• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's wrong with Kansas...

Damn it, damn it, DAMN IT!

Here's the Evolution story...

By Carey Gillam TOPEKA, Kan (Reuters) - Evolution is going on trial in Kansas.

Eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in Tennessee pitted religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of British scientist Charles Darwin, Kansas is holding its own hearings on what school children should be taught about how life on Earth began.

The Kansas Board of Education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to begin on Thursday in the capitol Topeka. More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution.

Many prominent U.S. scientific groups have denounced the debate as founded on fallacy and have promised to boycott the hearings, which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government.

"I feel like I'm in a time warp here," said Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray who has agreed to defend evolution as valid science. "To debate evolution is similar to debating whether the Earth is round. It is an absurd proposition."

WIDESPREAD DEBATE

Irigonegaray's opponent will be attorney John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, a Kansas organization that argues the Earth was created through intentional design rather than random organism evolution.

The group is one of many that have been formed over the last several years to challenge the validity of evolutionary concepts and seek to open the schoolroom door to ideas that humans and other living creatures are too intricately designed to have come about randomly.

While many call themselves creationists, who believe that God was the ultimate designer of all life, they are stopping short of saying creationism should be taught in schools.

"We're not against evolution," said Calvert. "But there is a lot of evidence that suggests that life is the product of intelligence. I think it is inappropriate for the state to prejudge the question whether we are the product of design or just an occurrence."

Debates over evolution are currently being waged in more than a dozen states, including Texas where one bill would allowing for creationism to be taught alongside evolution.

Kansas has been grappling with the issue for years, garnering worldwide attention in 1999 when the state school board voted to downplay evolution in science classes.

Subsequent elections altered the membership of the school board and led to renewed backing for evolution instruction in 2001. But elections last year gave religious conservatives a 6-4 majority and the board is now finalizing new science standards, which will guide teachers about how and what to teach students.

The current proposal pushed by conservatives would not eliminate evolution entirely from instruction, nor would it require creationism be taught, but it would encourage teachers to discuss various viewpoints and eliminate core evolution claims as required curriculum.

School board member Sue Gamble, who describes herself as a moderate, said she will not attend the hearings, which she calls "a farce." She said the argument over evolution is part of a larger agenda by Christian conservatives to gradually alter the legal and social landscape in the United States.

"I think it is a desire by a minority... to establish a theocracy, both within Kansas and growing to a national level," Gamble said.

OLD TESTAMENT TEACHINGS

Some evolution detractors say that the belief that humans, animals and organisms evolved over long spans of time is inconsistent with Biblical teachings that life was created by God. The Bible's Old Testament says that God created life on Earth including the first humans, Adam and Eve, in six days.

Detractors also argue that evolution is invalid science because it cannot be tested or verified and say it is inappropriately being indoctrinated into education and discouraging consideration of alternatives.

But defenders say that evolution is not totally inconsistent with Biblical beliefs, and it provides a foundational concept for understanding many areas of science, including genetics and molecular biology.

The theory of evolution came to prominence in 1859 when Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," and it was the subject of a 1925 trial in Tennessee in which teacher John Thomas Scopes was accused of violating a ban against teaching evolution.

Kansas School Board chairman Steve Abrams said the hearings are less about religion than they are about seeking the best possible education for the state's children.

"If students... do not understand the weaknesses of evolutionary theory as well as the strengths, a grave injustice is being done to them," Abrams said.
 
Perhaps it's my monkey cynicism talking, but I find it really distasteful when people seem so very, very eager to get their hands on the curricula of school-aged children. It's as if they know how easy it is to brainwash the young. If ID is so obvious and holds together so well, why are the proponents unwilling to wait until people are thinking adults before presenting it? Why, it's almost as if they know you'd pretty much have to be nine years old to fall for it.
 
What's wrong with Kansas?

There's not enough fire in the world.

I have no words for this.

:hb:
 
Roadtoad said:
Irigonegaray's opponent will be attorney John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, a Kansas organization that argues the Earth was created through intentional design rather than random organism evolution.
Are there seriously people who think that mainstream science claims that the Earth was created through "random organism evolution"? Is any more evidence needed to show that these people have no understanding of science?

The group is one of many that have been formed over the last several years to challenge the validity of evolutionary concepts and seek to open the schoolroom door to ideas that humans and other living creatures are too intricately designed to have come about randomly.
Well, if I ever find anyone who thinks that living creatures "have come about randomly", I'll be sure to refer them to this group.

"We're not against evolution," said Calvert. "But there is a lot of evidence that suggests that life is the product of intelligence. I think it is inappropriate for the state to prejudge the question whether we are the product of design or just an occurrence."
Well then, he should be happy with evolution, as it says nothing about whether we are the result of a "Designer".

Some evolution detractors say that the belief that humans, animals and organisms evolved over long spans of time is inconsistent with Biblical teachings that life was created by God.
And...?

Detractors also argue that evolution is invalid science because it cannot be tested or verified and say it is inappropriately being indoctrinated into education and discouraging consideration of alternatives.
Every single evolution claim is unverifiable?

But defenders say that evolution is not totally inconsistent with Biblical beliefs, and it provides a foundational concept for understanding many areas of science, including genetics and molecular biology.
Anyone else disturbed that its consistency with the Bible is even an issue to begin with?

"If students... do not understand the weaknesses of evolutionary theory as well as the strengths, a grave injustice is being done to them," Abrams said.
An argument which I would find more convincing if these "weaknesses" did not so often turn out to be lies, quote mining, circular arguments, arguments from ignorance, and other fallacies that do not belong in public schools, except perhaps as examples of how not to present an argument.

TragicMonkey
It's as if they know how easy it is to brainwash the young. If ID is so obvious and holds together so well, why are the proponents unwilling to wait until people are thinking adults before presenting it?
Careful, now. That argument presents an obvious counterargument: why are evolutionists so opposed to the teaching of creationism? If evolution is so obvious and holds together so well, why are proponents to unwilling to allow opposing viewpoints? It's almost as if they know you'd have to be nine years old to fall for it. Both sides want children taught their point of view, precisely because children are so impressionable.
 
Careful, now. That argument presents an obvious counterargument: why are evolutionists so opposed to the teaching of creationism? If evolution is so obvious and holds together so well, why are proponents to unwilling to allow opposing viewpoints? It's almost as if they know you'd have to be nine years old to fall for it. Both sides want children taught their point of view, precisely because children are so impressionable.

Actually I don't think most proponents to evolution are unwilling to allow opposing viewpoints. They just want viewpoints that are intelligently thought out and have some evidence. Intelligent design, "scientific" creationism, etc can be freely taugh in church and at home. But until they come up with some solid evidence (other than "the bible says so") they are nothing but religious indoctrination and have no place in public schools.
 
I'm in Kansas this week. I'll do what I can with my Cluebat of justice. That is when I'm not drunk.
 
Bob Klase said:
Actually I don't think most proponents to evolution are unwilling to allow opposing viewpoints.
Of course not. I was just pointing out what the obvious creationist response would be.
 
This would be the PERFECT platform to launch a campaign to introduce each and every notion of creation into the Kansas school science curriculum - Buddhist, Hindu, Jainism, whatever. Piles of turtles, crystal spheres, cubic earths on elephants' backs, etc - they all qualify for inclusion under the same criteria as the IDers' notions.

So. Who's going to collate the major ones and do the big public flip-chart and pitch presentation at this gig?
 
a_unique_person said:
I think that if I was going to go for a cool creation story, the turtles and elephants is better than the rest.

Spoken like a true Terry Pratchett fan...:D

Look, the only reason this passed was because you had parents who were literally asleep at the wheel. Common sense above all points out the myriad flaws in ID, the central one being: How do you replicate God in the laboratory? It's childish, and the end result is you're going to have people who will continue to make foolish decisions based on flawed "evidence" for decades. This will be great news for Sylvia Browne, but it sucks if you're looking for cures for cancer, AIDS, or Alzheimer's.
 
Heard on the radio this morning that today starts the evolution "trial". They had one of the school board members on who said something to the effect of, "We've pretty much already made up our minds, but I think this is a great opportunity to educate the public."

Even though there will be an evolution advocate to cross examine ID proponents, it looks like all evolution experts are boycotting this hearing as an ID propaganda-fest.
 
Upchurch said:
it looks like all evolution experts are boycotting this hearing as an ID propaganda-fest.
I really have to question the wisdom of that. To the general public it's simply admitting defeat. While the proceedings may not be fair, showing up and getting their comments on record seems to make a lot of sense. Running away like this will just embolden others.
 
DavidJames said:
I really have to question the wisdom of that. To the general public it's simply admitting defeat. While the proceedings may not be fair, showing up and getting their comments on record seems to make a lot of sense. Running away like this will just embolden others.
They showed up the last time the issue came up and the measure still passed. This time there isn't even a possibility that the measure won't pass. The school board has already made up its mind. I can understand not wanting to legitimize this charade by participating.

The only silver lining I can see in all of this is that there will be approximately 1/49th less competition for Missouri students who want to go into science. That's assuming, of course, that this doesn't go anywhere.


eta: I guess it wouldn't be a "measure". What are school board decisions called?
 
LostAngeles said:
What's wrong with Kansas?

There's not enough fire in the world.

I have no words for this.

:hb:

I've heard, from various skepticks, that if the position you hold is a good one, then a critical examination of it will

1) determine it is not good afterall

2) confirm it is good afterall, thus strengthening your position


So why wouldn't skeptics want to debate evolution?
 

Back
Top Bottom