taught, too. I mean, astrology seeks to explain the psychological makeup of a person, right? Shouldn't it get equal time?

The whole thing's disgraceful.

CJSF



#47975: Lya Kahlo — 11/09  at  12:03 PM
I hope those kids in Kansas like working at Wal-mart and McD's.

That's all their creationist "educasion" is going to qualify them for.



#47984: — 11/09  at  12:46 PM
The fear demonstrated by many evolutionists is remarkable, in not wanting opposing views taught. If the theory is plausible, it will stand on it's own. To teach evolution as fact with no dissenting view is intellectually dishonest, and to deny the opportunity for students to learn opposing viewpoints because you have decided they are wrong is arrogant. If you disagree with something your child is taught, be a wise parent and correct the teaching with your own reasonable argument. This way a child learns to intelligently defend his own beliefs.



#47987: — 11/09  at  01:15 PM
If the theory's plausible, it'll stand on its own in a high school classroom.

The problem is that ID is *plausible*, it's just meaningless garbage.

Guess what? Flat earth is plausible. Ptolemaicism is VERY plausible.

Should we be teaching how everything revolves around the Earth, which is really a flat disk?

'cause, yeah, I don't think so.



#47988: — 11/09  at  01:49 PM
I don't understand why so many of you are upset. If science is completely and absolutely correct in its interpretation that we are the result of a purely material evolution, then the school board of Kansas had no choice but to do what it did, right? To imply there really is a 'choice' in what we believe seems to me to be a challenge to that most basic of scientific precepts, determinism. Once you’ve opened the door to the concept of freewill you can’t help but let in the supernatural.

To lament the loss of some incredible scientific mind because it was taught the nonsense if ID seems odd to me, surely that just leaves opportunities open to super scientists in other states. Isn’t that the basic premise of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory in the first place? Why does it seem to bother so many scientists so profoundly that people see things differently, isn’t that like being bothered by the fact that some birds fly south for the winter?

If we truly live in Darwin’s universe then the truth will reveal itself no matter what people think; we as a species are not on our way anywhere. There is no future or past, just the relentless reordering of energy in all its forms until entropy extinguishes all. Nothing we do can be right or wrong, like a rock rolling down a hill, what has to happen will happen, what we have to think we will think. If religion selects positively for reproduction, then it is a truth of the universe; whether it is technically correct or not. To add an intention to science that we must change the way humans think is to cease to be objective, the first cardinal sin of science.

What an amusing place is the universe, it swirls together a couple of pounds of carbon dissolved cleverly in a few gallons of water and promptly begins to lie to itself about the way things really are. Fortunately we have the brave and beleaguered men and women of science to bitch slap us around intellectually so that we come back to the earth that made us which will eventually defeat us. The yin must defeat the yang, how could anyone be so foolish as to think otherwise.

You all take yourselves way to seriously, by your own belief systems you aren't important at all, and you never will be. If you believe it why not just accept it and stop moaning like a bunch of noisome old biddies.



#47990: — 11/09  at  01:57 PM
I don't understand why so many of you are upset. If science is completely and absolutely correct in its interpretation that we are the result of a purely material evolution, then the school board of Kansas had no choice but to do what it did, right? To imply there really is a 'choice' in what we believe seems to me to be a challenge to that most basic of scientific precepts, determinism. Once you’ve opened the door to the concept of freewill you can’t help but let in the supernatural.

To lament the loss of some incredible scientific mind because it was taught the nonsense if ID seems odd to me, surely that just leaves opportunities open to super scientists in other states. Isn’t that the basic premise of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory in the first place? Why does it seem to bother so many scientists so profoundly that people see things differently, isn’t that like being bothered by the fact that some birds fly south for the winter?

If we truly live in Darwin’s universe then the truth will reveal itself no matter what people think; we as a species are not on our way anywhere. There is no future or past, just the relentless reordering of energy in all its forms until entropy extinguishes all. Nothing we do can be right or wrong, like a rock rolling down a hill, what has to happen will happen, what we have to think we will think. If religion selects positively for reproduction, then it is a truth of the universe; whether it is technically correct or not. To add an intention to science that we must change the way humans think is to cease to be objective, the first cardinal sin of science.

What an amusing place is the universe, it swirls together a couple of pounds of carbon dissolved cleverly in a few gallons of water and promptly begins to lie to itself about the way things really are. Fortunately we have the brave and beleaguered men and women of science to bitch slap us around intellectually so that we come back to the earth that made us which will eventually defeat us. The yin must conquer the yang, how could anyone be so foolish as to think otherwise.

You all take yourselves way to seriously, by your own belief systems you aren't important at all except in some tired subjective way and you never will be; that goes for your children as well. If you believe only in the material why not just accept all you see passively and stop moaning like a bunch of noisome old biddies. Oh right, because you have no choice...never mind.



#47992: — 11/09  at  02:02 PM
" If you disagree with something your child is taught, be a wise parent and correct the teaching with your own reasonable argument."

Oddly enough, most parents aren't biologists. The whole point of school is to teach children facts, logical thinking and knowledge-acquiring skills, thus leaving parents free to teach things like life skills, morals and, yes, religion, as they see fit.

Again, would it be OK to teach Holocaust denial as an "alternative theory" in history, because parents could always "correct the teaching". Why should parents have to constantly police their children's education for lies?

Evolution and ID are not "opposing viewpoints". Evolution is science's overwhelmingly evidence-supported best answer to the question of how life's current diversity arose, while ID is anti-science hokum that answers nothing. Young earth creationism would be an opposing viewpoint. It would be a wrong viewpoint, but at least it has positive content beyond "Stop asking questions! God did it!"



#47994: Jeff — 11/09  at  02:07 PM
There seem to be a lot of comments putting down Kansans in general for this decision, but really, it was the result of a vote of 10 school board members. I'm unfamiliar with much of the history of this case, so how much of an influence did the citizens of Kansas have in this decision? Obviously, they elected the school board, but was this an issue that was part of the platform that got those members elected? Or is this 6 of those members deciding to act on their own beliefs and ignore the scientific community?



#47997: Sean — 11/09  at  02:27 PM
Notice that not one of the "why do you oppose ID" posters are hanging around to defend their posts...thanks for proving my point guys.

"ID, it's not science fiction...actually it belongs in the fantasy section." - UofW Geneticist



#48004: — 11/09  at  02:58 PM
Whichever you choose, please stop shooting at the other side!

Like a scientist, I shoot at all sides. ID, with no testable hypothesis, refuses to stick its head up. Evolution, however, has proven impervious to every bullet in my arsenal. And every poorly-thought out and deceptive blank in the ID/Creationists' arsenal.

As a sixth-grader, I was able to shoot down every anti-evolution argument (many of which were straw-men lies) I had ever heard. They'd all be laughable if they didn't injure our children's critical thinking abilities, leaving them vulnerable to propaganda on any topic.



#48007: — 11/09  at  03:06 PM
I don't understand why so many of you are upset. If science is completely and absolutely correct in its interpretation that we are the result of a purely material evolution, then the school board of Kansas had no choice but to do what it did, right? To imply there really is a 'choice' in what we believe seems to me to be a challenge to that most basic of scientific precepts, determinism. Once you’ve opened the door to the concept of freewill you can’t help but let in the supernatural.

To lament the loss of some incredible scientific mind because it was taught the nonsense if ID seems odd to me, surely that just leaves opportunities open to super scientists in other states. Isn’t that the basic premise of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory in the first place? Why does it seem to bother so many scientists so profoundly that people see things differently, isn’t that like being bothered by the fact that some birds fly south for the winter?

If we truly live in Darwin’s universe then the truth will reveal itself no matter what people think; we as a species are not on our way anywhere. There is no future or past, just the relentless reordering of energy in all its forms until entropy extinguishes all. Nothing we do can be right or wrong, like a rock rolling down a hill, what has to happen will happen, what we have to think we will think. If religion selects positively for reproduction, then it is a truth of the universe; whether it is technically correct or not. To add an intention to science that we must change the way humans think is to cease to be objective, the first cardinal sin of science.

What an amusing place is the universe, it swirls together a couple of pounds of carbon dissolved cleverly in a few gallons of water and promptly begins to lie to itself about the way things really are. Fortunately we have the brave and beleaguered men and women of science to bitch slap us around intellectually so that we come back to the earth that made us which will eventually defeat us. The yin must eliminate the possibility of the yang, how could anyone be so foolish as to believe otherwise.

You all take yourselves way to seriously, by your own belief systems you aren't important at all except in some tired subjective way and you never will be; that goes for your children as well. If you believe only in the material why not just accept all you see passively and stop moaning like a bunch of noisome old biddies. Oh right, because you have no choice...never mind. If you are right there is no such thing as danger.



#48011: — 11/09  at  03:23 PM
“The fear demonstrated by many evolutionists is remarkable, in not wanting opposing views taught.“

Fear? Spare me. There’s a reason ID was trounced in the Dover trial – it’s total bullshit. ID is not an “opposing view”. It’s creationism in a cheap suit. It’s Christian facism at it’s most underhanded.

Since Kansas gets to redefine science, we get to redefine religion.

Religion- n. childish beliefs in imaginary authority figures.



#48013: ekzept — 11/09  at  03:24 PM
To lament the loss of some incredible scientific mind because it was taught the nonsense if ID seems odd to me, surely that just leaves opportunities open to super scientists in other states. Isn’t that the basic premise of the Darwinian flavor of evolutionary theory in the first place? Why does it seem to bother so many scientists so profoundly that people see things differently, isn’t that like being bothered by the fact that some birds fly south for the winter?

wow.

apparent