Is ID DOA?

If she hasn't sung she best get warmed up. Something tells me every bodies favorite fundamentalist millionaire banker won't keep throwing money down the DI rat hole much longer.

February and August 2006, methinks...

As regards the future of ID, the current tide may be against them, but they will still have a fairly strong undercurrent in the social waters for some time to come.

I wonder if Bill Gates will pull the plug - his millions are supporting the Discovery Institute's "Cascadia" group (regional transportation), not the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture - but I imagine that the overhead on that grant supports the whole lot.

As for the religious backers of the DI, many of them might be happier if the DI would simply explicitly promote its religious mission: if you are arguing for creationism and divine miracles, just argue for creationism and divine miracles explicitly, don't try to do it on the sly. This change would make both sides much happier, I think, but it would represent an explicit withdrawal from the governmental/public school arena.

Has the fat lady sung for the ID movement's efforts in the public schools? If so, what's next?

Posted: Mar. 04 2006,16:06 ID is starting to meet the legal system and be obliterated. Soon creationists are going to turn to a new strategy. What will the strategy be? I have no idea. But I can tell you what I'd do, if I were them. I would create a system of creationist science classes, and tell parents it's an innoculation against the evils of Darwinism. I'd assemble a network of instructors, which would be creationists with any kind of undergrad science degree. And I'd try to get churches and rich christians to sponsor the meetings. Meetings would be once a week, an hour each time, for perhaps two months. All the creationist 'science' would be taught in those eight lessons. Privileged Planet would be shown, and maybe a tour to a Natural Sciences museum with a creationist tourguide. Since it's not official, no judge could stop me, and I would be able to give the kids creationism with both barrels, not the pussyfooting Intelligent Design business. And a lot of the program would be devoted to things like Icons of Evolution, where scientists are portayed as scheming liars. That way, when the kids do get to high school science classes, they are already suspicious of the whole thing, and find it easier to reject. That would be my plan. what about the rest of you? What would you do?

• February 2005. The Ohio Board of Education reverses its previous decision and removes the "critical analysis" standard and the attached lesson plan from the curriculum, removing the Discovery Institute's "crown jewel" in their program to mess with education.
• August 2005. The creationists on the Kansas Board of Education lose their majority in the Republican primary, in which the creationist intelligent design "critical analysis of evolution" standards were the main election issue.

— Nick Matzke

What's next is complacency... until the next major evolution of anti-science appears.

I hope scientists, in every discipline, learn from this ordeal. It's not merely enough to do the research. You can't pretend to live in a social structure that is isolated from the masses. You can't rely on the masses to keep up your research. And you definitely don't want to hedge your bets on some federal judge ruling your way every time.

We were fortunate enough this time that ID wanted to appear as science. In other words, there is still enough prestige in the label, 'science,' that it was worth the IDer's time to adopt the label, albeit in a very corrupted manner. Next time, I think anti-science will get more explicit. The fundamentalists will fight to relabel everything scientific as mere philosophy. The notion of evidence-based knowledge is reduced to hunches and clues. Theories become interpretations. Fruitfulness of a theoretical system is measured by how well they meet theological intuitions. In short, science becomes fully associated with materialism, just as they have always wished it to be. Science becomes a dirty word, just like being gay or liberal. They didn't get it right this time, but they're learning...

I fixed the 2005/2006 thing, thanks for pointing out the error.

Two post-victory questions for those in Kansas. What are the prospects of increasing the pro-science majority in the general election? What can we say about the 2008 elections? If I understand it right, the five board members who did not face election this time will be up in 2008. The current creationist majority is 6-4. Four out of five seats this election cycle where held by creationists. This suggests that next election cycle that two creationists and three pro-science candidates will face reelection.
This suggest that 2008 has the potential to be harder though not impossible. Hopefully pro-science Kansas citizens will not let the creationists sneak up on them again.

And if ID is DOA, we can expect the creationist to do what they have always done: repackage it into something else and start it all over again. They are not going to stop.

Sorry to hijack a thread about good stuff, but msn.com has chosen today to show an article about Ken Ham's creaion "science" museum.

The worst is a live poll that is linked by the article. Of msn.com users answering the poll:
35% think the bible is literally true in every way,
33% think it's fundamentally true but with some inaccuracies, and only,
26% say the bible is primarily fiction with some historical stuff, with
~5% none of the above.

These guys have gobs of cash (it's a pretty fine-looking building) and 68% of the population is still instinctively on their side. If that's not a warning for us to be on the ball for the next round of elections, nothing is.

I suspect that what you will find is a further exodus (if you'll pardon the expression) from public schools and (hence) increased private schools and homeschooling. Perhaps also an attempt to "go further up" - supreme courts?

What's next?

1. There will be textbook battles in Texas -- and the anti-science forces hope to expand it to California, too. Constant pressure is applied to publishers to soft-peddle evolution. In a few places (is Virginia Commonwealth University among them?), administrators cave on teaching evolution straight, or well.

2. Biology classes continue to be "extras" in most high school curricula -- kids can take math, physics and chemistry and avoid biology completely. Fewer kids will take biology overall, and America's science circles will become increasingly dominated by foreign-born scientists who came to the U.S. for graduate study, and stayed to fill a vacuum of scientists in academia and industry.

3. Outstanding progress will be made against disease by biologists. In the face of advancing deserts and tropics, botanists and geneticists will be pressured hard to develop crops and livestock that can do well in dramatically changed climate conditions. Foreign companies will move in to the U.S. because they have the expertise. Cargill or ADM will be purchased by a South Korean science-based conglomerate with deep research labs. Before the progress, however, tropical diseases will make a comeback in the U.S. Bill Gates will suddenly look like a great visionary when tourists to Washington, D.C., start coming down with malaria. Headlines in the papers will ask, "Where is American Science?"

4. America's three 24-hour television channels of fundamentalism will have half-hour news "specials" dedicated to the story that weather and disease are prompted by God's being unhappy with America's "fascination with Darwin." Polls will show that 35% of Americans think Darwin founded the Soviet Union, sold airplanes to Nazi Germany, developed drugs to keep Fidel Castro alive to age 95, and was the real source of the designated hitter rule. William Dembski will re-emerge as a publisher of textbooks -- in U.S. history.

5. Public school graduates from the U.S. will continue to dominate the Nobel Prizes in science. Many of them will give thanks to "Mr. Jones, my 8th grade biology teacher." Those speeches will not make the newspapers.

6. Cubs fans will watch baseball on TV in October, from stadia other than Wrigley.

7. The Dow-Jones index will fluctuate.

NOw that the Western Kansas voters have rejected the ID candidate, and mainstream standards will prevail in Kansas, when can they expect all those jobs from interested companies to start?

You all remember that ID was keeping the jobs out, don't you? Thats what a lot of voters were told.

So when will the jobs start?

Gee . . .one senses a little bitterness in Christensen's post. I love it!
Christensen would have Kansas students wallow in ignorance.

Maybe there is yet hope for education in Kansas, now that Connie Morris will have time to study her Wholly Babble instead of retarding science education.

Nah, C, it was all those godless atheists out on the high prairie in their socialist collectives planning genocide, just like you always said.

They just infiltrated a little deeper than you had planned.

Re comment #116277 and "These guys have gobs of cash (it's a pretty fine-looking building) and 68% of the population is still instinctively on their side. If that's not a warning for us to be on the ball for the next round of elections, nothing is."

They've just had a 1 million dollar donation:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0731donation.asp

I agree with everything you have said. Forget the discovery institute. It's these guys we should really be worried about. It will be interesting to see how many people actually file through the museum's doors when it opens.

NOw that the Western Kansas voters have rejected the ID candidate, and mainstream standards will prevail in Kansas, when can they expect all those jobs from interested companies to start? You all remember that ID was keeping the jobs out, don't you? Thats what a lot of voters were told. So when will the jobs start?

Of course nothing will stop some people from believing in ID-Creationism, but the "ID Movement" has been over for a while now, except for a few death spasms here and there. It was over as soon as everyone on the fence (or even close to the fence), and especially the media, had a chance the digest the Kitzmiller decision. We saw a big shift there.

It's over.

If the IDers were true to their word, they would go off, do some research (well, lots and lots of research), and try to persuade the scientific community of their position. Instead, they do things like swiftboating the judge who ruled against them.

I predicted some time ago that 2005 would be seen as the high-water mark of the ID movement. That seems to be coming true.

It's over.

Christensen wrote:
"You all remember that ID was keeping the jobs out, don't you? That's what a lot of voters were told.
So when will the jobs start?"

See...This is the kind of response we get.
It is so over.

If I recall correctly, the jobs thing had to do with the notion that large corporations might be less likely to locate their offices in Kansas since their workers' children would be going to bad schools. Personally, I think that's sort of a vague argument, but it certainly does not imply that measurably more jobs will materialize when the standards are repaired (especially since it has only been a year or so).

Anon. Coward--

You're probably correct about the continuing efforts of the hard-core ID/Creationism crowd, as their energy for this seems boundless. But all potential avenues (scientific, political, educational, philosophical, etc.) have been officially and clearly blocked, so they cannot even maintain the appearance of success or progress anymore.

Once upon a time, there were a whole bunch of people who thought that what really mattered in thinking hard about design and evolution were state science standards. And school board elections. Along came a 15 year old kid who loved science, read a lot, thought for herself, and generally saw the adults around her as missing the point. "As if," she said to the cat sleeping at her feet. Then she smiled and went back to her web browsing. The End.

Hey, you all aren't backtracing on that jobs promise are you?

I mean, that would suggest that the claim that ID was keeping jobs out of Kansas was, well, like a lie and all.

"JB," the voters voted. It's up to you to figure out why.

I would suspect that there were a number of reasons, not the least of which included the pushiness of the pro-ID camp.

Another might just be the shifting stories this camp spun about the standards during the past two years.

Finally, you might want to note that the two districts which rejected pro-ID candidates were the ones where especially stealthy campaigns were conducted previously. What goes around . . .

Of course, demanding economic results a mere twelve hours after the votes were counted is a straw man argument, but keep weaving. I mean it. Keep weaving.

You guy(s) provided incalculable assistance.

Is Phillip Johnson right? Has the fat lady sung for the ID movement's efforts in the public schools?

— Nick

Hey, you all aren't backtracing on that jobs promise are you? I mean, that would suggest that the claim that ID was keeping jobs out of Kansas was, well, like a lie and all.

Hey, you all aren't backtracing on that jobs promise are you? I mean, that would suggest that the claim that ID was keeping jobs out of Kansas was, well, like a lie and all.

...that's funny...looking at the quotes I can't figure out why Padian doesn't take ID seriously.

Comment #116300 Posted by Kevin on August 2, 2006 09:51 AM (e) | kill If the IDers were true to their word, they would go off, do some research (well, lots and lots of research), and try to persuade the scientific community of their position. Instead, they do things like swiftboating the judge who ruled against them.

I think this whole notion of the university as a cult of Darwinist worshippers is completely overblown and damaging to the ID movement. It's often a convenient excuse for poor scholarship and casts us as victims of "the man." Like Godel, our theory needs to be laid out as nearly indisputable to topple the reigning paradigm. And yes, that means being held to a higher standard than the Darwinists. It's like boxing and all of life for that matter. Frankly, I like Davison's approach. He doesn't complain about the man keeping him down or worse, spend time complaining about holes in the Darwin theory. At least he's laid out an alternative and he's no victim. Comment by Barrett1 --- August 2, 2006 @ 8:34 am

Barrett1: What have you experienced at the hands of scientific materialists? Are you aware of the Sternberg case? The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by these Darwinian fascists, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former does not get done. Comment by William Dembski --- August 2, 2006 @ 8:43 am

We really have to ask if it's over in Kansas, first. We've had this triumph before, only for the anti-science forces to find their way back into power. There's a strong core of religious anti-science out there that knows almost nothing about Phil Johnson, the DI, and ID, who may push for some version of creationism at any time.

There's nothing especially new about "criticisms of evolution," either, as this was tried out in Louisiana after McLean. And I should note that Kansas has been sold as mere "critical analysis", so to the extent that the Kansas primary means anything, it isn't a blow against ID by name (the coincidence of criticisms of evolution apparently is a surprise to them).

I'd say that ID as "critical analysis" is going to continue for a while. We've all argued with these people, and they aren't persuaded by evidence or genuine critical analysis (to them, "critical analysis" means criticizing actual critical analysis for its insistence upon the need for evidence of causation). They'll go on and on about how mean we are to "new ideas", how an agent that can do anything and has no constraints on goals or purposes is the best answer to origins questions (in a way it is--if it could ever be shown to act in this universe), and how they've proved, without data no less, that evolution is not responsible for the flagellum, bombardier beetle, etc.

Johnson can be sanguine about it all. He's old, rich, and seems to think he's a superb thinker in the realm of biology that he hardly knows, so has little to lose. Dembski and Behe have put their reputations (such as they were) on the line, and have themselves to defend. I assume that this is the case for most of the DI contingent. They're also the "best of the creationists", sad as that may seem, which means that the many unalterable creationists will continue to listen to these "scientists" as they "demonstrate" how evolution is impossible. They are also not terribly imaginative (remember, Behe's book depends heavily on YEC sources), and are unlikely to do much of anything but "critically analyze" evolution and try to sell "design" as the only alternative. Hence ID will live on as propaganda, though tilted toward "critical analysis".

Package deals of "critical analysis" may be proposed outside of Ohio in the near future. In Ohio they recognized that calling for "critical analysis" of one sector of one science was all too obviously a religious act, which is why they bundled several concepts that the religious right doesn't like into a whole package. Unfortunately for them, this probably won't work very well either, since the partisan nature of their package criticisms will evoke even more opposition--and by the time they dilute their agenda enough to be acceptable, they'll have to concede that teaching every objection to every bit of science is unworkable in the schools.

I'd like to say that "intelligent evolution" is the next phase, but there's no way that can be. The balloon was floated, DaveTard tried to make UD into a site that largely accepted directed evolution, and the balloon was promptly pricked by Dembski. They can't tell the Bible bashers to support anything called "evolution", so "intelligent evolution" is right out.

"Directed processes","directed intelligence", or something like that might sell somewhat better.

What might happen is that they'll try out a variety of names and slight repackagings, hoping that the courts will let their guard down long enough for one to succeed. Or, depending on how Ohio and future Kansas elections go, they may just crawl into their holes again for a decade or two, reading Behe and lauding Dembski and cursing the courts, until something sort of evolves out the current mix.

The fact of the matter is that all that creationism needs for a resurgence is a good name (in context), a good PR machine, and the promise of victory. ID never asked for a commitment to any kind of science whatsoever, no matter how hard it tried to accommodate those who couldn't bear to say that the earth is 6000 years old. The core constituency, and even a number of the "scientists" pushing ID, were always YEC, so that with the right name, repackaged YECism will sell any time that anyone can promise a new lease on creationism's life. The name means nothing, so it could be almost anything that doesn't include "evolution".

If we're fortunate, attempts to enshrine religion in the public schools may wane for a while, especially since the courts and many of us are wary about repackaging. If we're vigilant, we'll pay attention to the continuing lack of good teaching of evolution, which perhaps is part of the reason why creationism never dies as a political force.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Darwinian fascists????

Dembski is way over the top here - signs of desperation and out of touch with reality.

There is one battle front they are still winning. That one is located inside of the churches. Speakers come and set up their game of 3 card Monte and show people the same worn out arguments and display the magical rocks and post a drawing of how all the dinosaurs fit on the Ark.

This is pretty effective because people in the United States have such a poor understanding of Science, these speakers are allowed to give talks without much criticism.

The net effect of this is statistically the same number of people are going to have the same beliefs. Politicians will feed on this and we will have a new generation of school boards, and it will be deja vu all over again.

But all potential avenues (scientific, political, educational, philosophical, etc.) have been officially and clearly blocked,

— Mike

you all aren't backtracing on that jobs promise are you?

If our level of scientific literacy were higher in this country we might not have this problem. But you see, these people have been working for 85 years so that we don't even get to teach this.

As a board member of the Darwinian Pressure Group, Delta Pi Gamma, I outraged by Dembski creating a competing organization, the Darwinian Facists! They probably have uniforms and everything while Harold and I are still trying to figure out how to fund our company car.

The next thing you know there will be Darwinian Intellectuals meeting in basement coffee shops, reading evolutionary poetry. They'll get all the chicks, too.

reading evolutionary poetry

Dembski is way over the top here - signs of desperation and out of touch with reality.

— Jack Krebs

I don't think Johnson is being sincere. He has long stated that he isn't interested in getting ID put into public schools, but his actions have shown otherwise. He is the admitted author of the Wedge Document, which says quite directly that the DI's goals include getting ID into public schools, holding teacher training seminars, fighting legal battles, etc. I think he is simply playing the "ID in public schools isn't important" angle to shrug-off how bad of a defeat the Kitzmiller case really was.

Don't know about ID being DOA, but it's certainly fading. In all the places where I used to get to debate IDers, they've given up and gone away - and places where you might expect debate to be going on are heavily policed to prevent it.

Kitzmiller was devastating, and they had nothing remotely sensible with which to answer it. The wingnuts, like the poor, are with us always, but the number who actually understand science and are prepared to go in to bat for ID seem to be tending to zero.

And I don't think people like Coulter, pleasant though it is to gawp slack-jawed at her free-wheeling ravings, convince anyone who wasn't convinced already. (aside: did I imagine this? Did Dembski really 'accept responsibility' for the sciency stuff in Coulter's book and then say that this responsibility didn't extend to answering any questions or defending any of it?)

R

The Kansas school board has changed hands repeatedly since 1998, and two of the anti-evolution members who were up for reelection held on, so anyone who thinks it's over is being dangerously naive.

Darwinian fascists???? Dembski is way over the top here - signs of desperation and out of touch with reality.

— Jack Krebs

Long live the post-wedge world!! Long live the post-wedge world!! Long live the post-wedge world!!

Maybe they'll take a different tack, and seek academic respectability by actually publishing research in peer-reviewed journals? (snicker)

But families and livelihoods really are under threat by these Darwinian fascists, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former does not get done.

— William Dembski

Comment #116366 Posted by DragonScholar on August 2, 2006 02:05 PM (e) | kill But FAMILIES under threat? I say, simply - WTF?

What's next?

My guess is that they'll put it on the ballot in some state(s) and let people vote on it. They'll figure out some way to create a proposition and ask voters if both sides should get equal time or if evolution should just be taught alone, and I have no doubt they'll win that way. I'm not sure if that'll have any impact on what's actually taught in the classroom, but it'll be a moral and political victory nonetheless. They'll prove at the ballot box that they have the people on their side.

Just a reminder that Mirecki is the only person who makes a good case for getting beat up by fascists--from Dembski's side (unfair to Dembski? Not when he's trying to tar us with some unevidenced nonsense about "fascists"). And his is the most fascist and censorious site that I occasionally visit, while one of the best-known trolls on these boards "moderated" UD until recently.

Pots and kettles, of course. Dembski has little to do but to turn around the (usually at least partly legitimate) charges that are made against his side, and since he has no regard for evidence he feels no need to back up his claims, other than with a trollish email that apparently has prevented his hard work. How fragile is his mind, anyway?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Re #116332 Your exactly right about the church elbogz. I witness it every Sunday (they're doing Genesis at the moment). Intelligent people making distinctly un-intelligent statements on geology, biology etc. Most of the people in the congregation probably haven't a clue about plate tectonics, the KT boundary, distances to astronomical objects and how we know stars and galaxies are so far away, what a light year means and why it's relevant to the age of the universe, red shift and Hubble's law etc.

So, when they watch a Ken Ham video at the mid week service, or listen to speakers such as Roger Oakland or David Menton (both recent visitors) presenting evidence for creation, I doubt if any will question what they are saying. I'm sure it's probably the same in many churches in the US. I blame the church leaders for allowing groups like AIG access to the churches without even questioning their credentials.

Comment #116331
Posted by Jack Krebs on August 2, 2006 11:50 AM (e)

Darwinian fascists????

Dembski is way over the top here - signs of desperation and out of touch with reality.

Aren't the Darwinian Facists part of the Unitarian Jihad???

It's over.

But college is too late. Is there a High School IDEA movement?

— steve s

Comment #116331 Posted by Jack Krebs on August 2, 2006 11:50 AM (e) | kill Darwinian fascists???? Dembski is way over the top here - signs of desperation and out of touch with reality.

Barrett1: What have you experienced at the hands of scientific materialists? Are you aware of the Sternberg case? The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by these Darwinian fascists, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former does not get done. Comment by William Dembski --- August 2, 2006 @ 8:43 am

Barrett1: What have you experienced at the hands of scientific materialists? Are you aware of the Sternberg case? The pressures directed against frontline ID proponents are real. From your armchair, it is easy enough to say that we need simply to get to work. But families and livelihoods really are under threat by Darwinian enforcers, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former gets short shrift. Of course, that is only as long as the persecution lasts. My persecution at Baylor lasted just a few months, after which I had essentially a 5-year sabbatical, in which I was highly productive. Comment by William Dembski --- August 2, 2006 @ 8:43 am

Dr. John Lynch is under the impression that Dr. Dembski used the words "Darwinian fascists" rather than "Darwinian enforcers" in his response to Barrett1 (see posts #13 and #14). Dr. Lynch's response to Dembski's thread is here: http://scienceblogs.com/strange....sts.php Best regards, apollo230 Comment by apollo230 --- August 2, 2006 @ 6:24 pm

Sorry, Ich but you're stupid.

ID has lost every election, every court case and every attempt (however dishonest) at publication.

ID is dead. Gone. Shrugged it's Mortal Coil. Deceased.

ID sleeps with Scientific Creationism at the bottom of the primordial soup. So, cling to your religion, see you next year. Pray that you won't be a loser all your life.

Re "But families and livelihoods really are under threat by Darwinian enforcers, and when our days are spent trying to shore up the latter, the former gets short shrift. "

And of course, he and his followers are oblivious to the fact that it's the utter lack of "the former" that causes the anti-I.D. efforts. :rolls eyes:

Henry

Sorry, Ich but you're stupid....cling to your religion, see you next year. Pray that you won't be a loser all your life.

— Doc Bill

Doc Bill, you need to apologise to Ichneumon. Reread his post. He is against ID and creationism, as are you. You are on the same side.

All Ichneumon is doing is warning against the dangers of complacency. Given the repeated attempts over the years of the anti-science crowd, this is a valid warning.

Ichneumon

As has been pointed out by others, has indeed pointed out the TRUE dangers for the future, as far as the enlightenment is concerned.

As Goebbels pointed out, all creationists need to do to WTHAM is to create an enemy and the simple 'soles' who perceive their cherished little fantasy is in danger, will make martyrs of themselves to perpetuate their meme, their world view such as it is, with its limited horizon.

Enjoy the temporal victory, it will not last.

The cold hard fact is that in a rational universe we would not even be discussing a moment of minor triumph were it not for the fact that in the worlds leading nation, by most counts, has a citizenry greatly at odds with the ONE THING that has made it great. Freedom from superstition enshrined in its founding documents and an universal education system.

The question should be asked WHY?

Why has its education system failed to provide its children with the knowledge, indeed the revealed wisdom of several thousand years of Western European culture?

Why do some community leaders want to move the rule of law from Rome or for that matter England to Jerusalem/Mecca, from judgment by ones peers to Sharia Law as determined by those who consider themselves to be the only owners of the "One True Word of God^TM"

The answer is of course simple....anyone, no matter how dishonest can sell a book, a temple coin, or a simple idea, because as mythology (folk tales that explain us to ourselves) tells us that the blind are just as likely to follow the blind as anyone else.

Keep it up, Hercules* would be proud.

*Hercules
A Greek mythological figure who when called to help out a village being pestered by the Hydra, had to cut down a whole forest with which he cauterized the necks from which he had removed the heads of the Hydra ...mans collective unconscious, dreams of irrationality that are always under the surface...no....... this is not a 'modern' problem.

So re-read

Ichneumon's post and keep your minds sharp.

Mike Z wrote .. but the "ID Movement" has been over for a while now,... It was over as soon as everyone on the fence ... had a chance the digest the Kitzmiller decision.

Besides the argument of ID being dead, what about the public schools?

Graduation rates are abysmal, and many who do graduate aren't actually performing at a level that a H.S. degree should indicate.

Around here, the elite already knows that if you want your children to get into the best universities, private school education gives them a much better chance.

This can hardly be blamed on ID, since it has never been taught an any significant level; I would remind you that the Kansas Standards have never been implemented.

So who ya gonna blame the public school failures on now? Don't pretend its just money; judicial ruling gave the Kansas City Public schools almost a BILLION extra dollars in the eighties and nineties and things are as bad as, or worse that, ever.

So who ya gonna blame?

I venture a prediction by the way.

The next move, coming soon, will be in the Constitutional area.

Just as promoting (establishing) a religious view is unconstitutional, so is DENIGRATING (restricting the free exercise thereof) a religious view unconstitutional.

Why, if I had to guess, I would say the plaintiffs are getting ready even now.

This is just my opinion, of course.

Stay tuned.

The argument that science is inherently atheistic is the key argument used by Calvert et al in supporting the Kansas science standards. Teaching science as seeking natural explanations amounts to state sponsored materialism, says Calvert.

This argument is false. There are many religious perspectives that accept science. I believe that Calvert's "constiutionality" argument would go very far, if it went at all.

On the other side of the coin, statements about the physical world are not protected just because they are connected to a religious belief. It does not "denigate religion" to state the common descent is a fundamental scientific conclusion despite the fact that most IDists and of course all YEC's claim common descent is false.

So I don't think these legal arguments will hold water.

Also, public schools are not abysmal. Some are - it's true that the Kansas City school district has been a mess, and schools in general, just like most other institutions, definitely can improve. However, many of the problems facing schools today are a reflection of the culture - not only poverty in the obvious reoubled schools, but also the media-saturated youth culture in all schools. Children only spend about 20% of their total waking hours in school - what they experience in teh other 80% has a large effect on who they are and how they are when they are in school.

And in Kansas, graduation rates are going up, not down.

Just as promoting (establishing) a religious view is unconstitutional, so is DENIGRATING (restricting the free exercise thereof) a religious view unconstitutional.

Jack is quite right that science is not inherently atheistic.

But that is NOT my argument.

However, it is a FACT that many scientists who the public hears (although Jack repeatedly tries to avoid this at KCFS)like Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Shermer, et al. use science as a cover for their atheistic propaganda.

Thus, for a teacher to recommend some of their materials could provide a basis for a challenge.

In my opinion only, of course.

Who knows, maybe the plaintiffs are working on it now?

Just as promoting (establishing) a religious view is unconstitutional, so is DENIGRATING (restricting the free exercise thereof) a religious view unconstitutional.

Who knows, maybe the plaintiffs are working on it now?

ID was dead even before Dover. But alas, the IDiots will continue to prop up the stinking corpse and walk it around, a la Weekend at Bernie's, for as long as they can continue to wring something out of the dubes.

The argument that science is inherently atheistic is the key argument used by Calvert et al in supporting the Kansas science standards.

So who ya gonna blame?

In my opinion only, of course.

I venture a prediction by the way. The next move, coming soon, will be in the Constitutional area. Just as promoting (establishing) a religious view is unconstitutional, so is DENIGRATING (restricting the free exercise thereof) a religious view unconstitutional.

"Denigrating a religion" sounds a lot like blasphemy.  Blasphemy is protected speech under the Constitution.

You may believe this is wrong and try to undo it, but be careful what you wish for.  If you do revoke it, the Islamists will be the first to take advantage of the ability to prosecute (and they'll prosecute you).

If you do revoke it, the Islamists will be the first to take advantage of the ability to prosecute (and they'll prosecute you).