Kansas Kangaroo Court Reports

She pointed out that there are two theories of chemical bonding taught in chem classes, so why not teach creationism?

Yes - my jaw dropped a bit at Bryson's remark. My first thought was "What two "theories?" Then I realized that she probably meant two kinds of bonds, and that she was equating that to teaching evolution and ID as two "theories."

Mind boggling. Another example of scientific vandalism - throwing a brick through a window and in one fell swoop making a mess that would take hours to clean up.* (*Credit to my friend Bob Hagen for this excellent metaphor.)

Of course Pedro was not going to take time to cross-exam that stupid remark, but now it was on the record and in the minds of the Board subcommittee and the ID supporters in the audience.

There were literally dozens of such moments in the hearings. I encourage Panda Thumbers to listen to the hearings, found at www.audible.com, and supply other such examples as well as more general reflections. I will be helping Pedro prepare his final summation this week and we may find a good use for gems like this.

One of the best blogs covering this controversy and the broader issues it raises is Pandasthumb [a reference to an excellent essay by the late Stephen Jay Gould]. It presents the intelligent design controversy from the perspective of scientific authority. Read it here.

Kathy Martin said, "Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts."

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/137/3111/640/DSCN00081.jpg

She even looks like Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" character from SNL.

I thought one of the funniest moments was Wells stating - twice, and very carefully - that he is supported by grant from the DI for which "no goods or services are required" (I wish all my grants were like that!). Anyway, Wells is certainly fulfilling the grant requirements to the letter - LOL!

Actually, I think Bryson may have been referring to valence bond theory vs molecular orbitals theory. However, if I remember the issue right, she'd be wrong anyway - MOT is just a better theory than VBT, and it explains the nature of certain bonds that VBT can't cover. However, VBT is OK for most bonds, and is much simpler, so it is still taught as a useful approximation (much like newtonian mechanics is still perfectly fine for most phenomena, though general relativity is a more encompassing theory). This really is not a valid example of teaching two competing theories (leaving aside that there is no ID theory to teach anyway, by the ID theorists' own admission).

"Kathy Martin said, "Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts." " We should all chip in and buy Pedro dinner afterwards. I would not be able to endure two weeks of this shit.

Intelligent design advocates contend the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power.

SomethingAwful is jumping on these guys?

When are the transcripts of the Kansas Kangaroo Court coming out? I would like to count how many times the ID witnesses said "I'm not an expert" on crucial topics like human evolution and the age of the earth.

The transcripts will be a long time coming, I imagine - 3 full days of talk. I like the idea of dividing up the job of listening to the audio files at www.audible.com, with a checklist of things to look for.

"How much time and money and effort did the ID peddlers spend trying to convince the lay public that intelligent design creationism is not creationism?"

grrr. yeah, and part of it was OUR freakin' money!

You've got to love this debacle going on in Kansas. Only in America!

Evolutionists and Creationists, fighting it out for the bottom rung on the credibility ladder.

If H.L. Mencken was alive today, he'd roll over in his grave.

"The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910), Advice to Youth

... oh and CW rises above the "rabble" on angels wings...

it is too laugh.

"All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it." "All professional philosophers tend to assume that common sense means the mental habit of the common man. Nothing could be further from the mark. The common man is chiefly to be distinguished by his plentiful *lack* of common sense: he believes things on evidence that is too scanty, or that distorts the plain facts, or that is full of non sequiturs. Common sense really involves making full use of *all* the demonstrable evidence--and of nothing *but* the demonstrable evidence. "The scientist who yields anything to theology, however slight, is yielding to ignorance and false pretenses, and as certainly as if he granted that a horse-hair put into a bottle of water will turn into a snake."

My favorite Mencken is "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." (that quote may not be exact, I see lots of variations)

Mencken for this reason wasn't much of a fan of elected officials, which he regarded as members of as well as pandering to the least common denominator.

Charlie apparently hasn't noticed yet that no evolutionists are involved. This is strictly the creationists fighting it out. Real scientists have conceded the bottom rung without argument.

Charlie apparently hasn't noticed yet that no evolutionists are involved. This is strictly the creationists fighting it out. Real scientists have conceded the bottom rung without argument.

Hey Charlie, do you believe that the medical community is not telling us the truth with regard to cholesterol, blood pressure, and heart disease?

Charlie:

You're right, scientists are presenting science to anyone who will listen, as they always have.

But perhaps we agree on the underlying point here: Science lost this case at the polls. The people of Kansas, in their electoral wisdom, have selected a school board of creationists because they wish their children to be taught creationism, and by golly that's what they're going to get. Certainly I also expect those I elect to at least make the effort to keep their promises.

Ultimately, I expect the US Constitution to trump any introduction of religious doctrine into science classes, so that probably won't be attempted. But the school board CAN provide a bully pulpit for the celebration of the creationist "worldview", and they can also make it limpidly clear that any high school science teacher who even THINKS the word "evolution" can kiss any academic career in Kansas goodbye.

At this point, once the foxes rule the henhouse, the hens really lack any workable strategy. They can show up and get misrepresented, they can stay home and get misrepresented, they can try to win some offstage shekels, but those efforts are ignored by the national news media.

I'd like to think that if a few major employers left the state, the voters would think twice, but there is no guarantee of this either. Religious zealotry is not diminished by adversity -- if sacrifices aren't pleasing the gods, make more sacrifices!

Many questions.

When is the next election for Kansas state school board?

Will the conservative incumbants see the writing on the wall, or in the burning bush as the case may be, and decline to run?

Will the electorate be fed up enough and remember enough to vote in a sensible board?

Will Kathy Martin eventually read the science standards and have a Come to Darwin moment?

Oh, Kathy, evolve me baby!

...but I digress.

Listening to the KS day 1 proceedings, and Harris was asked to define "intelligent design". Harris started out talking about "Darwinism" and then said that "intelligent design" was simply a disagreement with "this view".

Thank you very much, Dr. Harris. That was very helpful.

"But perhaps we agree on the underlying point here: Science lost this case at the polls. The people of Kansas, in their electoral wisdom, have selected a school board of creationists because they wish their children to be taught creationism, and by golly that's what they're going to get. Certainly I also expect those I elect to at least make the effort to keep their promises."

idiot.

I guess you forgot that kansas tried this shit before, in 1999. As soon as they changed the science standards, and folks in kansas actually started paying attention, they were tossed out.

then kansas went back to sleep again, and allowed a new group of dunces to take over the BOE.

once they finish changing the science standards AGAIN, what exactly do you predict will happen?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess... they'll get tossed out again.

all the while Kansas keeps taking credibility hits. one would think the voters would learn a bit and keep sensible folks who can actually read on the BOE.

ST:

Yes, I'm well aware of the Kansas history. The flipflopping we've seen in the last three school board elections can be interpreted two ways: Either everyone fell asleep except the fanatics (who never sleep), woke up briefly to toss the bums out, falsely believed they'd put the fire out, and went back to sleep. If you're right, maybe next time this silent majority will stay awake and the creationists will never again have a prayer (so to speak).

But what I consider the more reasonable interpretation is that the Kansas voters are very closely split between creationists and "take the default and trust the experts" zombies. And this tends to make for very close elections, which can go either way depending on things utterly outside of any creationist platform: public bungling during the campaign, ill (or favorably) timed human interest events (wife/husband diagnosed with cancer, child rescued from dire circumstances, etc.)

You don't seem to understand that in the mind of the creationist, Kansas is doing the exact opposite of taking a credibility hit. They are leading the inevitable march of God's soldiers.

I don't think these PR proceedings are hurting the creationists at all. They don't care about facts or integrity, they care about publicity and votes. They are getting these. I have very little confidence that the polls showing a small majority of Kansas voters believe in a young earth and the creation of man POOF in current form are far from the reality.

So you can listen to the proceedings and see the creationists making fools of themselves. A creationist hears the same testimony and swoons in delight.

"...As if he granted that a horse-hair put into a bottle of water will turn into a snake."

IIRC, Jesus performed this very miracle on a number of occasions... and once while on the cross.

Only a scientist would be so closed-minded as to assume - simply by means of reason - that such an act would be an impossibility.

@flint:

"But what I consider the more reasonable interpretation is that the Kansas voters are very closely split between creationists and "take the default and trust the experts" zombies."

first, I apologize for the vitriol. I'm a bit nonplussed today, and CW's original post kinda set me off a bit.

I personally lean towards the idea that even in Kansas, the majority actually don't want to see changes to the science standards.

hmm. How difficult would it be to figure out some real world numbers?

I bet KCSE might have a better idea on this. Would it be worth pursuing to get a real world answer to the question:

Do most Kansas citizens wish to see the current science standards changed?

after all, the idea that the republicans have a "mandate" because GW got re-elected is certainly arguable.

Toejam, old fruit, give me a break! How many Kansans have a freaking clue what the science standards are, unless they're teachers? Until this entire unfortunate brouhaha started, and I so seldom get to use the word brouhaha in a sentence, people in Kansas were opaque to standards.

This is the voting public, Sir T, who can't find the Atlantic Ocean on a globe if you give them the big hint that it's the blue bit.

Do Kansans want the standards changed? Do Kansans know the standards exist?

Oh, hang on, they went through this in 1999. My mistake. They must've forgot.

Sorry.

eh, on any other day, I'd be arguing your position, bill.

I'm just in a mood to see something concrete for a change.

Why did they even bother to vote in the folks who changed the standards back to including the teaching of evolution, if there wasn't at least some knowledge that changing it to begin with was a mistake?

as vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, he is too busy to act as a reporter for us

Yes, I'm well aware of the Kansas history. The flipflopping we've seen in the last three school board elections can be interpreted two ways: Either everyone fell asleep except the fanatics (who never sleep), woke up briefly to toss the bums out, falsely believed they'd put the fire out, and went back to sleep.

Why did they even bother to vote in the folks who changed the standards back to including the teaching of evolution, if there wasn't at least some knowledge that changing it to begin with was a mistake?

"An election is determined by the 2 who flip the boat."---It being probable that the other 98 weren't paying any attention anyway and so their votes were taken for granted as being split. The numbers involved in such "relatively trivial" elections are so small anyway. Finding the necessary votes can't be that hard. The time that passed since 1999 played into the creationists hands. Non-missionary Americans have too short an attention span. The brouhaha over this may lead Kansans to re-elect more rational types again, just like in 2000. But in five years this will have to happen all over again. That is what missionary zeal does. They will never give up. And unfortunately they won't stop breeding.
Paul

I don't think these PR proceedings are hurting the creationists at all.

Scientists snub Kansas evolution hearings Education hearings rigged, say science organizations Sunday, May 8, 2005 Posted: 6:22 PM EDT (2222 GMT) TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- Scientists have refused to participate in state Board of Education hearings this past week on how the theory of evolution should be treated in public schools, but they haven't exactly been silent. About a dozen scientists, most from Kansas universities, spoke each day at news conferences after evolution critics testified before a board subcommittee. They expect to continue speaking out as the hearings wrap up on Thursday. "They're in, they do their shtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points." The scientists' boycott was led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, which believe the hearings are rigged against the teaching of evolution. Scientists said they don't see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses who were called by advocates of the "intelligent design" theory. But the boycott has frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum. "I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," board member Connie Morris said. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner." The theory of evolution says that changes in species can lead to new species, and that different species, including man and apes, have common ancestors. Intelligent design advocates contend the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power. In 1999, the board deleted most references to evolution in the science standards. But standards were adopted later to include evolution as a key education concept. The state board's standards determine what is on statewide tests, but local school boards decide what is actually taught and which textbooks are used. The state board plans to consider changes to its standards this summer. Leaders of the science groups said the three subcommittee members already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates. All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution.

Kansas' problem is that it allows an independently elected board to decide its educational policy, so one issue fanatics can run on a creationist plank to get the churches to bus the fundies to the polls without any concern for how they are trashing Kansas' reputation or its economy. If I were governor of Kansas, I would want to try to amend the constitution to bring educational policy under the governor's control so he can appoint responsible people to run the schools. Governors in general realize that the long term economic well being of their states require educational excellence, and a governor's race is too high profile to run a stealth creationist campaign for an obscure office.

If I were governor of Kansas, I would want to try to amend the constitution to bring educational policy under the governor's control so he can appoint responsible people to run the schools. Governors in general realize that the long term economic well being of their states require educational excellence, and a governor's race is too high profile to run a stealth creationist campaign for an obscure office.

...a billboard on I-70 saying "Put God back into classrooms where He belongs!"

Russell:

Apparently not, if He is diddling with reality offstage, in response to prayer or whatever. I guess reality is a work in progress, requiring refresher courses from time to time.

It seems to me the most likely explanation for the return of the creationist school board members is the coattail effect - Bush's campaign did an excellent job of voter turnout with right-wing Christians, and of course that would benefit the creationists.

Yes - my jaw dropped a bit at Bryson's remark. My first thought was "What two "theories?" Then I realized that she probably meant two kinds of bonds, and that she was equating that to teaching evolution and ID as two "theories."

— Jack Krebs

If H.L. Mencken was alive today, he'd roll over in his grave.

I wonder if Charlie realizes that Mencken was firmly on the side of Darwinian evolution...

Flint:
So to generalize: consolidating political power in fewer hands is NOT a cure for abuse of that power, and often makes it worse. Alabama pundits give Judge Roy Moore an excellent probability of being elected governor. You want HIM appointing the school board? Really?

Obviously not, but Alabama, is, well, Alabama; most states aren't going to elect a one issue religious zealot governor. Besides if the Alabama BOE was independently elected (I don't know if they are or not), don't you think 'Bama voters would elect a creationist school board? Kentucky, where I live, isn't exactly the most progressive state in the country, but governors here have been running on educational excellence and economic development for decades. Even with the number of fundies here, no legitimate candidate for governor has run on the issue of trashing science standards in education. In a BOE election, however, the vast majority of voters aren't going to have a clue who the candidates and what their platforms are, making it much easier for a relative handful of one issue voters to swing an election. Frankly I think that if a governor is supposed to set policy for the well being of his state he should have the power to do so, and he can be held responsible at the polls by the voters, rather than have a bunch of independent executive branch boards elected by people who have no idea who they are voting for free to run amok if they so chose.

Formal political arrangements are not the root of the Kansas problem. Americans tend to believe that everything will be OK if only the right institutions are in place; but people, not laws, are finally responsible whatever the system. A bad governor could have appointed an even worse school board. An alert and informed electorate could have chosen better candidates for the existing elected board.

Procedures are important. Aagcobb is saying (if I interpret him correctly) that IF you can be sure of electing a governor whose ideas you agree with, THEN of course you want him to appoint people of like mind as much as possible. But if you do NOT like his platform, then of course you want as many different elective offices as possible, because it can't be worse that way.

The point seems to be lost beyond my ability to emphasize it: Creationists in Alabama want the school board to be appointed by the governor for the same reason Aagcobb does: To get the "right people" where they will do the most good.

Jim Harrison is correct, ultimately the people themselves are responsible. We get the government we deserve, because we elect it ourselves. Adding layers of middlemen between the people and their government is a double-edged sword. It is a buffer against mob rule if you don't agree with the mob, and it is a stifling and frustrating bureaucracy ignoring popular needs if you agree with the majority. Either way is going to delight those one one side of any issue while infuriating those on the other. The only hard-and-fast rule must be that we can't vote away our ability to vote. (See most places we have imposed "democracy" and it lasted for ONE election, whose winner promptly declared himself President-for-life and exterminated the opposition).

So should we elect or appoint? As I wrote earlier, the only consistently right answer is "neither, but we're out of options". I think it was Winston Churchill who observed that democracy is the worst of all possible political systems except for everything else. When the majority is a fool, we all dance to that tune.

HOW does one become a biology teacher without accepting biology? My wife, herself a university teacher from Russia, is in the process of becoming a teacher in the US and is amazed that I visit this site everyday to learn of the latest follys of the Crea, er, ID crowd, much to her dismay :)

She thought teaching ID, er, Creati, er, GOD(!) in a science classroom was a joke. After showing her the various antics (politics?) of ID, she became extremely angry. "How does one become a biology teacher and NOT teach evolution? Where are your standards? Are they local? Federal? I don't understand. How are they even allowed to teach creationism (her words)?"

I asked her how she would teach biology without evolution. Her reply is that she would not. (She is not a biology teacher, btw, but her PhD is in methods of teaching.)

Curious. Any biology teachers on this site who do not "believe" in evolution? I assume passing a test and believing in what you learned are two separate issues . . .

Comment #29129
Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 08:06 AM
"not surprising, since you echoed what I wrote"
Oops. Sorry Flint. That's what happens when posting before reading.
Paul

I don't get what the problem with teaching both evolution and creationism equally is -- if they really are taught equally, you'll probably have LESS creationists around in the long run. Unless the entire "equal time" thing is a way to get at least some permission to cheat. Can someone help me out here? ^^;

I wonder if Charlie realizes that Mencken was firmly on the side of Darwinian evolution . . .

— Mark D

Kay,

Creationism should not be taught in a science classroom any more than witchcraft or any other pseudoscience.

I'm not sure what "teaching equally" means. To teach creationism - approx. 1 minute? "God created everything and has all of the answers."

I would just like to have evolution TAUGHT, forget about "equally"!

Any biology teachers on this site who do not "believe" in evolution?

— tytial

Flint: So should we elect or appoint? As I wrote earlier, the only consistently right answer is "neither, but we're out of options". I think it was Winston Churchill who observed that democracy is the worst of all possible political systems except for everything else. When the majority is a fool, we all dance to that tune.

Just to clarify my position, I don't really think I'm advocating less democracy here. I honestly believe that even in a place like Alabama, people who care a lot about teaching creationism are outnumbered by people who just want their kids to get a good education. I also think it enchances democracy to have one person, a democratically elected governor who runs a well publicized campaign, responsible for executive branch policy, rather than a bunch of virtually anonymous board members who can get elected by running a stealth campaign through the fundamentalist churches appealing to one issue voters. I hope Roy Moore does run for governor of Alabama, because I think even though he has a good shot at winning the GOP primary, there are a lot of people there who don't want their state to become a theocracy.

Kay:

I can try to help. Creationists are always screaming "teach the controversy" and "present both sides" -- when talking about public school science classes. But go to any creationist-run blog or website, and you will find that any disagreement with their doctrine is met with two rapid responses: the dissenting post disappears, and the poster is banned. THIS is how creationists "present both sides" when THEY are in charge of the henhouse.

Consider the very topic of this thread. The creationists don't even bother to pretend that this is a means of presenting both sides. They didn't even read the majority report they are replacing! They don't even care that one side didn't show up, since the decision was foregone.

And so one answer to your question is that it's no secret how creationists would "present both sides" if they get control of the curriculum. No surprises there.

But there's another issue here: If claims based on no evidence whatsoever are permitted to be called "scientific theories" and allowed in science classes, whose doctrine should be dubbed 'Truth'? Absent any appeal to the authority of evidence, this becomes a purely political issue. Biology teachers necessarily become hostage to the religious preferences of the current school board.

Then also, there is the confusion ID is guaranteed to introduce, since it is anti-scientific in nature and bears no resemblance to scientific inquiry at the most fundamental level. Confused minds are easy prey for specialists at exploiting them ("follow me, and I will lead you to absolute answers"). Remember that creationists are not persuadable by logic or evidence.

Jim wrote:

" An alert and informed electorate could have chosen better candidates for the existing elected board."

I gotta agree with this. It is the main reason i decided that there is still hope for education to resolve this issue in the long run.

...still workin' on that proposal...

:)

I honestly believe that even in a place like Alabama, people who care a lot about teaching creationism are outnumbered by people who just want their kids to get a good education.

well, to scale up Aagcobb's argument, I would prefer the system we currently have for appointing federal judges. appointments are filtered through congress, and so, at least for the last 200 years, have been subjected to checks from minority rules like fillibusters.

well, unless, of course, they nuke the fillibuster. but i guess that's another kettle of fish.

Flint-

"And I doubt you could find a political observer who would like to see "democracy by instant national plebiscite" without any middlemen not absolutely required."

funny you should mention this; Governor Schwarzenegger here in CA is trying to do just that by "governing through referendum" and bypassing the state legislature.

I am absolutely positive that this is a conservative experiment designed to test the idea that you can bypass all the checks and balances built into the constitution. If successful, you will be seeing this strategy attempted in your town, and at the national level.

It will be appealed to voters as a "purer form of democracy"; and yet any knwoledgeable person knows why we have checks and balances built into government, yes?

In a positive development, the gubernator's popularity has been plummeting here in CA, and many attribute this to his blatant attempts at bypassing the legislature.

However, CA is considered to be a reasonably politically knowledgeable state. I'm sure governing via referendum will be tried in other states, with perhaps more success.

ST:

It's not as unusual as you seem to think. I've lived in a couple of states that do a lot of governing by amendment to the state constitution. Some states have literally thousands of such amendments, and every time I go to the polls, I'm faced with a long list of proposed amendments -- all of which concern matters the legislature ought to be deciding.

The problem is, the legislative districts were set up in 1900 by and for the plantation owners. The courts demand redistricting to (more or less) make everyone's vote count equally, but of course the news lines are to be drawn by the very legislators who owe their careers to the current lines. So the state pays a yearly fine for failure to comply (costing the legislators themselves nothing), and life goes on.

I find this frustrating. I live in Huntsville, which is a city of engineers and rocket scientists. These people place a very high priority on good education, and the schools here were among the best in the nation (with school taxes as required). But in most of the state, those with the huge (entire counties!) landholdings simply refused to pay any taxes -- and they control the legislature. So these people passed a law that takes the property taxes away from those who pay them, to fund the schools in these tax-free counties. In response, the locals here stopped approving school tax increases, and starting voting for lower taxes. Why should we subsidize the freeloaders? So our school system is now seriously underfunded while the wealthier citizens send their children to private schools or move to Tennessee. And the legislature STILL won't equalize tax rates (not even within a decimal order of magnitude, a proposal voted down every year!).

Given this deadlock, it's not surprising that the governor attempts to govern by constitutional amendment, which is really direct public approval or disapproval of proposed programs. Of course, the public doesn't get to say what gets put on the ballot. The Alabama public seems to have two general mottoes: "We don't much care what government does so long as we don't have to pay for it" and (of course) "Thank God for Mississippi" (which prevents Alabama from coming in last in most quality of living measures).

At some point, checks and balances require good faith, and I'm not talking about faith in Jeezus.

Yes - my jaw dropped a bit at Bryson's remark. My first thought was "What two "theories?" Then I realized that she probably meant two kinds of bonds, and that she was equating that to teaching evolution and ID as two "theories." Mind boggling.

I see now that someone else already addressed your ignorant comments. (Although they put the usual Darwinist spin on it.)

I'm confused. When I learned chemistry in high school, we were taught that molecular orbitals explained valence bonds. I don't see how this qualifies are two competing "theories."

I am also wondering how it is possible to put a "Darwinist" spin on chemistry.

Isn't a scotty a type of terrier?

I know it's some little dog that barks constantly.

Re " . . . a billboard on I-70 saying "Put God back into classrooms where He belongs!"

Does He? Heck, I thought He would have aced His courses first time around, what, being omniscient and all."

ROFL

Considering you cast yourself as a defender of science, your ingnorance is mind boggling. If you knew much science, you would know that there are different theories of bonding. Most likely, she is speaking of valence bond theory versus molecular orbital theory.

I do know that. So what? There are a number of people with whom I agree on almost every issue except evolution.

There are a number of people with whom I agree on almost every issue except evolution.

"No one ever choked to death on a communion wafer, so why not teach creationism?"

perhaps not, but they came close...

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/04/03/greedy_communists_for_michael_schiavo_jesus_for_schindlers.php

"...Nor did Kilmeade bother to mention that serving Terri Schiavo a communion wafer could have killed her because she could not swallow."

;)

...and my favorite response to the original post i linked to:

"God forgive me, ellen -- but if "Jesus" had made it through the police line with his Communion kit and Terri had choked to death on the Host, I think even the Pope would have done a spit-take.

Sooner or later, one of these Christiopaths is going to do something so iconically stupid and deranged that not even Bill Bennett will be able to explain it away as the work of a crazy fringe cult."

too true.

:)

FYI, NBC news in 1 hr will be talking about Kansas and the kangaroo court.

I thought one of the funniest moments was Wells stating - twice, and very carefully - that he is supported by grant from the DI for which "no goods or services are required" (I wish all my grants were like that!). 

— Andrea Bottaro

So to generalize: consolidating political power in fewer hands is NOT a cure for abuse of that power, and often makes it worse. Alabama pundits give Judge Roy Moore an excellent probability of being elected governor. You want HIM appointing the school board? Really?

— Flint

When I learned chemistry in high school, we were taught that molecular orbitals explained valence bonds. I don't see how this qualifies are two competing "theories."

I am also wondering how it is possible to put a "Darwinist" spin on chemistry.

— Reed A. Cartwright

Steve Reuland,

You're right in one way, and wrong in another. It's true Moore was elected. It's not true that electing our officials is the cause of our problems, which would simply go away if we appointed all our officials. Ultimately, you run into a very ancient question: who guards the guardians?

If you sincerely believe creationists feel they would have nothing to gain by appointing other creationists, then I really don't know what to tell you. Should we disallow the people from electing our officials? Should we return to the days when only white men who owned property were accorded the vote, and even THEN only to elect a slate of pre-selected electors, who would in turn appoint responsible officials? And who gets to select the slate of electors?

The only way to prevent the public from electing fools is to eliminate elections. Is this really what you wish? If we keep elections to only a bare minimum (those who in turn appoint everyone else), then you had better NEVER elect a fool, because the knock off effects may be irrecoverable!

Sigh. Teaching politics to a scientist is like teaching science to a creationist. Both audiences feel they already know all they need to, thank you.

There is only one theory of the chemical bond and that is quantum mechanics. Valence Bond Theory and Molecular Orbital Theory are simply different approximations to the same exact theory. Technically each uses a different set of basis functions and truncates an expansion in terms of these different basis sets. If one includes all (an infinite number) of basis functions then the two approximations are equivalent.

The basic problem with Bryson's comments is that she doesn't understand what a theory is and how the word is used in science in different "everyday" ways. Sure chemists say VB or MO "theory" but they are using theory to mean "approximation" or "approach." Similarly quantum chemists talk about "different levels of theory."

VSEPR is basically an even more simplified approach that explains geometry in terms of the localization of electrons, e.g., in hybrid orbitals. Again it's just another approximation to quantum mechanics.

Hey, if she's confused just get her to ask Fritz Schaeffer what he thinks!

There is only one theory of the chemical bond and that is quantum mechanics. Everything else is simply one approximation or another to quantum theory. Valence Bond Theory and Molecular Orbital Theory are simply different approximations to the same exact theory. Technically each uses a different set of basis functions and truncates an expansion in terms of these different basis sets. If one includes all (an infinite number) of basis functions then the two approximations are equivalent.

The basic problem with Bryson's comments is that she doesn't understand what a theory is and how the word is used in science in different "everyday" ways. Sure chemists say VB or MO "theory" but they are using theory to mean "approximation" or "approach." Similarly quantum chemists talk about "different levels of theory."

VSEPR is basically an even more simplified approach that explains geometry in terms of the localization of electrons, e.g., in hybrid orbitals. Again it's just another approximation to quantum mechanics.

Hey, if she's confused just get her to ask Fritz Schaeffer what he thinks!

This looks to me like a typical journalistic exercise in presenting both sides "objectively" - here's what side A says, here's what side B says, here is the issue. You get to cheer for the side of your choice.

Kansas Evolves Back Sunday, May 8, 2005; Page B06 NEARLY FIVE YEARS into the 21st century, the Kansas State Board of Education has begun an earnest discussion of whether schools in that state should teach science that was obsolete by the end of the 19th century. The board is holding hearings into proposed changes to its model science standards, changes intended to cast doubt on conventional evolutionary biology and inject into classrooms the notion of "intelligent design" -- the idea that the complexity of life can be explained only by some conscious creator's having designed it. Intelligent design is not your parents' creationism. It's a slick set of talking points that are not based on biblical inerrancy but framed, rather, in the language of science: molecular biology, the structure of DNA and holes in the fossil record. Moreover, the ostensible justification for the changes is a seductive one. Proponents say they mean merely to ensure that schoolchildren are given a full sense of the scientific controversy over evolution so that they can make up their own minds. Who can object to that? But there is no serious scientific controversy over whether Darwinian evolution takes place. Intelligent design is not science. Whatever its rhetoric, the public questioning of evolution is fundamentally religious, not scientific, in nature. That is not to say that wonder is illegitimate; it is a perfectly reasonable response to the beauty and enormity of the universe to believe that it could not have happened without a divine hand. But the proper place to discuss such belief is not the public schools. Biology classes need to be taught with sensitivity to the religious sensibilities of students but not by casting doubt on evolution. This is not the first time the Kansas school board has taken on this issue. In 1999, it voted to strike references to evolution from statewide science standards, only to restore evolution's place after subsequent elections defeated anti-evolutionist members. Now, a majority once again favors changes, so it seems likely that sometime this summer, the official guidance from the state will shift. The model standards are not binding on local school districts, but the shift would be damaging nonetheless. Evolution is a reality, no matter how much people may object to it. And denying or downplaying its importance to any serious examination of the biological sciences ill serves students who may wish to know how bacteria become resistant to drugs, how birds and dinosaurs are related, or why dolphins and sharks share certain morphological traits. How people reconcile their religious convictions with scientific reality is a matter for places of worship, not for science classrooms -- or state boards that set standards.

Although I am retired, so maybe that doesn't count. I have a BA degree in Biology from NYU and a MS in Biology from Hofstra University. I taught science for 33 years in one of the best school districts in the country in New York. Maybe I could answer your question better if you explained to me what you mean by "evolution".

It's not true that electing our officials is the cause of our problems, which would simply go away if we appointed all our officials.

Sorry -- I over-stated it. 7 of the 8 voted as a block for it; the 8th was absent from that meeting.

RBH

RBH:

A good supporting observation. Elected bodies generally have majorities like the 6-4 majority in Kansas. Appointed boards tend to be unanimous because admit it or not, there is a litmus test to being appointed, and that test is the preferences of whoever does the appointing. Appointment tends to make government more focused and directional, whether or not you as an individual approve of that direction. If you like it, appointment looks like the way to go. If you don't, you may have no recourse at all. As I wrote above, you see the same face everywhere you turn.

Personally, I tend to fear appointment for exactly the reason you mention. With elections, you win some and you lose some. With appointment, it's double or nothing.

I don't want to second guess the developers of biology curricula, but it would seem equally instructive to teach the obsolete models (young earth, old earth with no common descent, Lamarckian evolution, etc.) first, with some "critical analysis" of why they all fail.

— Frank J

Steve Reuland: Wells is probably just going on record to protect himself from an IRS audit. Grants and scholarships are tax exempt only if you're not required to do anything in exchange for receiving them. Wells' language sounds like it came straight out of the 1040 instruction manual. (I'm just joking, but if this turned out to be the case, I'd only be slightly surprised.)

You're right in one way, and wrong in another. It's true Moore was elected. It's not true that electing our officials is the cause of our problems, which would simply go away if we appointed all our officials.

— Flint

Ultimately, you run into a very ancient question: who guards the guardians?

If you sincerely believe creationists feel they would have nothing to gain by appointing other creationists, then I really don't know what to tell you.

The only way to prevent the public from electing fools is to eliminate elections. Is this really what you wish?

(quote)

Kay,

Creationism should not be taught in a science classroom any more than witchcraft or any other pseudoscience.

I’m not sure what “teaching equally” means. To teach creationism - approx. 1 minute? “God created everything and has all of the answers.”

I would just like to have evolution TAUGHT, forget about “equally”!

( / quote)

That's my point actually... let's say that the Evil Orthodox Cabal Of Scientists (tm) (c) (r) (ketchup) endorses teaching creationism in public schools, and then put together a teaching module that goes around "...so Noah put a bunch of animals in a big wooden box, and for some crazy reason they managed to not eat each other, not smoke each other out due to the smell of their poo, and so on".

If this is done properly you'd have a lot of kids asking a lot of questions at sunday school the next week. :) I know I did, a few years ago. (They tried to kick me out, to which I said to the youth pastor that if he touched me I wasn't responsible for the safety of his ribs)

Uhm . . . I thought the recipient of a scholarship/grant was tax exempt only if (or to the amount that) the support was used to pay tuition and educational material toward an official degree.

— Andrea Bottaro

... the 8 governor-appointed members of the Ohio State Board of Education voted as a block to adopt the ID Creationist model lesson plan.  It was rejected by a substantial majority of the elected members of the Board, but the appointed members' block vote was sufficient to adopt it.

So why aren't pro-science advocates, and the Panda's Thumb crew in particular, raising hell about Ohio's official curriculum?

It's not that creationists wouldn't appoint creationists, it's that the governor (or whomever) would have to take the heat for the ensuing controversy.

Having too many races on the ballot does not mean that we should chuck the entire ballot. At most, I simply think we should strive for better balance. When people don't even know who is running for a race or why they should care (I don't even know what the hell a Comptroler General does, but I have to vote for one every four years) then maybe we have too many positions up for popular election.

I suspect it's because it's already a done deal. I also suspect a great hell was raised about the issue at the time. I haven't monitored PT long enough to have caught the debate on that one.

I do note that PZ had some things to say about it at the time:

http://pharyngula.org/index/comments/a_summary_of_the_ohio_situation/

As one of our posters wrote in creative English, I grow tired to repeat myself. The question of which positions should be appointive and which should be elective is not a strawman.

— Flint

I can only continue to emphasize that there are dangers both to electing and to appointing. Both have been tried, and both have both worked and failed.

I understand that you are frustrated that creationists get elected, when you believe (perhaps correctly) that they would not have been appointed. When RBH points out that in Ohio, it was the pro-science people who were elected and the creationists who were appointed, I notice you somehow fail to comment on this.

But when I pointed out that a creationist governor would glory in that controversy, you don't seem to comment.

Or better yet, maybe we need a voting public who bothers to take the time to know what they're voting FOR.

For you, 'better balance' is not the same as for me.

Having too many elective offices reaches a point where nobody can reasonably hope to keep track of the offices themselves, much less the several people running for each and each person's position on the issues (if any). Having too few reaches a point where the baby can't be separated from the bathwater.

You favor appointing judges, but these are lifelong appointments, and dislodging an idiot from such a position is incredibly expensive and problematic.

And again, teaching politics to a scientist is like teaching science to a creationist --- both think they know everything they need to know, thank you. Everyone is an expert, no matter how little (usually ZERO) formal education or practical political experience they've had.

Steve R, could you post an abstract of your last comment?

So why aren't pro-science advocates, and the Panda's Thumb crew in particular, raising hell about Ohio's official curriculum?

Why did they even bother to vote in the folks who changed the standards back to including the teaching of evolution, if there wasn't at least some knowledge that changing it to begin with was a mistake?

— Sir_Toejam

July 20th, 2004: State Board of Ed stonewalls on document requests For 3 months, the Ohio Dept of Education has been delaying its response to requests by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State for documents pertaining to the creationist lesson plan adopted by the Ohio Board of Education in March 2004. At the July 12-13 Board meeting, elected Board member Martha Wise reproved the Department for the unconscionable delay not only on the Freedom of Information Act requests, but also on their delay in supplying her with key documents she requested in March. At the March meeting, the lesson was adopted in part because Deputy of Public Instruction Bobby Bowers claimed to have peer-reviewed scientific articles that supported the creationist claims made in the lesson plan. Thus far, the Dept has failed to produce the purported evidence.

I don't want to second guess the developers of biology curricula, but it would seem equally instructive to teach the obsolete models (young earth, old earth with no common descent, Lamarckian evolution, etc.) first, with some "critical analysis" of why they all fail.

July 20th, 2004: State Board of Ed stonewalls on document requests For 3 months, the Ohio Dept of Education has been delaying its response to requests by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State for documents pertaining to the creationist lesson plan adopted by the Ohio Board of Education in March 2004. At the July 12-13 Board meeting, elected Board member Martha Wise reproved the Department for the unconscionable delay not only on the Freedom of Information Act requests, but also on their delay in supplying her with key documents she requested in March. At the March meeting, the lesson was adopted in part because Deputy of Public Instruction Bobby Bowers claimed to have peer-reviewed scientific articles that supported the creationist claims made in the lesson plan. Thus far, the Dept has failed to produce the purported evidence.

notorus brings up an interesting point;

in states where opposition parties don't bother to field a candidate, why shouldn't the primary become essentially "open". In other words, why bother with a primary at all?

Seems to me that if all the voters want are republican candidates, they should be able to pick and choose which one is the best by a standard vote if there are no opposition party candidates, yes?

Is there any movement in Kansas to change the primary system to reflect the one-sided nature of some of the contests?

ST:

I don't believe there is any requirement that one must vote the straight party line matching one's registration. In most one-party states like Kansas, it simply makes sense to register for whatever party's primaries are the 'real' elections. Just register as a Republican and vote in the primaries. If a Democrat should happen to run in November, vote for the Democrat in November. Perfectly legal.

well, that depends on where you are. In most areas, a democrat can't simply "appear" on the ballot at the last minute; and if they could, who would vote for them with no exposure?

moreover, i don't know any areas where you can nominate a candidate for office AFTER the primaries are done.

I certainly could be wrong, but it would certainly not be the norm, I am sure.

Besides all of that, I wasn't speaking of democrat vs. republican; i was speaking of republican vs. republican in races where alternative parties fail to field a candidate.

before you say... "isn't that what primaries are for?" don't, because they are not. Primaries do not work the same as open elections.

ST:

I don't understand your response. If you lived in Kansas, you would notice that the only meaningful elections, where the actual winner was selected, was the Republican primaries. You would notice that if you were not registered as a Republican, you wouldn't be allowed to vote in these primaries. So you would (of course) register as a Republican. Then you would vote in the primaries.

My observation has been that to win elections in a winner-take-all system like the US has, with single-member districts, only two or at most three candidates really have much of a chance. What these candidates do is vie with one another for the middle ground, where (presumably) they'll get the most votes because they will appeal to the greatest number. In states where people vote Republican because that's what their parents and grandparents and great grandparents have always done, nobody bothers to run as a Democrat, why bother? Instead, they take what WOULD be the Democratic platform and run as a Republican (moderate wing).

A joke is told of someone campaigning as a Democrate in a state like Kansas, and after a speech a member of the audience came up and said "I like what you have to say, how do I become a Democrat?" And the candidate asked, "well, how did you become a Republican?" The response was, "I was born a Republican!"

Anyway, just register as a Republican so you're elegible to vote in the real elections. There, you will find candidates of a political spectrum that would certainly include Democrats in a state where the word 'Democrat' wasn't pejorative. (I imagine in Chicago, you'd register as a Democrat to vote for the Democrat (conservative wing) of your choice, in the primary).

To phrase it one more way: The primaries are open to Republicans of every persuasion. Just call yourself one, then vote as you see fit.

The theory of intelligent design is not science and thus doesn't belong in the science curriculum. On the other hand, the glaring gap in the theory, namely the identity of the designer, has now been filled. See

www.theintelligentdesigner.com

I think you have a good idea for a parody; it is a bit lacking in content tho. nice job scoring that domain name!

keep plugging.

Despite incorporating some extremely bright thinkers, the movement as a whole seems to have a recurring philosophical blind spot. Though they often correctly point out the religious foundations of Darwinism, the fact that all scientific reasoning is ultimately based on axioms/presuppositions (which are unprovable, hence metaphysical/subjective/biased by definition) should have alerted them to the fact that there is no such thing as a 'neutral' scientific arena within which to interpret the evidence related to the past. Since the only thing in their platform which comes close to being a commonly-shared presupposition is a negative (naturalism is wrong), they can provide no coherent philosophical framework on which to base the axioms necessary to interpret evidence relevant to the historical sciences (paleontology, historical geology, etc). So they can never offer a 'story of the past', which is one more reason why they must continually limit the debate to one of mechanism---and then only in broad, general terms (designed vs undesigned). They generally refuse to be drawn on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth or its duration, apart from saying, in effect, that it 'doesn't matter'. However, this is seen by the average evolutionist as either absurd or disingenuously evasive---the arena in which they are seeking to be regarded as full players is one which directly involves historical issues. In other words, if the origins debate is not about a 'story of the past', what is it about?

From a tax geek, from Ks., who really appreciates the expertise and effort appearing here, a small contribution: if you do something, or are expected to do something (e.g., teach, let your professor take credit for your research, etc.), to get or keep a grant, it's income and taxable. If a grant is awarded because the giver thinks you're generally swell and should just go on with your life and work as always, it's a gift and not taxable.

Comment #29255 Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 9, 2005 07:41 PM (e) (s) Steve Reuland: Wells is probably just going on record to protect himself from an IRS audit. Grants and scholarships are tax exempt only if you're not required to do anything in exchange for receiving them. Wells' language sounds like it came straight out of the 1040 instruction manual. (I'm just joking, but if this turned out to be the case, I'd only be slightly surprised.) Uhm . . . I thought the recipient of a scholarship/grant was tax exempt only if (or to the amount that) the support was used to pay tuition and educational material toward an official degree. But you are right, it sounds suspiciously legalistic. I wonder what's behind it . . . perhaps the DI wants no legal resonsibility for Wells' continuous nutty accusations of fraud and conspiracy, in case he finally crosses the line and gets sued by someone. A hit-man with plausible deniability.