Evolution Criticism Gets Nod from Kansas School Board

ECT News Network ^ | 10 August 2005 | Staff

[Right Wing Professor]

In which case, you don't have ignorant peasants demanding this change, but a lot of urban people.

Dream on.

The pro-science minority on the Kansas School Board are Waugh, Gamble, Wagnon and Rupe. Districts 1, 2, 4 and 8. Here's a map. They represent Kansas City and suburbs, the area around Topeka and Lawrence (U. Kansas), and Wichita. The creationists all hail from rural districts.

[longshadow]

Thou shalt not anoint thy pasta with "Parmesan" that comes in a can.

You are clearly a "true believer" -- a disciple, even.... but you need to add the rest of the Commandment, so it is complete:

"Thou shalt not anoint thy pasta with "Parmesan" that comes in a can, nor with sauce from a jar.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

[Antonello]

Well, actually, believers are opposed to evolution for the same reason. It isn't science either. It is just philosophy, which is why "the scientists", as PI pointed, out, are mostly philosophers.

ID isn't science because it is not based on scientific principles, has no evidenciary foundation, does not present a testable theory that defines falsification criteria, and is promoted by its supporters simply because they really, really want it to be true.

Tell me, why isn't the Theory of Evolution science?

[bluepistolero]

When I meant "urban" of course I meant the people from L.A., etcetera. Usually when someone from a big city moves to another area, they want to live in a rural setting, and this is where their homes are. Mostly, only minorities and the poor are found inside the cities, anymore. But thank you for the map.

bluepistolero

[PatrickHenry]

Do we have a canned answer to the falicy "both are matters of faith" that is as simple to explain as the "just a theory" falicy?

I post this every now and then. It's a bit long, but seems to fit here:

In discussions like this, we should be careful about our terminology, so that we're all using words in the same way. One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his own mother. Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof. The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence. There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from logical proof. In either case -- that is, belief in things evidenced by sensory evidence or demonstrated by logical proof -- there is no need for faith.

In between mother and the Pythagorean theorem are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are currently successful scientific theories -- logical, testable, and therefore falsifiable explanations of the available, verifiable data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence).

The theory of evolution is far more than an arbitrary belief (such as belief in Zeus or the tooth fairy). Darwin proposed his theory as an explanation for the proliferation of species that we observe. It was scientific, in that it was a rational, comprehensible, cause-and-effect, falsifiable explanation that fit the data. This was about 150 years ago. Since then, hundreds of thousands of fossils have been uncovered, and NONE has been found that contradicted the theory. This alone is powerful evidence, as the theory predicts that all fossils will conform to the theory, so each new fossil find is therefore a test of the theory; and the theory successfully passes each such test. Purely theological matters are not capable of such testing, and thus theology is not scientific. The same can be said of quasi-theological propositions like Intelligent Design.

Then there's the matter of "proof." Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proven. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proven, because at least in principle, a counter-example might be discovered. Theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported by the facts they purport to rationally explain and by the predictions which they make. All scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) are subject to revision if new data is discovered which necessitates this. When a scientific theory (such as evolution) has a long history of being supported by the evidence, the most appropriate word for acceptance of the theory is "confidence," not "faith."

Useful website in this context: Do You Believe in Evolution?

[Right Wing Professor]

Usually when someone from a big city moves to another area, they want to live in a rural setting, and this is where their homes area

Yeah, we in Sprague Nebraska are just inundated with former Angelinos, who love the tasty sushi at the Sprague Bar and Grill, the gentle pitter patter of our January ice-storms, our temperate Augusts of 100 degree days punctuated by thunderstorms carrying baseball-sized hail and the odd tornado, and the sweet scent of the local hog-confinement facility on a sultry summer evening.

And I'll tell you right now, Sprague is like Athens in the age of Sophocles, compared with western Kansas.

Sheesh guy. Beam down to planet Earth for a look, sometime. :-)

[bluepistolero]

Well, mostly because it really is just philosophy. You can have a lot of facts, but does it prove a truth? Say, you are a detective and you investigate a murder scene. You have a lot of facts, and they all point to one likely suspect. Maybe he did it, and maybe he, or she, didn't do it. Many a person has gone to death row or the big house, because of some detective's opinion. The same is true of "science". It may "work", but it may ultimately not be the truth. And to find the ultimate truth, the detective may have to re-think everything that he thought was factual about his case in the first place.

bluepistolero

[bluepistolero]

Well, I know a lot of L.A. people who fled Nebraska, all seemingly from a place called Platte. Nebraska is still corn country, isn't it? I think Kansas has been more amenable to business relocations.

bluepistolero

[Junior]

Not necessarily so. By calling into question evolution, they call into question the scientific method. Indeed, we find people on these threads raling against peer review. And, by do this they are calling into question all of science because everything is pretty much done the same way.

[wyattearp]

...nor with sauce from a jar.

There is sauce that comes in jars?

[Antonello]

Well, mostly because it really is just philosophy. You can have a lot of facts, but does it prove a truth? Say, you are a detective and you investigate a murder scene. You have a lot of facts, and they all point to one likely suspect. Maybe he did it, and maybe he, or she, didn't do it. Many a person has gone to death row or the big house, because of some detective's opinion. The same is true of "science". It may "work", but it may ultimately not be the truth. And to find the ultimate truth, the detective may have to re-think everything that he thought was factual about his case in the first place.

Other than your first sentence, which is basically merely an opinion and not a statement of fact, what you just said actually supports the claim that the Theory of Evolution is science. Thank you.

[bluepistolero]

LOL. Not really. Even if you have a number of "facts" which may or may not be related, other than the first "fact", everthing that you guess from it, is still just a "possibility", not a reality.

bluepistolero

[Right Wing Professor]

Well, I know a lot of L.A. people who fled Nebraska, all seemingly from a place called Platte

Probably North Platte. I like North Platte, but I can see how thousands might not :-)

[narby]

Thanks PH. I'll bookmark that one....

[js1138]

Threads are turning blue again.

[Quick1]

China and India get a little closer to passing us in science education with every little thing like this. I'm sure they're cheering it on.

[narby]

I know some influencial people up in Kansas School district 6. I'll have to nag them a bit about their board member.

[Antonello]

LOL. Not really. Even if you have a number of "facts" which may or may not be related, other than the first "fact", everthing that you guess from it, is still just a "possibility", not a reality.

Yup. Add in the understanding that a theory stands until new evidence contradicts it and you've pretty much summed up the scientific process.

In other words, you are claiming that the Theory of Evolution is not science because it meets all the criteria of being a scientific theory. See the flaw in that argument?

[darbymcgill]

These are serious "scientists"???? LOL:

Classic ad hominem. If you don't like what someone is saying, but can't refute it, attack them instead.

I find it telling whom you decided to scathe with the snappy "classic ad hominem". None of that childishness from the "scientific" community, now is there?

[Quick1]

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.



In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.



(Shamelessly stolen from Here. (pops)