Evolution puts state in spotlight [Kansas]

The Lawrence Journal-World ^ | 22 April 2005 | Scott Rothschild

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution found a home Thursday in the oldest church in Kansas during a forum about the controversy over science instruction for public school students.

"There is no conflict between evolution and the Christian faith," said the Rev. Peter Luckey, the senior pastor of Plymouth Congregational Church, 925 Vt.

Luckey was preaching to the choir during a five-hour forum that featured scientists, teachers and politicians who argued in favor of teaching students evolution because it is the foundation of science, knowledge of which will be needed to compete for jobs in the growing bioscience industry.

About 75 people attended the forum at Plymouth, which was founded in 1854 and was the first established church in the Kansas Territory. Attempts to inject intelligent design -- the notion that there is a master planner for all life -- into science class should be rejected, they said.

"Intelligent design is nothing but creationism in a cheap tuxedo," said Leonard Krishtalka, director of the Kansas University Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center.

‘Think critically'

The forum was another round in the debate that has thrust Kansas on the national stage.

With control of the State Board of Education in conservative hands [AAARRGGHHH!!], state officials again will consider science standards that will guide teachers.

A committee of scientists has drafted standards that include evolution teaching, but a minority report, led by proponents of intelligent design, wants criticism of evolution included. A State Board of Education committee, comprising three conservative [AARRGHH!!] board members, plans six days of hearings that will revolve around that debate.

The speakers at Thursday's forum were adamant that evolution instruction not be reduced, watered down or dumbed down.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' science adviser, Lee Allison, said when the state approved a $500 million bioscience initiative, it included a provision to recruit top scholars who met the standards of the National Academy of Sciences, which supports evolution without equivocation.

"The state really has taken a position on this in a broad, bipartisan way," Allison said.

Charles Decedue, executive director of the Higuchi Biosciences Center, said teaching evolution was critical because bioscience companies want to locate in places where the work force has received a solid education in chemistry, physics and biology.

"They want people who can think critically," he said.

‘Hayseed state'

Andrew Stangl, a Kansas University sophomore, said his high school science teachers in his hometown of Andover refused to teach evolution.

He bought books and taught himself. He said fear of teaching evolution would hurt the United States in the long term. "I don't want to see other countries pass us by. We are going to economically suffer as a result," he said.

In 1999, Kansas made international news, much of it negative, when a conservative [AARRGGHH!!] board de-emphasized evolution. The 2000 election returned moderates to power, and evolution was reinstated. But with conservatives [AARRGGHH!!] back in control, international criticism was starting again, several panelists said.

Rachel Robson, a doctoral candidate at KU Medical Center, said one of her friends was applying for a job with a Japanese company, and the company officials made fun of Kansas and questioned whether good scientists could come from there.

Thursday's forum attracted national attention from National Public Radio and NBC.

Krishtalka said even though the battle over evolution was going on in several states, "Kansas will be tarred and feathered by the media as the hayseed state."

Carol and Tom Banks, of Prairie Village, attended the forum, saying they were getting tired of conservatives [AARRGGHH!!] controlling the political agenda.

"If intelligent design were taught, that would be teaching religion in public schools," Carol Banks said.

But Jerry Manweiler, a physicist from Lawrence, said he supported teaching intelligent design. "It's important to know the theory of evolution, but it's also important to understand the nature of God," he said. Manweiler said he was put off by the forum speakers' "lack of humility."

Don Covington, vice president of networking for Intelligent Design Network Inc., said he disagreed with the speakers.

"They want their kids to know how to think, but you can't develop critical thinking skills when you tell them to memorize Darwin," he said.

---

Public science standards meetings:

• May 5-7: Science standards hearings in auditorium of Memorial building, 120 S.W. 10th St., Topeka. Time to be determined later.

• May 12-14: Science standards hearings, time and location to be determined later.

[AndrewC]

Japanese company, and the company officials made fun of Kansas and questioned whether good scientists could come from there.

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2000

"for basic work on information and communication technology"

"for developing semiconductor heterostructures used in high-speed- and opto-electronics"

"for his part in the invention of the integrated circuit"

Zhores I. Alferov	Herbert Kroemer	Jack S. Kilby
1/4 of the prize	1/4 of the prize	1/2 of the prize
Russia	Federal Republic of Germany	USA
A.F. Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute St. Petersburg, Russia	University of California Santa Barbara, CA, USA	Texas Instruments Dallas, TX, USA
b. 1930	b. 1928	b. 1923

Jack S. Kilby – Autobiography

The Nobel Committee has asked me to discuss my life story, so I guess I should begin at the beginning.

I was born in 1923 in Great Bend, Kansas, which got its name because the town was built at the spot where the Arkansas River bends in the middle of the state. I grew up among the industrious descendents of the western settlers of the American Great Plains.

---

Japanese history

Graphic --beware ... People who live in glass houses, etc.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Creation "Science" has no place in the schools, let them teach that fantasy in church.

[bobdsmith]

Since when does Dawkins write school text books?

[js1138]

I'd love to know what your criterion of rationality is.

My idea of rationality omits the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and omits judging scientific theories by the extreme statements of polemicists.

You seem obsessed with the possibility that there might be atheists.

Well, yes, there are, and most of them are likely to be attracted to a system of knowledge that doesn't start with the assumption of an inerrant text written by God.

What you are doing is asserting that because "all" atheists are philosophical materialists, then all methodological materialists are atheists. Not just atheists, but evangelical atheists.

[betty boop]

And yet, that is Intelligent Design in one sentence.

That is your perception, Oztrich Boy; and out of respect for you I will not dispute it here. All I ask is that you return the favor, and train a like analysis on the doings of your side of the argument.

Otherwise, I might suspect that you are trying to change the subject I raised. I would consider that a dodge, to be aided and abetted by further subterfuge and misdirection.... FWIW.

Thanks so much for writing!

[balrog666]

... but evangelical atheists.

So far, that's about three out of hundreds of millions.

[Oztrich Boy]

Darwin's credentials were in theology, not science, so is it any wonder we have a religion born out of his efforts?

Joseph Priestly was a clergyman, is it any wonder the religion of Chemistry was born?

[betty boop]

(If we can separate Einstein's work from his goofy socialism, we can handle just about anything.)

Well I don't know anything about Einstein's "goofy socialism." I just give thanks and praise he wasn't a freaking communist. :^)

He was not a notably "religious" man. But I have to tell you, IMHO, any man who could utter these words with complete sincerity and humility would be one I recognize as a true "son of God." My tale of Einstein begins here:

Thus I came -- despite the fact that I was the son of entirely irreligious [Jewish] parents -- to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively frantic [orgy] of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing experience.... It was clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the "merely personal."... The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of the given possibilities swam as highest aim half consciously and half unconsciously before the mind's eye."

Somewhere along the line the "youth" gathered the following impression:

Nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover, by means of purely mathematical constructions, those concepts and those lawful connections between them which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Experience remains, of course, the sole criteria of physical utility of a mathematical construction. But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."

Please note the man who said this is clearly "outside of 4D space/time reality" in his perceptions.

Certainly he must have had at one time or another further preoccupations with divinity, that is, beyond age 12 -- as we are to gather from his remarks on the occasion of Eddington's 1919 solar-eclipse confirmation of the predictions of general relativity, as reported by Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider:

When I was giving expression to my joy that [Eddington's] results coincided with his calculations, [Einstein] said quite unmoved, "But I know the theory is correct," and when I asked, what if there had been no confirmation of his prediction, he countered: "Then I would have been sorry for the dear Lord -- the theory is correct."

Einstein seemed ever gracious towards/about the divinity, which a man of his intellectual excellence probably realized was the essential criterion or test of any discovered truth. But for our purposes, it seems two things need to be remarked here. (1) Einstein clearly resonated throughout his entire life and career to standards of truth that were not of his own making. And (2), he recognized that he was so good at what he did, that he might "converse with God" on a more or less equal footing.

My point -- finally -- is that Einstein -- irreligious as he was -- still recognized the existence of God, however obliquely.

Certainly his famous statement, "God does not play dice" hardly sounds like an "agnostic confession" to my ears.

It might be proposed that the "god" to which Einstein referred here is only himself. But I would have difficulty reconciling that conclusion with all that is known of Einstein's life, in the manner in which he conducted it....

Life my dear Patrick is a sublime, ever-so-complex puzzle. Please do not ever think to reduce it to convenient slogans or labels, such as "goofy socialist."

Or so it seems to me, for whatever it's worth... maybe about 2 cents???

[betty boop]

Since when does Dawkins write school text books?

I rather think Professor Dawkins writes books for the parents of schoolchildren. Who consequently make no objection to schoolbooks that largely reproduce/incorporate his ideas. For he undoubtedly is an outstanding, influential public figure and universally-acknowledged "expert" in his field. (In today's language, that means he is a "pop star.")

Any more questions???

[balrog666]

My point -- finally -- is that Einstein -- irreligious as he was -- still recognized the existence of God, however obliquely.

And yet, somehow, he never recognized the existence of religion. What a smart man!

[bobdsmith]

Yup

What evidence do you have that school textbooks incorperate Dawkins philosophical beliefs?

[PatrickHenry]

In post 59 I had said, in regard to Dawkins' atheism: "If we can separate Einstein's work from his goofy socialism, we can handle just about anything."

You responded:
Well I don't know anything about Einstein's "goofy socialism." I just give thanks and praise he wasn't a freaking communist.

He was indeed a socialist. But we don't let it affect our opinion of his scientific work. Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein. I don't see why the same compartmentalization can't apply to biologists, some of whom are atheists (and some aren't).

[balrog666]

I rather think Professor Dawkins writes books for the parents of schoolchildren.

And I, for one, am glad that he does. The persistence of abject superstition and hopeful mythology in human relations and politics cannot last much longer without bringing about a new Stupid (or Dark, for those of you in Rio Linda) Age.

Come, let us embrace the future and bring Institutional Stupidity to a righteous end right now!

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

me I strongly agree that science must be theologically, ideologically and politically neutral.

you: Well, it is. Individual scientists aren't neutral, of course, nor are they required to be.

I doubt there is would ever be an objection to what one writes in his own books but "science" cannot become theologically, ideologically and politically neutral until it weeds out every such bias in science journals, conferences and academia.

At the moment, any hint of theology will doom a scientist's effort but overt atheism is waived.

[bondserv]

In academia there is a 95% evolutionist to 5% ID split, where as outside academia, working scientists have a 60% evolutionist to 40% ID split. What we are witnessing is an uprising of the 40% and they are bringing practical science to the table that is forcing the issue.

My thought is that of the 60% working scientists that rely on the bottom line for success, will begin an exodus toward ID, forcing a flip to 60% ID - 40% evolutionists.

This will naturally send academia into a tail spin that it will not recover from. Not only will the Liberal Studies be anathema to 60% of the paying parents, but the Hard Sciences, as taught in Universities, will have lost credibility for taking a hard line position of atheism. Considering that Americans are very ingenious, this will produce new avenues of education for the next generation of students. There is a stronger commitment to good science on the ID side than is being portrayed by the paranoid tenured academics and elitist media want to admit.

The new Pope will be playing a huge role in this shift, considering his views on this topic. This area is his biggest difference from his predecessor.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply! Those numbers are fascinating and clearly indicate the trend you suggest. Do you have the source for them?

[Alamo-Girl]

Many people today couldn't stand it, indeed would resent it as the worst scandal, indeed as a personal affront, an insult to their "intelligence," to hear someone allege that God has on past occasions performed miracles.

But let a neo-Darwinist cite a "naturalistic" miracle (e.g., turning a reptile into a bird), and that's just fine and dandy with them.

LOLOL! Priceless comparison! Kudos and thank you!!!

I wonder if the the atheist code word for "miracle" is "anthropic principle" or "we'll have a materialist answer in [pick a number] years".

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

And for those with ears to hear, it is the god of forces who rules that little domain.

Very interesting interpretation of Daniel...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the ping to your discussion with Oztrich Boy!

betty boop: But if he stuffs them into his science, then we have to recognize that he's not doing science; he's doing theology under cover of science.

Oztrich boy: And yet, that is Intelligent Design in one sentence.

To be clear, Intelligent Design does not characterize the designer other than it being intelligent. The "designer" could be God (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.), aliens (panspermia, exobiology, etc.) or collective consciousness (Eastern mysticism, etc.) ID does not speak to doctrine at all.

Atheism, OTOH, is a "doctrine" in that it takes a position on God (as not-existing) and embraces ideology, philosophy and politics based on the notion that "all that there is" is that which physically exists in space/time. (corporeal, spatial, temporal)

If Intelligent Design were doing theology under the color of science, it would have a doctrine. Scientists who "evangelize" for atheism under the color of science [Lewontin, Pinker, Mayr, etc.] do have a doctrine.

[bondserv]

Thank you so much for your reply! Those numbers are fascinating and clearly indicate the trend you suggest. Do you have the source for them?

Deductive logic on my part having read so many polls like these:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4