Kansas State School Board At It Once Again

Here are excerpts from today's coverage, available in its entirety at: Topeka Capital JournalOpponents of the hearings by a three-member panel of the Kansas State Board of Education say they are a "publicity stunt" -- more theater than substance. But critics say it is essential that the state board and students learn more about evidence that contradicts evolution -- viewpoints they say are often shunned by closed-minded colleagues."We would go a long way in this discussion by simply having the majority view say, 'We don't know' instead of saying, 'We do know and this is what it is: It's a naturalistic process,' " said William Harris, the first witness and a leading proponent of changing the standards.Some of the changes Harris and others are proposing are consistent with intelligent design, but Harris said intelligent design is a "new and maturing science" and it would be inappropriate to mandate teaching it. Instead, he said, students should learn evidence against the theory of evolution, particularly when it comes to species evolving into new species."Secondly, we want to make the point that this controversy has profound implications for religion and philosophy," he said. "If this did not have implications for religion, this room would be far emptier today.""The fact the other side isn't here, that speaks volumes to me because they cannot defend themselves," Nancy Hanahan, of Overland Park, said of those boycotting the proceedings.But those who refused to participate in the hearings said their actions were justified. Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, said state board members already have made up their minds and scientists didn't want to give the "appearance of a legitimate debate."Thursday was the first of three days in which critics of evolution will make their case. During about eight hours of testimony, six witnesses brought by lawyer John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design network, made the case for transforming a minority viewpoint into new curriculum standards for schoolchildren in Kansas.The three conservative state board members serving as a jury for the hearings were a receptive and sometimes adoring audience for the witnesses."I'm an elementary teacher, and I am humbled by the intelligence before me, so bear with me," Connie Morris, of St. Francis, told Charles Thaxton, who has a doctorate in physical chemistry and has written books about the weaknesses he sees in the theory of evolution.Thaxton said there is no evidence of a "primordial soup" from which life would have emerged."I can go out of here, and people will say to me, 'You've been saying there is evidence that refutes Darwin's theory of evolution,' " Morris said. "I've been hoping this hearing would help me have some good, hard evidence that I can show."But critics of the witnesses described the testimony as misleading and sometimes uninformed.Topeka lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray, who is representing those opposed to the hearings, asked pointed questions as he cross-examined witnesses."Would you suggest," Irigonegaray later asked Harris, "that any time that we do not have a natural explanation we ought to stop looking for it and invoke miracles?"William S. Harris, a University of Missouri-Kansas City professor and proponent of intelligent design, presents his testimony.
"If we don't have a natural explanation we should keep looking for it," Harris responded, "but there has got to be a point -- just as it came with the alchemist of the Middle Ages -- where someone said, 'Enough is enough. We're not going to make gold out of lead.'************
So apparently Troy was right.
Judging from Ms. Morris, apparently anyone can get on a school board.

i am a christian and i can read just fine. what if god made me smarter?

we need god in school. He knows what to teach us.

While I agree that we can all learn from Odin the Allfather, I don't see why he has to be in our publicly funded schools.

---

*not an actual doctor

Those two sentences contradict with each other, considering that I never said that all christians can't read or less smart than non-christians.I welcome you to the boards. For some useful guides on how to communicate effectively on these boards, please click on the link in my signature.This message has been edited by Troy, 05-06-2005 09:06 PM

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

Sorry, but no.
We have plenty of churches to choose from if you want religious teachings. We also have privately-funded religious schools that you can send your kids to if you want.But *publicly-funded* schools MUST remain secular. Even if we ignore the rights of atheists (which I don't, because I am one), the problem with bringing any 'god' into a public school is that whose god are you going to choose ?
If you choose a Judao-Christian god, you disenfranchize muslims and on and on.

EZscience writes:

quote:

---

If you choose a Judao-Christian god

---

There's no such thing as the "Judeo-Christian" god.To the Christians, god had a son. To the Jews, god could never have a son.There is no such thing as "non-denominational."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Who's version of god's logic should we teach?

I agree. That's my point.Whatever is taught about *any* religion in a public classroom is always going to offend someone who happens to believe in a different god or belief system. I guess we could take Jar's advice (message 64 on this thread) and have a theology class where all belief systems are given equal coverage, but do you really think that would appease the protestant fundamentalists who are making this unjustified assault on the teaching of evolution? They don't want an objective course of study on the bases of all religions and philosophy, they want *their* religious 'values' imposed as an insidious undercurrent in all disciplines.

Come on over to Message 1 where I answer that in depth.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

EZscience responds to me:

quote:

---

I guess we could take Jar's advice (message 64 on this thread) and have a theology class where all belief systems are given equal coverage

---

The problem is that there isn't enough time to do this. Somebody will be left out. It isn't even enough to talk about "Christian." Do you mean Orthodox? Catholic? Protestant? There is sufficient granularity among all the various sects that simply trying to discuss a single major branch of theologic dogma would take the entire term. That doesn't mean it isn't a worthy thing to attempt, but it isn't something that the K-12 systems should be handling.

quote:

---

They don't want an objective course of study on the bases of all religions and philosophy

---

Absolutely correct. That's the insidious nature of the term "ID." It's a way of saying "god did it" without having to use the word "god." They claim that they're not injecting religion into the discussion. And yet, when you follow these people outside of the town hall after making their speeches to the school board, you find that they are all of the opinion that the "I" that "Ded" is god. They never consider the possibility that it were aliens.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Let's move this to the other thread.I agree with you about ID theorists, but I am not so sure about the aliens...This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-08-2005 05:21 PM

Some excerpts from an article in the Kansas City Star"Most of the 23 witnesses that Calvert led through scripted questions favor intelligent design over evolution. Only four of those witnesses were Kansans.Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka lawyer, represented pro-evolution scientists in the hearings by questioning witnesses to expose their motives and inconsistent testimony."We should not allow the minority, in essence, to hijack education and send it back to the 16th century," he said.On Thursday, Irigonegaray will present a response to defend evolution and "counter all of the ridiculous ideas we've heard in the last three days."The minority group wants the state board to endorse a more critical approach to evolution and expect teachers to explain some of the holes in the central theory of biology. They also want to change the way science is defined as a search for "natural explanations," because they say that represents an endorsement of naturalism and atheism.One of the other witnesses was a Turkish newspaper columnist with no science background but a nearly 10-year-old interest in intelligent design. Mustafa Akyol testified that the naturalistic bias in Kansas' science standards contributes to the ill will between the Muslim world and the United States.He urged the board to adopt the critical approach to help alleviate that ill will."This is not the only reason for anti-Westernism, but it is an important one," he said.Throughout the hearings and again Saturday, witnesses repeated the objection that the proposed standards are biased against intelligent design and against religion because they describe science as a search for natural explanations.Philosophy professor Angus Menuge said that bias in favor of naturalism would rule out any scientific evidence that would support a theistic religion, making the standards like a religion.When Irigonegaray asked him about the thousands of scientists who accept evolution and are religious, the Concordia University professor angered many of the mainstream scientists in the room."It might be that some of these people are confused," he said.Rachel Robson, a doctoral student studying pathology at the University of Kansas, mocked Menuge's statement."I understand how it would be good for their case if believing in evolution meant you were an atheist," Robson said. "If that were true, I'd be on their side. But it's not."Later, some of the religious evolution supporters in the crowd started wearing name tags with the word "confused" on them.The mainstream scientists, like Jack Krebs, weren't convinced."These folks are trying to redefine science as an atheistic philosophy, so they can advance their theological goal," said Krebs, vice president of the pro-evolution Kansas Citizens For Science.Some changes in the way evolution is treated in the science standards are expected because conservative Republicans control six of the 10 seats on the state board.When conservatives last controlled the Kansas board in 1999, they voted to de-emphasize evolution in the standards, leaving the decision whether to teach it up to local school boards.That decision earned the state ridicule nationwide and prompted voters to elect a moderate majority to the board. Moderates restored evolution to the standards in the spring of 2001.---Like we needed another reason NOT to vote for conservatives in this country. Interesting strategy, though. Argue that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a 'naturalistic' religion - EZThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-09-2005 10:44 AM

Others have covered this story pretty well, but I would like to submit the reply to these questions jar posted from my local paper by Dr. Steve Case, co-chair of the science standards writing committee:Welcome kcfs.org - BlueHost.comI also posted a diary for any Daily Kos readers on this topic, primarily outlining the religious intent of those behind the ID movement to uproot evolution from our Kansas schools. Anyone attempting to state that this is NOT a religious movement is either horribly misinformed or blatantly lying. I tend to find in almost every case it seems to be the latter, and not the former:What Are Us Kansas Natives Truly Up Against With This Evolution "Trial"?Much of my sources I freely admit came from the KCFS website:Welcome kcfs.org - BlueHost.comAnd a very useful and informative blog from another local Lawrence resident, Josh Rosenau with updates on the "trial" can be found here:RedirectingHTHOpusEdit: One other thing to note - on our local Channel 6 News last night, there was a confession given by the 3 Conservative Board Members who are holding these "trials"/"hearings"/whateveryouwannacalltheseshananigans. When asked if any had read the Appproved Draft 2 on the Science Standards (written by the majority on the science panel), only 1 of the members admitted to fully reading Draft 2 (Steve Abrams). Of course it remains to be seen as to whether or not he actually understands it, but I digress. The other 2 members stated that they only "skimmed" the approved draft.Strange how just merely skimming the approved draft written by actual scientists gives them so much of a supporting opinion to take the Minority Report that advocates ID instead......This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 05-09-2005 05:46 PM

Well it appears that the Kansas board has revealed its true intent, which is not to consider the merits of ID vs Evo as scientific enterprises, but to change scientific methodology such that ID can count as a scientific enterprise in the first place.From Yahoo article on the Kansas board meetings... This should be seen as IDists tossing a towel into the ring in this debate, but I'm pretty sure it will be viewed as some sort of advance forward for science. Back to the future and all that.So long science, it was good while it lasted. On the bright side I'll be able to revive the family trade of Witchsmeller Pursuyvent.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)