Kansas votes ID-ology not biology

What a bummer day for science!

The ideology of the majority of the Kansas Board of Education favors Intelligent Design ID-ology, not scientific Biology. The Board wants both to be taught in K-12 classrooms across the state.

Kansas, and I guess by extension the US, will now become the butt of jokes around the world, at least in academic and scientific circles.

What do you think the joke will be? (Will there be prizes for the best 50 Kansas ID/Biology jokes? Nah.)

"Kansas Education Board First to Back 'Intelligent Design'
"Schools to Teach Doubts About Evolutionary Theory
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 9, 2005; Page A01

"TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 -- The Kansas Board of Education voted
Tuesday that students will be expected to study doubts about modern Darwinian theory, a move that defied the nation's scientific establishment even as it gave voice to religious conservatives and others who question the theory of evolution."

More ...

Thanks.

 

Science not completely bummed...

A school board in Pennsylvania apparently voted out all 8 of its members who backed "we give up, an invisible man must have invented it" err......I mean "intelligent design":
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/13118034.htm

 

Re: Science not completely bummed...

I meant the voters ousted them, not the board itself.

 

My problem with "intelligent design" is that it is a notion in search of facts, not a set of facts that formulate a theory.

People who dismiss natural selection as the cause of evolution as "just a theory" don't understand what theories are. Theories are explanations that fit the known observations as best as possible. Theories are not untested ideas; just the opposite. An untested idea is a hypothesis. "Intelligent design" more resembles one of these.

Theories that become so well-tested that they are accepted as almost certainly true are called "facts" and "laws" and so forth. But even they are subject to revision. ("Dr. Newton, Dr. Einstein calling on Line 2.") But even gravity is still a theory. Evolution, and its underlying explanation of natural selection, is a powerful theory. Intelligent design is an untested concept.

So, why is intelligent design untested? Because it isn't testable. It's basis is, essentially, that life and the universe it occupies are so complex that there must have been an intelligent designer behand it all. That's convenient, but wrong-headed. (Wrong-headed unless it turns out to be true.) First, intelligent design is based on a lack of information. It calls what is not known unknowable, then attributes it to a higher being. This is dumb, and it implies man's advancement of his knowledge of our origins is somehow limited. (Limited to what's known right now, in fact.)

Another reason it is dumb is that a lack of evidence is not evidence. Our societies have often attributed what was not known to higher beings. I doubt many advocates of intelligent design attribute thunder to the Norse god Thor, but its the same thing. Only now we know that Thor doesn't make the thunder and lightning.

Finally, the idea that it must be taught is science classes is the most wrong-headed notion of all. Intelligent design isn't a competing theory; it isn't even close. It fails on every scientific level and has no business in the classroom. I would hope any biology teacher worth his/her salt would decontruct it on the spot for the sham that it is.

What's to stop the next bunch of crackpots with a cherished belief from also claiming equal time in our classrooms? Why not include other creation myths, not just as historical curiosities, but as theories deserving equal consideration? (I know this seems like a "slippery slope" logical fallacy, but in this case we're talking about the present--not things that might come to be.)

The 6 lunkheads on the Kansas board decided to trump several well respected scientific organizations, including its own advisory panel, to do this. I hope the voters in Kansas toss these luddites on their collective asses so the children of that state can get back to learning science, not unsupported hypotheses, just like the last time the Kansas board tried to pull this stunt.

Is there room in science to debate intelligent design or natural selection? Sure. But teaching science is another matter, and the only science that should be taught is that which is strongly supported by the evidence. Let the intelligent design crew (creationists in sheep's clothing, of course) come up with their body of evidence. (The scholarly literature is utterly bereft of it at present.) Then they can come back and win the day for their ideas. And THEN it can be taught as the best information available. But let's not force a bunch of 10th graders decide individually what scientists have already demonstrated for decades. They're not qualified. And neither is the Kansas board of education, clearly.

 

Re: Science not completely bummed...

I expect the composition of the Kansas school board will change as well due to this.

 

I find the the fact that they changed the definition of science, most disturbing. They have created there own unique definition. So that science in Kansas can mean something different then the generally accepted meaning. This puts the children of Kansas at a disadvantage! First this means valuable classroom time will be spent on a theory that is not accepted as science when it could be spent on actual science education. It reflects very badly on the state of Kansas and the US as whole to be even debating this. It is obvious the 6 Kansas State Board of Education members have their own agenda and it is not the educational welfare of their citizens, and that's too bad. Chalk up another reason the US lags behind in math and science.

 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kansas

Has anyone brought suit yet?

It's a pretty transparent device to introduce the teaching of religion in public schools.

 

Kansas strikes again!

They're expanding now into physics too.....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

 

I thought the Scopes Monkey trial was in the 1920's and conducted in Dayton Tennessee? Who says the South is not progressive?!!

I don't know why some states want to have their ancestry established by law. There must be a suspicion of doubt somewhere. -Will Rogers, 1927

 

First, what Rich Douglas said.

Second, that said, I've always thought that creatonism -- and now, even, the somewhat newer intelligent design -- theories (if one can even call them that) are sufficiently well-established and contentious that it has come to the point where science teachers are almost remiss not to address them in some way. I mean, as bad as is misleading a student by teaching him creationism and/or intelligent design as real science; isn't it almost as bad in some ways to let him graduate, and to thrust him out into the world, not knowing that a fair number of those around him summarily reject everything he's been taught and that, instead, they embrace creationism and/or intelligent design?

Popular belief can be a powerful persuader. Not even acknowledging and/or, even better, examining creationism and, now, intelligent design, seems to me like a sure fire way to mold a child into a young adult who graduates from high school and then later wonders why he was never taught what everyone around him seems to believe; and/or why what he was taught is contrary to what everyone around him seems to believe... and all the concomitant conspiracy theories and other ridiculousness that it would seem that sort of thing could cause.

Why can't a science teacher spend a week or two in a given year covering creationism and instelligent design... not as science, but as what a helluva' lot of Americans claim and believe is true instead of the science of natural selection? It's a perfect opportunity to help drive home what is the very definition of science, and how it differs from what is true -- or at least what some others say is true -- about creationsim and intelligent design. What's wrong with a week or two in a given school year of properly-prefaced comparing and contrasting of what science shows us, and what creationism and intelligent design would have us believe instead... and then some thoughtful discussion about why people are so divided and up-in-arms about it?

It doesn't have to become a philosophy class. It's a science class, and that shouldn't be forgotten. In fact, the science teacher can even say that the discussion of the philosophical and/or religious aspects must be limited in a science class; and that those things are better discussed in philosophy and/or religion courses, where they belong; but that there's nothing wrong with at least introducing such things into scientific discussion, if for no other reasons than that the student can see that, while interesting, they don't belong in science classes as a central teaching point.

But what would be wrong with not simply ignoring creationism and natural selection in science classes? The debate has become so large, it seems to me, that it's almost malpractice on the part of the teacher to fail to acknowledge that lots of very smart people out in the world believe things happened another way; and then to explain what they way was, and how it differs from what science teaches us.

Then, after said week or two, the teacher can resume the hard science and move on.

I just don't see why it can't be done that way... rationally, calmly, acknowledging the differences of opinion and pointing out why, no matter what one's opinion is, creationism and intelligent design simply can't be included in pure scientific study; but that that doesn't make those ways of thinking any less worthy of investigation and analysis... maybe even belief.

Why do we always get it in our heads that exposing one to a certain thing will make him glom on to it like an addict on crack? Doing a proper job of educating means that all reasonable possibilities are presented, compared, contrasted and then, at least to some degree, left for the student to decide. Granted, it could be argued that creationism and intelligent design aren't reasonable and, therefore, the discussion is ended; and I can easily both see that argument and agree therewith. However, it has come, I believe, to the point that doing so ignores the elephant in the room. Creationism and, now, intelligent design, is not merely the theory of some small group of cultlike knuckleheads who can easily be ignored. It's out there, all around us; and it's now taken about as seriously as, history shows us, it has ever been.

To pretend, in science classes, that creationism and intelligent design doesn't exist and, therefore, that it will never be argued by respectable people out there, is easily as ridiculous as pretending, in creationism and intelligent design classes, that natural selection and evolution don't exist and, therefore, that it will never be argued by respectable people out there.

If we're going to prepare our students for the reality of the world, then we need to make sure they're prepared for the reality of there being fine, upstanding, respectable, intelligent people out there who will argue to the death that Darwin was an idiot; and that the world was created in a week, only a few thousand years ago. Failing to prepare our public school students for that debate which they will undoubtedly encounter as adults is irresponsible.

There are parallels, if you think about it, to the notion of sex education in public schools. Who, in your opinion, would better prepared to deal with the realities of such things as sexual intimacy, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy of both the wanted and unwanted kind: The kid who's only been told to just abstain; or the kid who completely understands both the biology/physiology and emotion of it all, and is then able to make informed decisions based on facts and being fully advised in the premises?

Knowlege is, and always has been, power. That's never not been true. Ever! Public school boards should throw conservatives for a loop by embracing the notion of making sure students have all the facts... including what may not necessaraily be scientific facts, but that which others believe to the depths of their souls is true, scientific facts be damned.

It's all in how it's presented. Refusing to acknwledge that many, many, many people reject the scientific explanation in favor of the religious one is just as irresponsible as teaching creationism and/or intelligent design as science. There's room for both in the public schools, as long as they're properly labeled.

And when I say "both," I mean more than just the Judeo-Christian explanation. During the aforementioned week or two, there's not a darned thing wrong, in my opinion, with covering -- even if only briefly -- the way that all the other major religions explain it as well.

Or so it is my opinion... at least at this moment. All of my liberal, left-wing "separation of church and state" and "establishment clause" alarm bells are at full clang as I'm writing this; and I may reconsider it at some point later and change my position. But I've been thinking about it for a while, now... and I just don't see why the reality of the two (or three, if you count intelligent design as its own) shools of thought can't be presented... that is, as long as they're properly labeled; and neither creationism or intelligent design are ever confused with, or substituted for, real science.

 

As a creationist, I find the whole thing a bit odd.

Creationism is a religious point of view; it is based on the Bible. It has no extended place in a non-religious school's science curriculum. It definitely has a place in my religious body's parochial schools.

I would see no particular harm to anyone in spending a day or a week in science courses discussing ideologies of science: creationism, ID, Darwinism, social Darwinism, materialism, etc., with a candid and frank instruction that these are *ideologies*which may or may not ultimately be true--a question beyond the capability or interest of science to answer. Then get on with your best shot at science instruction.

I tell kids in my parish not to sweat it when they get science stuff which conflicts with their religion--answer the tests which test you on what you are taught, and save the ultimate questions for another arena (church, catechism) where they belong.

However, if a public school science teacher called "my" kids lunkheads, etc., for believing in creationism, I am afraid that I would be in the school office in high dudgeon. That would be imposing an ideology via an ad hominem attack, in the case of kids. The language we use here in this thread is fine--for we are all lunkheads on one thing or another--but when ideological language (religious, antireligious, scientismic, what have you) contaminates public education then kids get hurt.

What Gregg said, too. He got in here while I was typing. We disagree on creationism but we agree on common sense. I would be cautious about the "real science" label--"present state of scientific inquiry" would be a non-ideological way of conveying the proper place of mainstream science in the public school classroom.

 

Good post.

 

Because I used the term, I'll respond. I didn't call the Kansas board "lunkheads" because they believed in creationism (or intelligent design). I called them lunkheads for insisting that fake science be taught in science class, watering down real science.

I don't care what they believe in religiously. I do, however, care when science is attacked by non-scientists for very non-science-related reasons, using kids as pawns in order to do it.

 

Thanks, Decimon.

 

The issue of course with this is you are looking at it throught a judeo-christian keyhole. If we start talking about many competing theories of creation we would need to talk about Taoist,Buddhist, Hindi, Zarathustric and Islamic theories of creation too(there are many smart people who believe in these theories as well). The problem is where do you stop? soon it would no longer be a science class but a world religion class. If you are going to teach one religous theory in science you must teach them all, unless of course you are trying to promote a national religion or trying to show a religous preference in public schools.

 

Hey there unk! I know I can't go toe to toe with you on religious matters, but is your response kind of one of those "render unto Caesar" notions? In other words, when in secular environments, do as "the State" requires you to do when in that environment, and when in a religious environment, do what God wants you to do?

Doesn't this expose true Christians to the problem of being "lukewarm" and therefore "spewed" from the mouth? Were that they were hot or cold, and all that?

Don't take this the wrong way - I just digging in on this a bit to see what your take is as a fellow Lutheran.....

 

Good point.

 

From Questions Which Tend Not to Edification

Translated from the Majjhima-Nikya, and constituting Sutta 63

"And what, Malunkyaputta, have I not elucidated? I have not elucidated, Malunkyaputta, that the world is eternal; I have not elucidated that the world is not eternal; I have not elucidated that the world is finite; I have not elucidated that the world is infinite; I have not elucidated that the soul and the body are identical; I have not elucidated that the soul is one thing and the body another; I have not elucidated that the saint exists after death; I have not elucidated that the saint does not exist after death; I have not elucidated that the saint both exists and does not exist after death; I have not elucidated that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death.

"And why, Malunkyaputta, have I not elucidated this?

"Because, Malunkyaputta, this profits not, nor has to do with the fundamentals of religion, nor tends to aversion, absence of passion, cessation, quiescence, the supernatural faculties, supreme wisdom, and Nirvana; therefore have I not elucidated it.

“And what, Malunkyaputta, have I elucidated?

"Misery, Malunkyaputta, have I elucidated; the origin of misery have I elucidated; the cessation of misery have I elucidated; and the path leading to the cessation of misery have I elucidated.

"And why, Malunkyaputta, have I elucidated this?

"Because, Malunkyaputta, this does profit, has to do with the fundamentals of religion, and tends to aversion, absence of passion, cessation, quiescence, knowledge, supreme wisdom, and Nirvana; therefore have I elucidated it.

"Accordingly, Malunkyaputta, bear always in mind what it is that I have not elucidated, and what it is that I have elucidated.”

http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/201.html

 

As good an elucidation of Reform Judaism as any I have ever read!