While South Dakota continues to marginalize itself, Kansas is stepping back from the precipice of kookiness by taking an important step to restore proper science to their education standards:
The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
[…]The board removed language suggesting that key evolutionary concepts are controversial and being challenged by new research, and approved a new definition of science that limits it to the search for natural explanations of what’s observed in the universe…
What is the reaction from the fringies?
John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said under the new standards, “students will be fed an answer which may be right or wrong” about questions like the origin of life.
“Who does that model put first?” he said. “The student, or those supplying the preordained ‘natural explanation’?”
Mr. Calvert picks an interesting case—the origin of life—because that is truly an elusive, intriguing area of science. We currently don’t have great answers to how life originated on earth. Rather we have several competing theories, each with strengths and weaknesses. The fact of the matter is, all of them may prove to be incorrect (and it is a lot easier to show a theory is wrong than it is to show any given theory is approximately correct). But no scientist is claiming to have unequivocally solved the “origin of life” question.
Mr. Calvert asks who is served by teaching the ideas about the origins of life? I would strongly argue that the students are served. They are served by being introduced to science at the edge of knowledge—something that scientists should neither avoid nor be ashamed of. Science has made progress at different rates across differing areas. Some areas are ripe for innovative ideas and empirical testing; other areas stubbornly resist the best scientific minds. Origin of life studies falls on the stubborn side, and students should know that. After all, the stubborn, poorly developed areas of science offer the greatest and most exciting challenges for young potential scientists.
The students are also served because they receive a proper science education. The “theory” of intelligent design is to evolution what a theory of angels holding up airplanes on strings is to aerodynamics. In my opinion, students who believe airplanes fly because angels sweep them across the sky like puppets have no place in higher education. Likewise, students whose school system forces them to learn that “intelligent design” is a valid scientific theory of evolution, really shouldn’t be allowed into college.
Many colleges have prerequisites for admission that include things like coursework in a foreign language, algebra and trigonometry, English, etc. I think all respectable colleges and universities should add coursework in “scientific biology” to the entry requirements—and they should keep track of school systems that fail to provide courses in scientific biology. That way, school boards that foist anti-science curricula on their students would be excluding their children from qualifying for college. Of course, the students would likely be able to make up the deficiency through night courses, etc., but such school boards would be starting their graduates off with a hefty economic disadvantage.
A harsh policy, to be sure, but nobody said stamping out inter-generational transmission of ignorance was going to be easy.
Well, it’s interesting because ‘intelligent design’ is just a repackaging of a really old (and somewhat interesting) philosophical argument. If it were presented in philosphy class, then that’d be just fine.
In fact, I would love to see high schools re-introduce philosophy class, and if the ghettoization of ID provides an avenue for that to happen, then all the better.
ID doesn’t represent ignorance. It’s just not science. The problem here is that the Discovery Institute and other similar organizations get to dictate curricula just by raising a ruckus. Some guy with a PhD writes a book about ID and suddenly it’s a controversy! Controversy!
Note that ID does not reject the theory of evolution. It adopts it, embraces it, and then undermines it.
Intelligent Design is little more than a legal strategy invented by lawyers to get around Supreme Court cases that bar the teaching of religion in private schools.
Why not teach science in schools, and religion in churches? Isn’t that what churches are for? People who need to use public schools to teach their kids religion can’t have much faith in their churches.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....uit14.html
Hey Puffybutt — good news. You and your Publican friends (and fellow child rapists) can now get into the military to fight in that Iraq war you say you support.
This is great news! But, what I’m wondering is… what do the Pastafarians have to say?
Scarface
It can’t be good. This decision by the Kansas Board of Education does not explicitly say that we can’t teach the creation of life at the end of his noodly appendage, but it certainly points in this direction.
It is time for followers of the FSM to unite! We should march on Topeka and demand that Pastafarianism is a legitimate religion and should be taught in schools next to ID.
@ 2 Roger, I’ll give you credit for responding at 2:30 a.m., but the supremes have never, ever said you could not teach religion in private schools.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m an Evangelical Protestant who happens to also be a Democrat. And as I’ve also mentioned before, I am firmly opposed to having religion taught in our public schools, either by way of “creationism”, “intelligent design”, or whatever.
Why? Because the last thing I want is some of the same teachers who taught my kids in school attempt to teach religion. It would be kinda hard to get thim to do so without wiping that smirking condenscension off their faces as they did so.
Religion is faith-based, not science-based. Religion tells you where you should go, science provides the logic that tells you how to get there. The church has always gotten into trouble when it has tried to tie religion and science. The Bible never said that the sun revolved around the earth, but the Church tried to persecute early astonomers who said otherwise.
Besides, as soon as we get the public school teachers involved, somebody’s going to insist that Wiccan be included in the course of study, just so everyone has equal billing. The whole thing is a pretty slippery slope, and we should avoid going anywhere near the edge.
Designed @ 1
“ID doesn’t represent ignorance. It’s just not science. “
Indeed. The ignorance comes from miseducation, where students are led to believe that supernatural explanations are okay in science.
“Indeed. The ignorance comes from miseducation, where students are led to believe that supernatural explanations are okay in science.”
Like the “consensus” on “global warming”….
“Indeed. The ignorance comes from miseducation, where students are led to believe that supernatural explanations are okay in science.”
Like the “consensus” on “global warming”….
Careful, rhp6033, you’ll get both sides around here mad at you. Christians aren’t supposed to be reasonable. The right feels threatened because they seem to have some sort of idea that they are entitled to our votes because they talk about “values” before going off to cheat on their spouses, support corporations that rape the environment and start wars that kill thousands of Americans (not to mention the uncounted numbers of Iraqis).
The left seems to take everything that Rev.
RidiculousRobertson says as the official opinion of Christians everywhere. They also seem to take great offense at the idea that, while we don’t want to make it illegal, we tend to disapprove of them cheating on their spouses as well.The main part of your comment deserves repeating.
We haven’t done so well when we try to tie religion and secular law together, either. It seems that when the State tries to run the Church, it does a really crummy job (see China for a contemporary example) and when the Church tries to run the State, it does an equally poor job, while corrupting their own values and purpose.
For a bunch of 18th century farmers and small businessmen, those founding fathers were a pretty smart bunch.
The first Amendment’s “establishment” clause expressly forbids the commingling of Government and religion. The Supreme Courts reading of the clause has rigorously prohibited what may be deemed governmental promotion of religious doctrine.
This includes teaching religious doctrine or dogma in public schools. I’m certain Roger Rabbit was referring to public and NOT private schools at 2.
I don’t understand why the 1st Amendment is so difficult for those on the religous right to comprehend. In the Constitution the only references to religion at all are preventions of religion and government. Period.
Has anyone on the right read the preamble to the Constituion?
More importantly, do you understand it?
GBS
The Constitution is irrelevant to the religious right. They know that this nation was founded upon God’s laws, and those laws always trump any human laws, such as those found on a mere piece of paper like the Constitution. Accordingly, actually reading the Constitution, let alone the preamble, would be a waste of time. Rather, the Old Testament provides the only necessary text concerning our nation’s fundamental principles.
For those relgious zealots who either refuse to read or belive the preamble here it is in all its Glory.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The significance of the preamble cannot be overlooked. The words were chosen very carefully. What it means is that the Constitution and the Laws of the United States get their power form no OTHER authority than the People!
Not God, Jesus, the Bible, Moses or any other mystic source. The use of the word “ordain” in conjunction with “We the people” purposely excludes religion from government from the very opening of the Constitution.
If you want you children to learn ID, that’s great! More power to you. I’d even fight for your right to puruse that objective. Just be respectful of the Constituion, our Nation’s Laws, the rights of others who don’t share your religous beliefs or care to be subject to them in a public instituion. Do it in the privacy of your own home, place of worship, or private school where it is perfectly permissible. This country was NOT in any way founded on Christian or Judeo values. Period. It’s simply a fact of history and not my opinion.
why just college (public of course)?
…”Likewise, students whose school system forces them to learn that “intelligent design” is a valid scientific theory of evolution, really shouldn’t be allowed into college.”
why not public taxpayer paid for K thru 12 starting in the K classrooms?
i HATE religion… maybe HATE is not a strong enuf word…
I have an idea… all those OPOSSED to scientific method-based real OBJECTIVE science well…. you NEVER EVER get go to the hospital or get to see a real objective science trained physician…
EVER…
You can JUST trust your ID – design then… because if GOD made it all… designed, planning, etc… then that cancer you get …well then you DESERVE it…God MADE you…designed you to get it afterall.
Same holds true for bird flu, ectopic pregnancies, prostate disorders, hair loss, late onset diabetes, obesity, alcoholism… Hell… even IMPOTENCE!
Just keep all the Viagra away from those outspoken ID supporters… i bet that “thought” (a VERY loosely applied term here) train of outspoken support backing ID would change fast enough…
“If Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he wouldn’t be able to stop throwing up.” Woody Allen, American comedian.
@18 “I have an idea… all those OPOSSED to scientific method-based real OBJECTIVE science well…. you NEVER EVER get go to the hospital or get to see a real objective science trained physician…
EVER…”
Uhmmm okee dokee. Then you of course disavow gobal warming for the same reason…scientific method.
“i HATE religion… maybe HATE is not a strong enuf word…”
Well you have put yourself on the fringe of the US population.
It’s pretty hard for anyone with more than a trace of skepticism not to be suspicious of some group or other who cling to and are motivated by the idea that “God’s law” makes them oh-so-ever-extra-special, compared to everyone else, exempt from some liabilities and entitled to special privileges.
Whether or not the founders of our nation intended it, our history has entwined through it an unbroken thread of “American exceptionalism”. It’s inspired us at times to attempt, and succeed at, great things. It’s also been used to justify some horrific atrocities.
If this secular attitude of “We’re better than anyone else” is mixed with a perversion of theistic belief that wanders into “magical thinking”, the result becomes “We’re better than anyone else because GOD ALMIGHTY says so”. This leads to the inevitable temptation for an individual or group to think themselves justified in doing whatever they want–no matter how awful.
A lot of evangelicals sincerely believe that they’re persecuted. A lot of them may well have earned it.
@4 Do ya wonder why there’s a recent rash of atrocity incidents, and court-martials for raping and murdering Iraqi civilians? It’s a mystery …
@7 That’s strange. I’m a nocturnal creature. Normally I’m wide awake at 2:30 a.m. I wonder what happened? Maybe an intruder snuck in and hit me over the head when I wasn’t looking …?
@10 What’s your fucking point? There IS a consensus among scientists on global warming — a very strong consensus. So strong that the only people with any scientist credentials still raising any question about it are the whores on oil company payola. And who the fuck appinted a shithead like you to speak for God? Better get yourself a fire extinguisher, because you go to Hell for impersonating God.
Roger Rabbit:
The suggested reading you recommended to me came in from the library yesterday. I just started reading it last night. Although, it’s a bit older, printed 1998, it’s still what I was looking for.
Thanks!!
GBS
midlake bob:
Before you start making blanket statements like “i HATE religion… maybe HATE is not a strong enuf word…” perhaps you should tell us what you mean by “religion“.
Now, if you simply hate the concept that there may be a higher power that expects us to treat each other decently and holds us accountable for our actions, while knowing precisely the motivations for those actions, then your statement is true, and we really have nothing to say to each other.
If, however, you are saying that you hate the actions of some people that have used religion to excuse some pretty terrible acts, and that you hate the use of faith as a barrier against knowledge, then we can talk. You’ll find that most people of faith agree with you.
No, not some of the folks that make the news. Rev
RidiculousRoberston calling for the death of a world leader makes for far more interesting copy than a couple of hundred denominations getting together and making a public call for peace and justice.We do it so often that it’s one of those “plane lands safely” stories.
Most denominations are (at best) lukewarm to the “Intelligent Design” theory. When the proponents use the term to state that we believe that God had a hand in the creation of mankind, they get general agreement from most of us, when they use it as a way to bring God into public education, they don’t.
Essentially, as a philosophy, we agree, as a science, we do not, the difference being that science should deal with the measurable, observable and definable, philosophy (and religion) does not. Both may be true, but there is a boundary between them.
Do some religious people confuse the two? Yes. Just as some scientists have been known to confuse expertise in a scientific area with understanding of religion as well.
The discussion here relates to teaching a particular philosophy (that directly relates to religion) in the public schools. It is complicated by the fact that, as parents, we often expect the schools to go beyond their role as educators in basic subjects and to teach particular personal and even political philosophies, so that it is difficult to find the boundaries.
Thankfully, the founding fathers gave us some touchstones to work with. When it comes to religion, the government is officially neutral. It is not to favor or discourage any particular religion or lack of religion.
And, as it does with most Christians and other people of faith, that works just fine for me.
OK, here’s a sort of anology. In the design of electronics we use an adaptation of calculus invented by Oliver Heaviside that treats integration and differentiation sort of like multiplication and division. It isn’t really correct, and in fact can be disproved in the general case. Nonetheless it’s useful because it happens to work in calculating the behavior if signals running through wires.
We who use it are happy with that, and don’t go beat the folks doing advanced theoretical math over the head to try to make them use it for things where it doesn’t work. Furthermore, in this country we don’t teach it in high school. We teach the rigorous, provable theorems that apply in all cases.
In the same way, the concept of an ultimately powerful, wise and loving Creator is of great importance to philosophers and theologians trying to divine the “why” as well as the “how” of why we are here, and also to many of us ordinary folk who seek a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives. However, that doesn’t necessarly work for someone trying to determine how to keep us from drowning in our own effluence if it somehow turns out the “rapture” doesn’t happen according to the schedule du jour.
E=mc^2 is also “just a theory”. Tell that to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Bertrand Russell, a not insignificant mathematician and philosopher, was an atheist for the simple reason that if you posit a GOD as the creator, then you must posit another GOD as the creator of GOD, ad infinitum.
Therefore, there is no creator, or, GOD. Or, there is a GOD, but he’s not the creator.
Which shows why theologians should not try to explain string theory, and why mathematicians should not try to explain theology.
Mr. Russell is a well-respected mathematician. As a philosopher, not so much, except of course, among those that agree with him. A number of theologians have had a wonderful time picking Mr. Russell’s arguments apart (almost as much fun as I have picking apart an Ann Coulter article), but the bottom line is that he makes some assumptions without evidence, and he uses “straw men” in some of his arguments.
Of course, those assumptions make perfect sense to the folks that agree with his conclusions.
Still, his mathematics should be taught in the public schools, and neither his nor my religion should be taught there.