Slashdot Mirror
Kansas Board of Ed. Adopts Intelligent Design
kwietman writes "The Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 to allow science students in public schools to hear materials critical of evolution in biology classes. The new curriculum mentions that theories of life arising from similar building-block molecules through purely random processes can be challenged by recent findings in the fossil record and by molecular biology. Not all were happy, however. 'This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,' said board member Janet Waugh. The new standards will be used in statewide standardized testing; the students are still expected to know 'basic evolutionary principles.' As part of the decision, the Board of Education also went so far as to redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.'"
There are implications, I believe, for our present American situation: parasitic governments, namely, have something to fear from Darwin; what exactly, remains to be seen.
Just wait till 2006 when the Kansas State Board of Education will have to face the voters on this issue.
"You don't know anything about the origins mankind! I *do*!"
And the seven-fold path to wisdom needs to be placed next to the ten commandments on public property!
Awesome, just awesome. I saw one of these proponents speak on an episode of Penn and Teller: Bullshit!, and his logic (or lack thereof) was amazing. "Wouldn't it be great if the state let the parents sit down with their children and choose as a family what they're going to believe?" Uh, no, simply for the reason that SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. You can't ignore facts just because you don't like them. Of course, given that this is the same Middle America (tm) that still believes there is a PROVEN link between 9/11 and Iraq, and that we've found actual WMDS...
i've read else where that this is actually a serious concern... lets hope google can find a link quickly... this one looks okay: the university of california is fighting a lawsuit because they refuse to certify as "meeting university entrance requirements" high school courses that teach ID
When I was in school, a Jesuit-run catholic school, one father (priest) explained a group of science/religion-confused girls that the origin of man, and all species, was explained by Evolution, so they should pay attention to the biology prof. (which had a PhD in biology, by the way). He also explained to the girls that Genesis was only a metaphor, with deep theological implications for cristians, but it had nothing to do with the origin of man.
Of course, for most protestant cristians (as in Kansas), catholics are devil-worshipers, and the pope is Satan himself. So telling this story was just waste of time.
By the way, I'm atheist, and hold in high regard jesuit priests, for giving me an excellent scientific education, devoid of any supernatural ideas.
Well, Kansas is scientifically flatter than a pancake. http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volum e9/v9i3/kansas.html
> The issue here is that they redefine science. Truly a sad day.
Behe redefined science at the Dover trial, and had to admit under crossexamination that astrology meets his definition of science.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
There is an old quote from Rachel Carson (author of Silent Spring, among others) from when she was visiting the ocean with her grandmother. The grandmother, exasperated with all of young Rachel's questions said:
"You know, Rachel, God created all of this."
"I know that Grandma. What I want to know is *how* God created it."
The idea or belief of Intelligent Design does not excuse someone from trying to understand the design and our place in it. As you say, most ID supporters use faith as a cop-out to try to prevent people from asking questions. To somewhat paraphrase Kant, saying that God is good and what God commands is good is circular; it does not provide a foundation for moral thought or right-action. Belief in God does not free us from the need for either moral or scientific reasoning.
To this day, philosophers debate what "science" is.
Yet scientists don't, and regardless happily go about improving hte world.
I'm not convinced that scientists should have control over our public schools' science curriculum any more than I'm convinced that priests should set the curriculum for (comparative) religion classes.
Your analogy is flawed. Comparative religion isn't a subject in which a priest is an expert. Comparative religion is, depending on the exact nature of the class, either a branch of cultural study (anthropology, etc), or a branch of philosophy. Personally, I think an anthropologist or a philosopher who has studies cultural philosophy would make a fine person to set the cirriculum for a comparative religion class.
Public education is so crucial to our society that it should be set by the people or their duly elected representatives, not some unelected technocracy.
That presupposes that democratic processes are always better than their alternatives. This has shown to be emperically false (most corporations and households are not democracies), and indeed is hardly the principle under which our country was founded.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I grew up exposed to both evolution and genesis, and even as a very, very young child could see that details of the Genesis story were contradicted even in the Bible in different places... and was entirely unsupported by evidence... and people even used to get tetchy when I asked perfectly innocent questions about details of their faith ("If Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel, who did Cain and Abel marry to have kids?"). I concluded (as the majority of intelligent people the world over have also done) that Genesis was intended as a metaphor - a helpful story to teach you important lessons, not the literal truth.[1]
In contrast, evolution (while, obviously "only" a theory) was supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It was also the simplest answer to the problem (don't tell me that "successive gradual beneficial developments being passed to offspring" is a more convoluted proposition than "positing the existence of an omnipotent, self-created being who can violate known laws of physics at will, create an entire universe and yet who still has a parochial interest in one tiny, unremarkable corner of it... and often displays suspiciously human motives and emotions").
And please don't trot out the old saw about "giving the students more choice" - many of the students are already indoctrinated from birth with ID/Creationist/fundamentalist propaganda, and have Comparative Religion classes, so they have plenty of exposure to both sides of the "debate".
ID is not science. By any meaningful definition of the term, it does not belong in Science classes. This is not about giving students a choice between two scientific theories, but about weakening the whole of science in favour of faith.
Frankly, and finally, my feelings on Creationists' beliefs in a literal interpretation of Genesis were pretty much summed up when I first read the Illuminatus trilogy, by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea:
'Nuff said.
[1] Important point, related to this. This whole furore about evolution isn't an example of "Science" crushing "Faith". It's about science disproving one narrow, frankly daft interpretation of one religion, that (primarily because of said daftness) is hugely in the minority in the world.
Many people with more enlightened faiths happily balance science and faith together, and see no conflict there. Most of the rest of the religious world (even the Pope!) watches the actions of a few US fundamentalists with amused bemusement.
The creationists and ID proponents in Kansas are no different to those who screamed and ranted at Copernicus, for exiling us from a special place in the universe. Or Aristotle, for proving the earth was round. Science moves inexorably onward. Sometimes it disproves or counter-indicates even ideas we hold very dear to our hearts. These ideas are wrong. Get over it.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
"You are still clinging to your mind to listen to the Dharma; you fail to realize the Dharma nature. This is like a man pointing a finger at the moon to show it to others who should follow the direction of the finger to look at the moon. If they look at the finger and mistake it for the moon, they lose sight of both the moon and the finger. Why? Because the bright moon is actually pointed at; they mistake the finger for the bright moon and are not clear about brightness and darkness."
This metaphor is one of the classic passages where the Buddha lets his followers know that using their own eyes and mind to discover the world and how it works is more important than blindly following anything he's said. This attitude is one of the many reasons Buddhists have no trouble with evolution.