Kansas Kangaroo Court Commences

"Read the rest here."

why?

William Harris, a medical researcher and co-founder of a Kansas group called the Intelligent Design Network, posed the core question about life's beginnings before mapping out why he and other Christians want changes in school curriculum. School science classes are teaching children that life evolved naturally and randomly, Harris said, arguing that this was in conflict with Biblical teachings that God created life. "They are offering an answer that may be in conflict with religious views," Harris said in opening the debate. "Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools. This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications."

Yep, it's really the "scientific controversy" that's behind all this . . .

"Dr. Dobson, would you love your children any less if, in fact, the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Bible isn't the word of God?"

"As I've always said, if you simply keep a fundie talking long enough, he will shoot himself in the head every single time."

the whole Kansas Kangaroo thing reminds me of the Python "twit of the year" sketch.

This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications

This is from my News Review site, a coverage on this subject.

Debate on How Evolution Should be Taught in Kansas Schools

In Topeka, Kansas, they are working on the issue of how to teach Evolution in schools.
One thing they might look at, is to quit teaching that Darwin was the first to bring up this theory. He was actually the fourth or maybe further on this list of those that have discovered factors that have lead to the idea of Evolution. The thought about Evolution has been around from the time of Ancient Greece. They might not teach that Darwin accepted god on his death bed. Darwin suffered from a debilitating disease that the last two years of his life, he could not speak, and the last thing on that subject was in a letter to his friend and to his daughter, who took care of him, that he "Questioned the teachings and faith of God from what he had learned."
Another issue might be that Darwin did not say man came from ape, but that man and ape came from a common ancestor They might teach that the evidence for Evolution out weights Creation Science on every scale. To believe in creation science, which most members have been banned by the science community for science fraud, is to believe that Christianity is based on a God of Chaotic Magic and not a God of reason.
I remember talking to a Preacher that accepted the teachings of Evolution. He said that evolution was the process that God used to create life, as it covered all the needs that life would need, whereas Creation as taught in the Bible left that open to chance. This is probably the best definition I have ever heard to explain Evolution.
What Darwin did with Evolution, was something that had not been done since Ancient Greece, he brought it to the public view. And in a world held by slightly literate leaders in the churches, who at the time were still being taught that dragons were a reality, this fell onto minds that could not understand. Like Langdon Gilkey said in his book, "Creationism on Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock" (1985), one of the things that said something was a truth was "What society was willing to accept", and in this, that statement is still very true. Even though tons of evidence has shown the facts of Evolution, many still try to say that there is little fact to back this up.
In a pamphlet distributed by some churches, it was stated to prove the lack of information on this, "During the Devonian Era there has been no findings of life" when in fact this was a major advancing period of life.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/devonian/devonian.html
What is worse, is that the Professor that made this statement for the pamphlet was from the Berkley University. And he was a "member of the Creation Science Foundation" the very ones that have had so many charges in the Science community of Science Fraud.
So how should Evolution be taught in school? Teach the truth about it. Teach that it is what gives life its ability to adapt to the changing environments. Teach that it is an idea that has been around for many centuries, and not just from the mid 1800's. That is the only answer that can be taught, just teach the truth.

A look at hearings on evolution Associated Press THE HEARINGS: A three-member subcommittee of the State Board of Education is taking testimony on evolution and its perceived flaws. THE SCHEDULE: Hearings were in their second day Friday and are to continue Saturday and next Thursday. WHY THE HEARINGS: The entire state board plans to consider changes in June in standards used to test Kansas students statewide on science. LIGHT READING: Many witnesses acknowledged they'd not fully read a set of evolution-friendly standards proposed by educators. So, too, did board subcommittee members Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, and Connie Morris, of St. Francis. WHO'S TESTIFYING: Advocates of intelligent design or other critics of evolution. WHAT'S UNDER ATTACK: Evolutionary theory saying that change in species can result in new species and that different species, including man and apes, have common ancestors. WITNESSES' GOAL: To show that molecular biology and other science challenges evolutionary theory instead of supporting it. NO APES AS COUSINS: Under questioning, witnesses said they don't believe all life came from a common origin or that man evolved from ape-like creatures. Witness John Sanford, an associate professor of horticultural sciences at Cornell University, said: "My explanation, humbly offered, is that we were specially created." A YOUNG EARTH: Sanford also said he believes the Earth is between 5,000 and 100,000 years old, but others said their best guess is 4.5 billion-plus years, which most scientists accept. AN ANNIVERSARY: Eighty years ago Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union agreed to help defend Dayton, Tenn., teacher John Scopes, who was eventually convicted of violating a state law against the teaching of evolution.

Posted on Fri, May. 06, 2005 Witnesses disclose what critics say are creationist views JOHN HANNA Associated Press TOPEKA, Kan. - Witnesses trying to persuade Kansas officials to encourage more criticism of evolution in public school classrooms made statements Friday that some scientists said betrayed creationist views. Witnesses in a State Board of Education hearing on how the theory should be taught also acknowledged they hadn't fully read evolution- friendly science standards proposed by educators. Nor had two of three presiding board members. A board subcommittee had its second day of hearings and planned to continue Saturday and hursday. The entire board plans to consider changes in June to standards that determine how Kansas students are on science. State and national science groups are boycotting the hearings, viewing them as rigged in favor of language backed by intelligent design advocates. In turn, intelligent design advocates contend they've been portrayed unfairly as advocating creationism. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are so complex and well-ordered that they're best explained by an intelligent cause. Repeatedly, Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, representing the drafters of the evolution-friendly standards, questioned witnesses about their personal beliefs. Witnesses repeatedly said they didn't believe all life had a common origin or that man evolved from earlier, ape-like creatures. Some said they accept the widespread scientific conclusion that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but two said they believe it is between 5,000 and 100,000 years old. "They're creationists first and scientists second," Robert Bowden, a Kansas State University plant pathologist, said after Friday's hearing. Witnesses said the language backed by intelligent design advocates would allow freer debate in the classroom. "Teachers should be actually encouraged to discuss these issues," said Russell Carlson, a biochemist and molecular biologist at the University of Georgia in Athens. Irigonegaray repeatedly pointed out that witnesses had not fully read the evolution-friendly proposal, which would continue the state's policy describing the theory as a key concept for students to learn. Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. Later, board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, also said she had only scanned it. Martin said during a break: "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information." Intelligent design advocates continued calling scholars, biologists and chemists to attack evolutionary theory that all life arose from a common source and that change in species over time can lead to new species. Similar battles over evolution have occurred in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the past few years. In 1999, the Kansas State Board of Education, with a conservative majority - including Abrams - deleted most references to evolution in the science standards. The next election led to a less conservative board, which adopted the current standards. In last year's elections, conservatives captured a majority again. Irigonegaray hoped to show that intelligent design is a religious concept. He asked Carlson, "In your opinion, the intelligent designer is God, is it not?" Carlson replied: "Well, yeah, I would agree with that." Asked to explain the appearance of humans on Earth, witness John Sanford, an associate professor of horticultural sciences at Cornell University, said: "My explanation, humbly offered, is that we were specially created." The board has sought to avoid comparisons between its hearings and the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tenn., in which teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating a state law against teaching evolution. However, both sides are represented by attorneys, even if scientists refuse to testify for evolution. On Thursday morning, the hearings filled a 180-seat auditorium, but by Friday, it was more than half empty.

Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. Later, board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, also said she had only scanned it. Martin said during a break: "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information."

This seems the best place ot put what I read at work yesterday- the view from the BBC in the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4521157.stm

"A three-member Board of Education sub-committee called the hearings to consider revisions to the state science teachings standards.

In June, they will decide whether to revise the science curriculum to include criticisms of the principles of evolution as an explanation of the origin of life, the Universe and the genetic code.

Teachers would be encouraged to discuss "alternative explanations".

The hearings are complete with opposing attorneys and a long witness list, although the witnesses are all allied against the teaching of evolution."

Seems fair enough to me. What i find interesting is the quotes from people involved. First bit from the anti-science people:

" Schools were teaching that life evolved naturally and randomly, in conflict with Biblical teachings on the creation of life, said William Harris of the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network.

"Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools," said Mr Harris, who works as a medical researcher."

That sumss up some of hte usual misunderstanding about evolution. It also puts the kangaroo court squarly in the religious camp.

The Scientists response sounds good:
"Instead of testifying at the hearings, science groups are holding daily news conferences.

On the opening day of the hearings, they rolled out a wheelbarrow and two crates full of scientific journals full of arguments and evidence supporting evolution.

"This is a showcase trial," said Jack Krebs, vice-president for Kansas Citizens for Science. "They have hijacked science and education.""

I would like to suggest that any scientists there point out in as few words as possible how much this is a kangaroo court, set up after the decisions didnt go the way of the creationists. Not just the breach of normal protocol, but the way in which it is a stacked deck.

It's interesting to note the background of the ID "experts", people with degrees in chemistry, horticulture and the like, extolling the "evidence" against evolution. But none with degrees in ecology, population genetics, paleontology, etc. Hmmm. Also, it is also interesting to note that creationists often refer to "expert" opinions of M.D.s, as if they are more knowledgeable about evolution (and thus the flaws of evolution) than the general public. But we all know how much time they spend teaching evolution in medical school.

I am going to start teaching biology at an Illinois university in the fall, and I indeed intend to discuss these "criticisms" of evolution in class, as well as to go into detail as to how these criticisms are based upon misunderstanding, lack of understanding, and misrepresentation of actual scientific knowledge. I encourage any biology teacher, instructor, or professor who is "encouraged" by politicians and administrators to include in their curricula the criticisms - "flaws and weaknesses" - of evolution, to talk in detail on the flaws and weaknesses of such criticisms as well (its only fair). I think this is just as important as teaching evolution.

It is also important to educate students that there is no part of science - evolution included - that can either deny or confirm the existence of God. That is up to the decision of the individual. Science just says "this is the way things are". If you wish to believe they are this way because God makes them this way, or alternatively because it was an outcome of random chance, it is up to you. I'm sure some creationist will go on a tirade on how wrong I am about science and evolution (they always do), but I am just a silly scientist with a PhD in evolutionary genetics, so what do I know about my own field?

That is the nature of creationist arguments: arrogance. I would never have the arrogance to argue engineering, architecture, accountancy, or economics with an engineer, architect, accountant, or economist, or have the audacity to them that they have misconceptions about their own fields, or that I know more about their professions than they do. Those are not my field and I have the humility to acknowledge that I know nothing about these subjects. But repeatedly, people with degrees in engineering, architecture, accountancy, business management, etc., (or with no degree at all!) will argue about science, evolution and genetics with scientists, evolutionary biologists and geneticists. They will even going so far as to tell these scientists that they have misconceptions about science, evolution and genetics. Go figure.

P.S. Please get the word out the "Big Bang" is NOT part of evolutionary theory! This is the realm of astronomy and astrophysics! I am sooooooooooo tired of this misconception!!!!!! (again, I expect some creationist to tell me how wrong I am about my chosen field of study).

Chris:

While you wouldn't presume to tell some specialists their own business, I wouldn't be surprised if certain specialties were exceptions. People consider themselves 'expert enough' about evolution because of the strength of their religious beliefs, which evolution overlaps. To the extent that they overlap, a lifetime of bible school seems to make one an expert.

Other specialties commonly tromped on with the "my opinion is as good as yours or anyone else's" attitude are psychology (because everyone is a person), politics (because politics IS just opinion, isn't it?) management and administration, and others. Even the suggestion that expertise exists in some of these fields is met with derision.