Kansas State School Board At It Once Again

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How about the higher education level you have, the more votes you get? one for high school, two for bachelors, three for masters, etc....

---

​

No need to go that far...

---

Hush yo' mouf! Seriously, I think Angeldust is on to something. I like the idea. Of course, it flies in the face of the 14th amendment but hey, so does most of the anti-tolerance agenda of the ignorant masses on the right.You go, Angel!

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Except you're forgeting all those degrees handed out by places like Oral Roberts university. For every hard science degree earned in this country, who knows how many theology, divinity, philosophy, physical education, and communications degrees are issued.This message has been edited by custard, 03-03-2005 15:36 AM

quote:

---

Except you're forgeting all those degrees handed out by places like Oral Roberts university. For every hard science degree earned in this country, who knows how many theology, divinity, philosophy, physical education, and communications degrees are issued.

---

And let's not forget the Patriot Universities and Rolling Stone back page ads. It would be an easy system to abuse. I think we can only agree with the quip "The problem with democracy is the voters".

Sorry about that. You kinda sounded like one of those nutcases that believe the gov requires children to go to school so it could brainwash them.

The fatal flaw in the whole train of thought is the assumption that those with education are actually intelligent. Sadly enough, I know many very ignorant, but well educated people. The reverse is also true.Guess were stuck with the old system.....

No offense taken, I need to learn that sarcasm doesn't type well. Although, brainwashing children in school doesn't sound unlike something the government would do......., I really am kidding.

Yes, but at least it IS a theory - creationism has yet to rise to that level !
You make another seriously flawed assumption.
We don't advocate teaching evolution because it is 'true'.
'Truth' in the sense you speak of it, is outside the realm of science.
We advocate teaching evolution because it is *useful* to explain and predict the changes in biological phenomena that we observe.
In fact, it is the single most useful theory in all of biology.
Unfortunately, it casts doubt on a lot of what Christian dogma tries to claim as 'truth'. Too bad. You can learn all the Christian 'truth' you want in church - just don't try and limit our teaching of science because your faith is threatened by some of the implications.

As a professional biological scientist who has to work in this sorry state, I can tell you this much. The whole hearings are a trumped up sham to cater to the ignorant masses in the state who see evolution as a threat to their faith. The politicians aren't intersted in improving the education standards for kids, just in gratifying the Religious Right that is perceived to be such a powerful voting block out here in Wheat-land. The Kansas Citizens for Science have advocated that all scientists boycott these hearings to deny them credibility. LAst I heard, there were 23 'experts' who had agreed to testify for insertion of 'alternative' theories (= ID), and only one scientist registered to oppose their inclusion. I guess they will get the consensus they are looking for, but it won't have any credibility.

How about if only scientists named Steve testified for evolution? --Percy

em....go and read some of my posts.

OK I will.
Hope they are more legible than this one !

No need to run yourself down - I thought that your reply was perfectly readable.I suggested that you checked out my previous posts because then you would have realised that, as a evo and an atheist,I was taking the piss.

Yeah...but did anyone named Steve ever win a

​

BLUERibbon??This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-16-2005 03:16 AM

Let's let the lucky one win.

This is not an anti-evolution bill. It's not getting rid of evolution; it's adding alternative theories. What exactly is wrong with introducing the other side of the debate?