Posted on 11/06/2005 6:26:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
In the beginning, when voters created the Kansas Board of Education to oversee schools, those intelligent designers couldn’t have imagined it would go forth and multiply all this controversy.
The board could close the latest chapter of the evolution debate Tuesday when it is set to vote on science curriculum standards that change the definition of science and cast doubt on the theory of evolution. It’s possible another administrative delay could postpone the vote, but the approval is seen as inevitable.
Inevitable, maybe. Permanent, maybe not. The standards won’t go into effect until the 2007 school year. By then the school board could look dramatically different if moderates are successful in unseating conservatives in the November 2006 elections, both sides say. That could make the new standards moot, and start the whole debate over again. Both sides say the controversy has been too heated, and the implications for science, religion and education too great, for any easy solution.
The board’s conservative majority says it’s merely injecting criticism of what it calls a blindly accepted theory, and allowing students to decide for themselves. And they have their supporters. Polls indicate most Kansans have doubts about evolution and don’t dismiss the idea of teaching alternatives. Other states like Ohio and schools in Georgia and Pennsylvania have joined the debate as well.
“We want students to understand more about evolution, not less,” said John Calvert, leader of the Intelligent Design Network and one of the driving forces behind the changes. Intelligent Design is the belief that aspects of the natural world show signs of design, and not random evolution. “To understand a claim, you should also understand those aspects of the claim that some people think are problematic. That’s all these changes do.”
Moderates disagree and aren’t conceding defeat. They hope to unseat enough conservative board members in November 2006 to retake control of the board in time to change the standards back. They say the revisions to the standards are a step toward creationism and an unacceptable marriage of religion and public education. The changes, they say, jeopardize the state’s efforts to grow the bioscience industry and hurt school children who will one day graduate to an ever globalizing high-tech economy.
“This is distracting us from the goal of making sure every kid is well-educated,” said board member Sue Gamble, a Shawnee moderate. “Regular people are starting to say, ‘Enough is enough. We’ve got to stand up for ourselves.’ ”
In 1999, the board voted to remove most references to evolution, the origin of the universe and the age of the Earth. The next year, voters responded and the board’s majority went to moderates. The standards were changed back.
In politics, however, there’s no such thing as extinction: conservatives regrouped, retaking the majority in 2004.
“The state board used to be a pretty mundane office,” said Kansas State University political science professor Joe Aistrup. “But this is a clash of ideas, and it reverberates up and down, with everything that’s going on with conservatives and moderates. It’s not surprising that it’s become this high-profile, and voters will remember.”
The board’s 10 members serve four-year terms. Every two years, five seats come up for election. Conservative board members John Bacon of Olathe, Connie Morris of St. Francis, Iris Van Meter of Thayer and Ken Willard of Hutchinson all face re-election in November 2006, as does Waugh. Not every incumbent has announced re-election plans, but most are expected to run.
Conservative groups say they’re ready for a fight, and say the evolution issue cuts both ways.
“People will vote their wishes,” Bacon said. “I think the public of Kansas supports what we’re doing.”
Doubts about Darwin
The board routinely reviews curriculum standards for just about every facet of education, kindergarten through high school. The standards are the basis for state assessment tests and serve as a template for local school districts and teachers. Local districts are not required to teach the standards — they just risk lower assessment scores if they choose not to.
When a 27-member committee of scientists and teachers began the process of updating the standards, a vocal minority proposed inserting criticism of evolution. Six members of the Board of Education applauded the changes, and agreed to put most of them into the standards. Now the board is poised to put the amended standards to a final vote.
The changes to the standards incorporate substantial criticism of evolutionary theory, calling into question the theory made famous by Charles Darwin. Supporters say there isn’t proof of the origin and variety of life and the genetic code. The changes also alter the definition of science to allow for non-natural explanations.
Supporters of the changes say they don’t want children indoctrinated with an unproven theory. The board had two weeks of hearings in May to hear testimony from scientists who dispute evolution. Conservative board members said they made their case.
Calling them a farcical publicity stunt, mainstream scientists boycotted the hearings. Nobel Prize winners, scientists and religious leaders signed petitions opposing what they said was a blurring of the lines between science and religion and thinly veiled push for creationism.
Bloggers and national comedians lampooned the hearings as national and international media poured into Topeka. Board members say they received mocking e-mails from around the world. If the ridicule got to them, the conservatives won’t say. But they admit to a certain evolution fatigue.
“I’m extremely anxious to put this behind us,” Morris said. She has been a strong critic of evolution, even calling it “impossible” in a newsletter to supporters.
Other states have seen similar fights to change the way evolution is taught. Education officials in Ohio changed science standards there to cast doubt on evolution. A Georgia school district tried to put stickers on textbooks that read “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.” A judge later ruled the stickers illegal, saying their message promotes Christian fundamentalism. And a legal challenge is now in court in Dover, Pa., where school officials voted to include alternative explanations to evolution.
Morris and her fellow conservatives cite polls that show Kansans have doubts when it comes to evolution. The Kansas City Star conducted a poll last summer and 55 percent said they believe in either creationism or intelligent design — more than double the 26 percent who said they believe evolution to be responsible for the origin of life. But opponents say that’s beside the point: Most Americans say they believe in God, too, but that doesn’t mean he should be taught in public schools.
“I believe in the Biblical account of creation,” Waugh said. “But it has no place in the science class. In a comparative religions class, sure. The best place to teach is at home or at your place of worship.”
Board members say the public is behind them, and that unseating them on Election Day won’t be easy.
“People come up to me and tell me we’re doing the right thing,” Van Meter said. “We wouldn’t do this if Kansans didn’t support it.”
All eyes on Kansas
Evolution turned this little-known governmental entity into a battleground in the state’s clash between conservatives and moderates. And that’s the way it’s likely to stay for a while.
This year, it’s not just the board’s take on evolution that’s stirred controversy. Conservatives also want to make it easier for parents to pull children from sex education classes, and last month they chose Bob Corkins as education commissioner, even though he had no experience teaching or running schools.
All those issues prompted a group of Kansas residents to form the Kansas Alliance for Education, a group with the goal of defeating board conservatives. Alliance leader Don Hineman, a cattle rancher from Dighton, Kan., said the group will work to support candidates and get out the vote.
“There’s a sense of frustration that I think many Kansans share,” he said. “The conservative majority on the board is focused on a narrow agenda, at the expense of their objective, which is improving education for Kansas children.”
He’s not alone. Harry McDonald, an Olathe resident and the leader of Kansas Citizens for Science, has announced his candidacy for the seat now occupied by John Bacon. More candidates are expected.
“We need to take down two to retake the majority,” Gamble said. “I’m focused on four, but that’s an enormous undertaking.”
Calvert, the intelligent design leader, said he knows the evolution debate will factor into the election. No matter what happens at the polls, he said the public is coming around to the notion of challenging one of science’s sacred cows.
“It’s going to happen,” he said. “It’s really what the public wants. Anybody who takes these changes out really needs to be thinking seriously about what they’re doing.”
If conservatives hold on to the majority, Gamble said she expects a legal challenge to the new science standards. If moderates unseat conservatives, the latter will pour its energies into the next election, even if some conservatives admit to being weary of the fray.
Kris Van Meteren is a conservative activist who helped get his mother, Iris Van Meter, on the school board. He’s part of the effort that has kept evolution front and center. He said he hopes it’s not necessary, but his side will keep pushing until evolution comes down from its pedestal in the academic world.
“We’re not in this for one or two elections,” said Van Meteren, who changed his name to reflect his Dutch heritage. “That was clear in ’99 when we lost control of the board. Everybody thought, ‘They’re gone, that’s over.’ But even if we lose another election, we’re not going away.”
Readable, nevertheless. Thank you.
I used OmniPage OCR reader.
He is never pictured. This is all the world has ever seen of him: The Grand Master, at a disciplinary session. It was when RadioAstronomer's petition to be relieved of janitorial duty was being considered.
On a good scan of a printed document, OmniPage is nearly 100 percent accurate. Tell me if you spot any errors.
I would have done this earlier today, but My OCR reader is installed on what is now my wife's computer, and it was busy today.
I just glanced through it, having already read the pdf file. It looks okay to my hurried reading.
Is he praying? I notice you don't show the cables linked to the 6502.
Yes. You should have been there in the Manville Movies when Yvette Mimieux first told Rod Taylor her name in George Pal's film version. The place erupted in pre-adolescent dirty laughter.
In this dover case, it's really too bad these bozos tried this stunt, because I think it will harm the traditional Christian culture that (although I don't have faith in the religion) I do think is a positive culture to operate a country on.
I've seen stories where entire school systems have ended all religious holidays, have banned green and red colors at the "winter break" parties, and other obvious anti-Christian rules. It's pretty sad.
But these Dover guys, because they so obviously, and so fraudulently tried to institute actual religious faith in science class, have handed ammunition to the folks who want to erase Christianity completely.
I noticed that 50/50 is rendered 50I50.
I understand your frustrations, gentlemen, since I am sure all of you have repeatedly dealt with many who disagree with you and who will not be dissuaded of their positions. I do you an injustice, since my approach, fueled by coffee and a beautiful Fall morning, was not scholarly but jocular. When encountering those whose approach to evolution is purely materialistic, and I think many who are most vocal about the theory are indeed adamant materialists, one makes assumptions that may not be valid.
I assumed that you all are materialists. Forgive me.
When Darwin published Origin of the Species, his theory removed from many great minds a necessity for God in the cosmos, unleashing a cynical reassessment of metaphysics that resulted, I think, in the disasters of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, contemporary liberalism, etc., etc. ad nauseum. While the USSR officially embraced Lysenko instead of Darwin, resulting in wheat crop failures and other human tragedies, the concept was the same: without a divine hand to guide the species, origins of life itself became philosophically divorced from God and were consolidated into the concept of evolution.
Like it or not, that is where the academy took the theory. Implicit to TOE is the "science" of denial of design. Teaching TOE as the only truth teaches implicitly, for many, secular materialism as the only truth (in the USSR, of course, Lysenkoism somehow more closely united the "scientific" principles of dialectical materialism with biology and genetics, which fascinates me and mystifies me). To say I do not understand the definition of "theory", so I therefore cannot critique TOE, or that I keep trying to link TOE to origins of life, which TOE indeed does not do, is to misunderstand my assertions. But that is my fault, due to time limits (note my late response to all your posts) and haste. I apologize for wasting your time.
What I believe ID proponents desire is to be able at least to express their disagreement with the implicit, exclusionary materialism of TOE. Without an ability to do so, TOE exclusivists, if I may coin a term of classification that I know will not fit adequately, become like Lysenko's political allies. To impose what Lysenko adamantly believed to be the only truth, they suppressed Darwinism. And they did more, with the aid of Stalin, persecuting, prosecuting, and in some instances, murdering, his Darwinist critics. I do not suggest anti-ID critics will do that, of course. But the insults and condescension most academics level at ID proponents suggest an unwillingness to allow freedom of speech in the academy, as if competing ideas are a bad thing. For example, I am not really an ID proponent, and I have collected my share of insults for the week. Oh well, humility is a fine virtue!
That's all. Good luck to you all in your efforts. Regards.
If you want to discard a scientific theory because someone might misapply it, you'd better discard all of science. You'd better discard all of religion, too, because that's been put to some pretty revolting uses.
Like it or not, that is where the academy took the theory. Implicit to TOE is the "science" of denial of design.
No more than any other sceintific theory denies design.
Teaching TOE as the only truth teaches implicitly, for many, secular materialism as the only truth (in the USSR, of course, Lysenkoism somehow more closely united the "scientific" principles of dialectical materialism with biology and genetics, which fascinates me and mystifies me).
The TOE is taught as science, not "the only truth." Trying to smuggle religion class into science class is what the argument is about.
To say I do not understand the definition of "theory", so I therefore cannot critique TOE, or that I keep trying to link TOE to origins of life, which TOE indeed does not do, is to misunderstand my assertions. But that is my fault, due to time limits (note my late response to all your posts) and haste. I apologize for wasting your time.
All we know of your opinions is what you post here.
What I believe ID proponents desire is to be able at least to express their disagreement with the implicit, exclusionary materialism of TOE. Without an ability to do so, TOE exclusivists, if I may coin a term of classification that I know will not fit adequately, become like Lysenko's political allies. To impose what Lysenko adamantly believed to be the only truth, they suppressed Darwinism. And they did more, with the aid of Stalin, persecuting, prosecuting, and in some instances, murdering, his Darwinist critics. I do not suggest anti-ID critics will do that, of course. But the insults and condescension most academics level at ID proponents suggest an unwillingness to allow freedom of speech in the academy, as if competing ideas are a bad thing. For example, I am not really an ID proponent, and I have collected my share of insults for the week. Oh well, humility is a fine virtue!
The fuss is about a group of people who want to inject the supernatural into science. If you think that will make for better or even good science, you don't understand science. Or maybe we're all wrong. Explain to us how ID is science ... without first demanding that science change its definition so that ID can be part of it.
That's all. Good luck to you all in your efforts. Regards.
Cheers.
One of the things I want to quote was this:
...in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration. William Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution, A Reply to Henry Morris." P-386. (Forrest, Oct. 5, PM, 50:17-22, 51:3-7).
I think it is very generous of Dembski to have admitted what the ID movement is really all about.... which is exactly what we've suspected all along.
These ignorant, self-appointed crusaders against science are doing more damage than they can possibly understand. But the real villains are those who push this poison, and who know exactly what they're doing.
Hazards of OCR software and blurry characters.
Still a great job. You must type like well, you know.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I've got to talk to him about hygiene.
Oh, I wasn't following along. I almost suggested this but then again
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
