Slashdot Mirror
Search
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Search the archive with full-text matching across story titles, bodies,
and comments. Phrases are quoted; or, -word,
and parentheses behave as in a web search. Queries must be at least
3 characters.
Well, that's an impressive argument. :-P
First, in the Japan case, we kept the Emperor around. The Emperor of Japan, at the time, was the absolute power to the Japanese. If the emperor said, "Cooperate with the Americans", the people cooperated. If the emperor said, "We're now a democracy. Go vote," people went and voted. If the emperor said "Hop on one foot for the day," people hopped on one foot. You did what the emperor said.
Yes, I'd agree that Japan is not a good analogy...and it's also one I didn't use. Next strawman please.
Second, in the Germany case, you had a country that already had a democratic history. The people of Germany essentially elected Hitler as dictator. When the War was over, they had experience and trust in a democratic system.
Horsepucky. The German people had a terrible time under their "democratic" government. That's WHY they brought Hitler to power.
The people of Iraq have no such history.
Below you point out that Hussein was elected... Which is it?
Also, the rebuilding of Germany was sort of the first steps of the Cold War--we had to show the people of the world that America, Freedom, Mom, Apple Pie, etc. were better than those godless commies. Again, the idea was to win the hearts of minds of the people of Germany. There was no such plan in place in Iraq.
Also nonsense. We have a very large rebuilding plan in Iraq, designed to do EXACTLY what you suggest. It hasn't gone as well as hoped, mainly due to security issues.
However, the factor that you're conveniently ignoring that makes Iraq a much *easier* proposition than Germany in the long run, is the proliferation of Western culture and technology through the media. From what I hear the typical Iraqi teenager in Baghdad today is sporting a rapper T-shirt and talking on a cell phone. Satellite TV dishes are everywhere. McDonalds franchises can't be far behind. ;-)
Every government in the area is terrified of the effect of Western media on its citizens - and Iraq is now thoroughly immersed in it.
Things are actually looking quite good, depending on how things go through December 15. I'm highly optimistic.
Then there's the whole "rebuilding" thing. Who do you think rebuilt Germany? The answer, of course, is Germans via money provided by the US's Marshall Plan. In the end, you had German companies who owned their own assets. Who is rebuilding Iraq? Halliburton. And what do you have in the end? US Ownership of Iraq's assets.
Horsecrap again. The US can't afford to come out of this looking "imperialistic", so sadly enough we're absorbing the cost ourselves (well some is being borne by our allies, but not much). US companies won't end up owning much in Iraq, though there well may be some "sweetheart deals". I don't see a problem with that - better us than Germany, France or China.
The other thing you're missing is that Germany was quite poor at the end of WWII, while Iraq has vast petroleum wealth. Iraq won't need nearly as much help to succeed, it just needs a working government, industrious citizens, and a modicum of security.
Seeing how the South allowed, and in some still does, cousins to marry and have offspring, it's only natural to make fun of Southerns. Just look at the mullets, NASCAR fans screaming like monkeys, fundamentalists who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years ago (or whatever it is this week), and the mindless dedication to the Republican party just because they want to ban gay marriage even though free trade has sent many Southern jobs overseas. If the gene pool needs a filter, it's game over.
Since educational achievement and standards are very low, your joke is true. Education, literacy, and non-Christian religions are seen as godless, liberal, French, and aiding terrorists just because it's part of civilization. Kentucky, where I live, has 3 PBS stations dedicated to helping people get their GEDs and learn basic mathematics and literacy. Instead of doing that, why not fix the schools? Oh wait, that is liberal and smacks of Northern culture. Silly me. Next time, just take the joke and move on...no point in getting upset.
For example, my uncle moved from KY to MI to work for GM. A guy asked him how Kentuckians pronounce the name of KY capital. The guy stated 2 ways of saying Louisville. My uncle replied, "Frankfurt."
"I hope you realize that much of the criticism of postwar Iraq mirrors criticism of postwar Germany after World War II...and look how that turned out."
You know, I'm really sick of the World War II comparison. I'm not a historian and even I know it's bullshit.
First, in the Japan case, we kept the Emperor around. The Emperor of Japan, at the time, was the absolute power to the Japanese. If the emperor said, "Cooperate with the Americans", the people cooperated. If the emperor said, "We're now a democracy. Go vote," people went and voted. If the emperor said "Hop on one foot for the day," people hopped on one foot. You did what the emperor said.
Second, in the Germany case, you had a country that already had a democratic history. The people of Germany essentially elected Hitler as dictator. When the War was over, they had experience and trust in a democratic system. The people of Iraq have no such history. Also, the rebuilding of Germany was sort of the first steps of the Cold War--we had to show the people of the world that America, Freedom, Mom, Apple Pie, etc. were better than those godless commies. Again, the idea was to win the hearts of minds of the people of Germany. There was no such plan in place in Iraq.
Then there's the whole "rebuilding" thing. Who do you think rebuilt Germany? The answer, of course, is Germans via money provided by the US's Marshall Plan. In the end, you had German companies who owned their own assets. Who is rebuilding Iraq? Halliburton. And what do you have in the end? US Ownership of Iraq's assets.
"If Iraq doesn't have a democratic form of government in five years, THEN we'll talk about failed US policy..."
Ah, yes. A "democratic form of government."
Remember, Iraq had a democratic form of government before this. They had elections. Hussein won them--usually by large margins.
Actually, written language has fragmented into two: traditional and simplified. In cold-war parlance, traditional characters were used by "Free Chinese", while simplified were used by "Godless Red Communists". Those raised and educated on traditional characters find the simplified ones very "strange", and vice versa. I was in China a few times but couldn't make out 1/2 of of the words there. Some I guessed at the meaning between recognized characters, but other I had to ask my Chinese colleague for help. Most western students of Chinese prefer simplified because it's "simpler". But to us, the simplified characters has lost most of their connotative meaning.
Thanks for admitting that you're raising children who will be ill-equipped to deal with modern society.
I suppose my reaction to my child coming home from school and asking me, "what's all this intelligent design stuff" would be similar but exactly opposite. Proof, you know, that the terrorists have truly won and the United States has become a theocracy.
"What happened to our Christian duty as parents to be responsible for our children's education? If they're teaching my son something in school I don't agree with, I can counsel him at home, or he can learn it in Sunday School. But I don't have to try to offer some watered-down godless alternative to present to the public."
The problem, of course, is that you wish to teach your children fairy-tale versions of reality. If you wish you raise your children in ignorance, don't blame the Evolutionists when your kids can't get into college (by that, I don't mean Oral Roberts University) or land a real job.
The problem is that some people actually think this is evangelism. Evangelism is not trying to convince people rationally that there is a God. Evangelism is conveying the Gospel message of sinful humanity, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, once and for all, that covers all sins, and that man can be reconciled to God by Jesus' perfect life and his death and resurrection. If they don't believe this, nothing else matters. They will still die and go to hell, whether they believe in evolution or ID.
If you are a fundamentalist (you support Bush), then ask yourself why you got a vaccine shot this flu season? Ask yourself why you visited your state-licensed medical doctor this year?
Well, see here, ya godless commie doubter terrorist sympathiser. Get yaself ta Gitmo.
I got me a flu shot becuz it was the will of the Good Lord Jesus Christ-Amen.
Now hand me ma AK I got some godless commies to send ta Hell.
"is the Lord of the Rings not geeky enough?"
Fuck no. First, the sheer length of the tome is enough to prevent almost anybody from reading it. Second, it's a *fairy story*, the sort of thing 9 year old girls obsess on. Geek books have science, spies or aliens in them.
Besides, the correlation between "geek" and "bible" seems to be awfully low from my observations.
See, here's the main problem. You come to us screaming "we have a problem with the internet, we have a problem with the internet! zomgz!" We look at you blankly for a few moments, wondering where this is all going. You mumble something about "it doesn't work quite like we want it to! spam! cyber security! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, MAN, THE ROBOTRONS ARE AT STAKE!" We blink a few times and cock our head to an angle. One eyebrow raises in an eloquent manner - or at least as eloquent as can be, considered we have a man in the white house with no patience for subtlety. You continue babbling, working yourself into a tizzy; "TEH INTERNETZ ARE DOOMED!!!! We've got spam! We've got viruses! We've got cyber terrorists everywhere! And titties! Titties galore! Immoral acts! Hate speech! And the propaganda spread by the ... " (you begin to spasm uncontrollably as multiple personas surface) "... capitalistic ... " "... fascist ..." "... godless infidels ..." "... (insert trite generalization here) ... [people]! We demand a means to prot... hrm. Well. No. We don't want to do anything about that sort of speech" (you start winking and nudging us). We start shaking our head and begin forming the words "...uhm...I don't...think so." You begin hyperventilating and running around the room, screaming uncontrollably after every few gasps of air, "No! No! We must have it! We must! You must give it to us! Give it to us now or we'll make our own!" We shrug a little and try to calm you down. Perhaps a few questions will help defuse the situation, "Well... what do you want to do, if we were to give you control?" You begin spasming and biting your lip until it bleeds before you scream "We don't know! We don't know what we're going to do! But we're going to stop... everything! Yes! That's it! We'll all decide what is best!" We begin shaking our head again, "No...no. You're going to have to do a little better than plan to decide what is best. Maybe you should settle down, take a few deep breaths, and really think of how this is all going to work out. If you can prove to us that you're going to behave responsibly, well... we'll still probably say no, but then again, we may actually say yes. So. We want you to sit there for a little bit and enumerate everything you wish to be done. Perhaps set yourself up with a very specific mandate on how you would like to govern the Internet, for starters. Then focus on some way for parties affected to be able to seek 'dispute resolution' of these new laws you're going to create. Then, after you have a full system of internet governance planned out, we'll talk about it, and who knows! Maybe in a few years, you might just get your way!" Your eyes begin to fill with defeat. "You mean I have to do all that before you just give me the intarwebs?!" You think for a few moments, then shrug. "Nevermind. I'm going to go pontificate endlessly on whether the slaughter in Darfur is actually genocide. You coming?" We smile. Of course we're coming. We may have a shred of responsibility concerning the internet, but when it comes to pontification - especially on civil liberties in third world countries - we love a good bullshit session or two. After all, we stand for freedom and justice for all - unless you live somewhere else. And if that isn't bullshit, I'm not sure what is.
-------
Anyway, my story was, obviously, a bit tongue in cheek. The US just flat out said "no", not, "come up with something and we'll talk about it". Regardless, though, if the aggrieved parties in question were to spend more time really thinking of a way to govern the workings of the internet wisely and responsibly, I'm sure we could be swayed. Perhaps not this administration - but, remember, every 4 years, there are others. Sure, it's a long time for you to wait. I feel your pain. It'll be 8 years for me before I can stop getting thoroughly reamed. I know exa
Enough of this crap about "star formation theory" and "gravitational lense theory" and all that other tripe!
We need to start teaching Intelligent Astrology in our schools. The stars were put there BY GOD for our use. That is why we have constellations like Libra and Virgo: they are part of God's plan.
We don't need no stinking Hubble Telescope, named after some queer godless astronomer, when we have books like Of Stars and People, which spells out exactly how God's plan is better than man's godless theories.
Oh what I wouldn't give for a few more godless scientists! That is exactly what we don't have enough of.
How I long for the days of skeptical scientists who didn't trust anything but what they could observe, and replicate. Unfortunately, ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more and more scientists have been worshiping at the altar of science itself as the new religion, with mathematical models as the new infallible demigod that trumps all observable evidence.
Far too many scientists, and even a larger number of their science enamored acolytes, have become convinced that math is a magic window into the soul of the universe. A perfect cabalistic language that can tell no lies, and which is by its very nature able to conjure up the true essence of all things. Far too much skepticism has been lost, and more and more experiential evidence is being discarded as anecdotal, if it does not agree with the writ of math, the one true perfect language.
Sure, when pressed to the wall, all scientists will spout by rote the now almost meaningless tenants of science being innately skeptical, and all about testing and attempting to disprove theories. Yet, far too many, in their unguarded moments, will blithely throw around phrases like "impossible," "we know" and "it's just a fact." In many circles skepticism has become a mere formality, or something you trot out of the closet when attacking someone else's beliefs, but never something that is applied to one's own theories.
No, we have far too many true believers in science. If there are any godless scientists still out there, I beg them to never repent!
Oh, and I don't know where you live, but most of the places I've lived in my life, you would be just as well served assuming the exact opposite of whatever the weatherman said. Sure, here in LA, you are pretty safe saying "warm and sunny," but when I lived in Texas, the old guy at the convenience store had just about the same accuracy as all the Doppler radar in the state:-)
Oh ye Godless people, this is a sign from Heaven that the Lord is displeased with thine actions! Darwinism does not exist!
Ignoring everything else (like, uh, we can predict if it will rain tomorrow. :-)
Because global warming is the modern, secular, version of original sin. People just know that there has to be some horrible price to pay for eating from the tree of knowledge, and destroying all life on the planet sounds just about right to them as the price we have to pay. [...] We are the most important thing on the planet, and obviously there isn't anything that we can't do. If we are destroying the planet, then all we need to do is renounce our evil ways, and we can save the planet. That makes much more sense. That is how the universe really works. If we want to destroy a planet, then we can, and likewise if we want to save a planet, then we can do that too. We aren't just a bunch of insignificant specs crawling around the surface of some giant system totally beyond our control. We are the center of everything, and all that matters is what we choose to do. Yeah, that sounds much better.
I think it's a little ironic that the power elite in previous eras burned 'scientists' (or naturalists, or heretics all depending on your point of view) at the stake for similarly ego-deflating theories... The 'Father of Science' even recanted Copernican theory (under the threat of torture and death of course) and was still imprisoned for the remainder of his life.
"What? We aren't the center of the Universe? We live on a ball of rock that orbits a fiery gas-ball in some obscure corner of an unfathomable expanse? We weren't divinely created? Intelligence isn't uniquely human?" and on and on.
Imagine the persecution to come of scientists that create sentient machines, artificial life, weather manipulation, terra-forming, etc. Any discovery that steps on God's domain is unquestioningly derided, claimed as heresy; the incursion is used as evidence against ideas and their proponents who are otherwise deeply passionate, spiritual, and religious.
Godless Scientist is a stereotype as bad (and probably more widely held than) any of the others prevalent today.
Nothing personal, I'm not one to judge if you hold these views.
And do you know why this is? Because of the overwhelming evidence in support of the process of evolution. An archeologist doesn't look for an "evolution friendly" explanation for why certain bones are unearthed in certain arrangements. An archeologist looks for the most likely explanation, based on the information available. And in the case of evolution, there is a lot of it, and it's everywhere.
Almost two hundred years ago, mining prospectors in Britain, studying the landscape in search of a way to predict the locations of coal seams, uncovered vast fossil beds of preserved aquatic creatures. They discovered that by comparing the creatures in each successive layer of sediment, they could predict how old the land was, and how far they had to dig to reach the layer of sediment that bordered a coal seam created during a tropical epoch. Key to their efficiency was a description of the tiny fossils in each layer - they could even tell when the land had been turned upside-down by geographic upheaval, because the skeletons became successively more primitive in one direction, and more complicated in the other. They didn't even need genetic analysis, they could just look at them. In documenting their findings, they created, among other things, a gigantic wall-sized map of Britain that still hangs in a museum today. That was then, and in two hundred years evolution has moved far beyond the realm of smoke and mirrors you purport it to be in, and become a generally accepted and thoroughly documented phenomenon. And that is why modern archeologists turn to it first.
So go ahead, draw the line at your front door, and declare that the only things that you'll believe are things you can experimentally observe with your own eyes - but realize that you're making a straw-man argument the entire time. Science is not just about making observations, it's about explaining processes in ways that do not require belief, faith, or even the existence of humans in order to be accurate. It's also about continuous refinement. If you want to drop all the accumulated properly documented experimentation in the trash can, and declare that it's a matter of faith because a science book looks the same to you as a bible, then go ahead. But if you want to pass a law that says scientists must shoehorn God into a statistical argument, then stop right there .
For decades, science teachers have been barred from even mentioning god, for fear of reprisals from twits like those in Kansas. Now that's not enough - their avoidance of the topic has to instead become a legislated endorsement of what is, on its face, a completely unscientific "explanation" of the genesis of life. You know, this whole uniquely American anti-evolution crusade crap only began about 60 years ago, when warring factions of the church decided that it would strengthen their attendance if they meddled publicly in educational reform. It's a 60-year-old P.R. move, and before that time, evolution coexisted with all religions just fine.
Yep. The fact is we don't know for sure. The numbers keep changing and, we hope, become more accurate. But as you said, "recent estimates" are 13.7 billion years. It'll be interesting to see what the estimates are 20 years from now. But even though we are not entirely sure of these facts and even though we've never seen life spontaneously generate so we have no way of knowing how statistically common it is, Godless evolutionists try to make a statistical argument
It seems that with evolution facts are often shoe-horned into the theory rather than significantly adjusting the theory or admitting it's wrong. When there's no reasonable explanation for a fact, rather than admitting that evolution has some serious flaws, the fact is just left out "hanging" as a curiosity so that, sometime in the future, someone can take another crack at explaining how that fact somehow works into the theory. Or sometimes grandiose conclusions are made on the basis of a single friggin' tooth.
If you set aside the "evidence" in support of evolution which is not even agreed to by the scientists that investigate it, the "overwhelming" body of evidence in support of evolution is much reduced.
The universe has been around for approximately 13.7 billion years' time, according to recent estimates based on the age of white-dwarf-class stars. That estimate has been progressively refined based on many other gathered facts and simulations, such as the layout of the galaxies, the typical formation time of stars and planets, the proportions of various elements around the universe, and yes, even that "evil" mainstay, the fossil record.
Yep. The fact is we don't know for sure. The numbers keep changing and, we hope, become more accurate. But as you said, "recent estimates" are 13.7 billion years. It'll be interesting to see what the estimates are 20 years from now. But even though we are not entirely sure of these facts and even though we've never seen life spontaneously generate so we have no way of knowing how statistically common it is, Godless evolutionists try to make a statistical argument that it must happen sooner or later.
Do you see the inherent silliness of making a statistical argument when we don't even have the statistics on which to make the argument? I know 90% of all statistics are made up, but this is ridiculous! :)
A. "we have never seen life spontaneously create itself,"
B. therefore, we do not "have any idea how statistically common it is"
Use your powers of reasoning, pal. Statement A doesn't lead to statement B. It leads to statement C: C. therefore, it must be pretty rare, or maybe even impossible.
Yes, of course 'C' is correct. But even with 'C', we don't have enough information to determine whether or not it is statistically realistic for life to have spontaneously generated given the size and age of the universe. Yes, we know it's pretty damn rare and maybe even impossible. But how rare and whether or not it is impossible goes to the very heart of why ID is such a popular theory. Obviously if we admit it's "impossible", we are left with no other option but to consider some ID-like or Creationism-like explanation.
As soon as we are able to witness organic matter spontaneously form a functioning cell, then we can scientifically analyze the conditions that let that happen and start making some educated guesses as to how statistically probable it is and also analyze whether those conditions were feasible when life appeared on the planet. Until then, it's faith in science, nothing more. And science isn't supposed to be about faith.
By contrast, we have seen small-scale evolution happen (via natural and unnatural selection [ncseweb.org]) first-hand, in documented [earthscape.org] experiments [talkorigins.org] that you can reproduce with potted plants in a greenhouse in your own back yard. What's more, the evidence for large-scale evolution is woven throughout the history of man (domestication and spread of crops, for example), as well as pre-human history.
Microevolution is not the same as macroevolution. Minor adaptations which come from losing genetic code is not the same as theoretica
I think that if both "theories" have huge holes in them, they should be taught equally. You can't prove either and so far we haven't disproved evolution completely.
The problem is that many other people don't see "huge holes" in one or the other options. There are people who believe without a doubt that the world came about as written in Genesis. And there are those who believe in a different god with, maybe, different stories of creation. And don't forget about the atheists! Or those who manage to balance faith and science. What you should really be struggling with, mentally, is why you and many other people are only considering two options: Intelligent design and evolution. As you pointed out: They could both be wrong!
But from a scientific perspective: Who cares where god came from? Science is more about understanding natural phenomena, not god. It is an understanding of the physical universe around us. I have a strange feeling that many people think that all we know now is all that we CAN know, period. Science is growing, with every instrument that augments our senses enough to "see" more of the universe. If it can't be measured, it's not yet science! (Because we don't know about it yet, right?)
For the record, I don't think a godless universe is a difficult idea to swallow. Absence of an intelligent designer doesn't make it less wonderful or mysterious. I also don't think that existence of a "higher power" is hard to swallow; though I do think that it is tragic that people are quick to conclude that "we" know the nature/form/will/message of god, and then turn around and claim that biology is "irreducibly complex."
Labeling something as "irreducibly complex" is fine, as long as it is irreducibly complex with respect to our current abilities as humans. But our abilities are expanding (with science), and what may be irreducibly complex today might be no-big-deal in a hundred years. In general, it is the lack of logic in many ID arguments that makes me weep.
Wow, that's one of the stupidest things I've read in awhile, and I've read some stupid things. So everything that isn't a valid scientific theory is wrong??? Heheheh, I'd like to see where you're going with that line of that.
It is not based on the scientific method, and it is not falsifiable (although I have seen some interesting claims of falsifiability from ID proponents, which can be reduced to nothing more than circular logic).
The Big Bang is not falsifiable either, yet it is considered science.
It is argument that essentially boils down to "Darwinism can't be right, therefore we win by default." Intelligent design is nothing more than a flawed argument from people who refuse to accept the fact that they are genetically related to monkeys.
I could care less whether I am related to monkeys. But science hasn't explained how the universe sprung into existince nor provided a viable explanation of how life began. The "argument" that "statistically, life was bound to happen because the universe is so big" is just as much a cop-out as believing in God is to a scientist. The Godless scientist (i.e. a scientist that doesn't believe in God) will claim that there is no proof of God. The person that believes in ID will point out that the scientist doesn't offer any evidence that life can actually begin the way he says it did, he just claims that the universe is sooo big (we don't know how big) that it was bound to happen sooner or later, and he offers US as evidence that he's right.
Neither option provides evidence... it's just a matter of which leap of faith you want to take. I don't have any problem with students being exposed to both sides of the argument and let them reach their own conclusions, hopefully with the active participation of their parents at home.
No, I'm implying that God created the universe, maybe using something as scientifically improbable as the Big Bang. He instituted rules to govern his creation (that we know as physics) and knew what those rules would create billions of years later--and I don't think it's improbable that He gave early life a "push" from time to time.
That the universe just spontaneously came into existince all by itself, and that random atoms just happened to form increasingly complex (and thus less stable and less fit, in direct contradiction of what evolution would suggest) lifeforms seems far less likely to me than that God exists. Orders of magnitude less likely.
That noone has seen, heard, documented, or found evidence of this supreme force's existance?
That depends on who you talk to. Some would provide the universe itself as evidence, especially in light of the fact that order does not logically flow from chaos. The natural order of things is to deteriorate, not build itself up.
Others would say that the existince of God was well documented in the Bible and demonstrated by Jesus.
I know you are not one of these people, but the evidence is out there. You just choose to ignore it or interpret it differently.
The earth, formed from leftover material from our solar system, which exists at a border of one of many arms of one of very, very, very, very, very many galaxies, just happens to have had a supreme force guide life for an incredibly small fraction of the earth's existence?
Sure, absolutely. It's orders of magnitude more likely than that life just spontaneously happened and got more and more complex all by itself.
How about employing some logic?
Right back at 'ya.
Though the chances of evolving randomly out of some amino acids seems very small, try comparing it to how many planets might exist. You'll quickly discover that it's likely no longer that silly of an idea, it's _bound_ - by the sheer numbers - to happen.
That's the typical response by those that want to have faith in a Godless origin of life, but it's just as much a matter of faith as believing in God--and just as unprovable. Unless science lucks out and we someday witness life spontaneously create itself and grow in complexity, your assessment that it is "bound to happen" is just as much a matter of faith as my belief in God.
Everyone is biased, not just the ID camp. And given the option between only creationsim and only evolution, ID is actually the most non-extreme option. It also strikes me as more probable than either strict creationism or Godless evolution.
And those in the Kansas government should know that this issue is making Kansas a laughing stock world wide.
Who cares? It's not a popularity contest.
There is absolutely nothing that you could do to get me to move my family, science or business there.
Me neither. But that has nothing to do with their education system.
Speaking of business, we are in the initial stages of moving technologies we have developed into the privately funded domain and early estimates are that we are sitting on significantly large markets right out the door with significant expansion likely in a variety of areas. Kansas does not remotely have a chance of attracting businesses like ours given the educational climate required for our work.
Hahahahah, now I know you're just playing. Like you were really ever considering moving a technological company to Kansas. Come on, you're providing comic relief at this point.
We need students and employees who are well prepared in the sciences and are capable of thinking independently, and if the school board succeeds in misleading their students, they are of no use to us.
Unless your technological work has something to do with religion or evolution, I can't see where this decision makes a friggin' difference to a technological company.