What's wrong with Kansas...

[thaiboxerken]

I certainly hope Kansan's get their heads out of their butts and demand to keep a science based biology curriculum instead of adapting the bible as the basis for biology.

I wonder how the schools in the Pennsylvania district that adpoted "Intelligent Design" curriculum are doing now.

 

[crimresearch]

Ir seems like the crunch is going to occur when students from these districts, who have been required to regurugitate ID and creationism in order to pass tests in high school, go off to college under the 'Academic Freedom' laws, and demand that no professor teach anything that would cause them any distress...like evolution, or geology, archaeology, physics, history, comparative religion, etc.

 

[Roadtoad]

Ir seems like the crunch is going to occur when students from these districts, who have been required to regurugitate ID and creationism in order to pass tests in high school, go off to college under the 'Academic Freedom' laws, and demand that no professor teach anything that would cause them any distress...like evolution, or geology, archaeology, physics, history, comparative religion, etc.

Ah, yes, it's a b**** when that second edge of the blade comes back to cut, isn't it? Extreme liberal profs wanted that sort of crap in place, to keep themselves and their ideology in place. Now, how do they justify that stance?

The reality is they can't, and we'll be paying for it for years to come.

 

[DavidJames]

Ah, yes, it's a b**** when that second edge of the blade comes back to cut, isn't it? Extreme liberal profs wanted that sort of crap in place, to keep themselves and their ideology in place. Now, how do they justify that stance?

The reality is they can't, and we'll be paying for it for years to come.

Huh? sorry, I'm not following, can you explain?

 

[Quixote]

This would be the PERFECT platform to launch a campaign to introduce each and every notion of creation into the Kansas school science curriculum - Buddhist, Hindu, Jainism, whatever. Piles of turtles, crystal spheres, cubic earths on elephants' backs, etc - they all qualify for inclusion under the same criteria as the IDers' notions.

So. Who's going to collate the major ones and do the big public flip-chart and pitch presentation at this gig?

Too complicated. Besides, ID is not a religiously based theory. I say fight irrationality with total lunacy. The Theory of Not-so-intelligent Design (NSID) is based on observation of the many design flaws in nature. The central concept is that if the universe has a designer, he's not very good at what he does.

The Committee for the promotion of NSID education believes that NSID has a much better case than ID for inclusion in any school's science curriculum. Human beings are reasonably well suited for the multiple niches they fill, but the design has several obvious flaws. Only NSID explains why humans don't have wings or gills, why the optic nerve passes in front of the retina, instead of behind it, and why we have the vermiform appendix. What kind of moron includes an organ that has only one purpose, to kill the organism. Painfully. BTW, the Committee has adopted Pendy, the human vermiform appendix, as its mascot.

 

[Roadtoad]

Too complicated. Besides, ID is not a religiously based theory. I say fight irrationality with total lunacy. The Theory of Not-so-intelligent Design (NSID) is based on observation of the many design flaws in nature. The central concept is that if the universe has a designer, he's not very good at what he does.

The Committee for the promotion of NSID education believes that NSID has a much better case than ID for inclusion in any school's science curriculum. Human beings are reasonably well suited for the multiple niches they fill, but the design has several obvious flaws. Only NSID explains why humans don't have wings or gills, why the optic nerve passes in front of the retina, instead of behind it, and why we have the vermiform appendix. What kind of moron includes an organ that has only one purpose, to kill the organism. Painfully. BTW, the Committee has adopted Pendy, the human vermiform appendix, as its mascot.

 

[Lemastre]

. . . Besides, ID is not a religiously based theory.

It may not be, but it may have originated in a theologian's head, to wit:

"The idea that an organism’s complexity is evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer was advanced centuries before Charles Darwin was born. Its best-known exponent was English theologian William Paley, creator of the famous watchmaker analogy. . . ." Natural History magazine, April 2002.

And I expect most of its adherents rely on the biblical tale of creation and other such myths in explaining life.

The article containing my quote and more refutation of ID is probably still available on the Internet. Many more refutations of ID are listed at http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

 

[CapelDodger]

If it wasn't for the potential effect on the children's education - I'd like to see the Kansas school board actually implement an intelligent design curriculum.

I think that no matter how hard the intelligent design "scientists" attempt to devise a "serious" and "scientific" grade school curriculum - once it sees the light of day (i.e., textbooks, course notes, handouts, etc. become available ) - the "ENTIRE" world will have a field day ridiculing the Kansas school board.

Haven't the ID people produced this material already? If not, why not? If they have, I'd love to get a look at it.

I suspect that all they do have is a set of attacks on evolution. The examples of "irreducible complexity" I've seen are laughably easy to demolish. I think it would be the worth the damage done to some Kansas kids' education if it helps prevent more widespread damage.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What scares me is that a huge population of the USA seems to want ID taught in public schools.

 

[Dragon]

Too complicated. Besides, ID is not a religiously based theory. I say fight irrationality with total lunacy. The Theory of Not-so-intelligent Design (NSID) is based on observation of the many design flaws in nature. The central concept is that if the universe has a designer, he's not very good at what he does.

The Committee for the promotion of NSID education believes that NSID has a much better case than ID for inclusion in any school's science curriculum. Human beings are reasonably well suited for the multiple niches they fill, but the design has several obvious flaws. Only NSID explains why humans don't have wings or gills, why the optic nerve passes in front of the retina, instead of behind it, and why we have the vermiform appendix. What kind of moron includes an organ that has only one purpose, to kill the organism. Painfully. BTW, the Committee has adopted Pendy, the human vermiform appendix, as its mascot.

" If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever." Woody Allen

 

[Nyarlathotep]

What scares me is that a huge population of the USA seems to want ID taught in public schools.

About 40% of the population favors teaching creationism instead of evolution is science classes. Not in addition to, Instead of.



Source

 

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder how nice Australia is. I wonder if I can get a decent job there.

 

[Roadtoad]

I wonder how nice Australia is. I wonder if I can get a decent job there.

Talk to Zep or AUP. Hell, if I can learn boatbuilding, we can go together.

A friend of mine who's an Aeronautical Engineer from near Wichita listens to this, and he's beside himself. He's got grandkids who are going to be subjected to this silliness.

If you want to believe God created the Universe, fine. But you have to understand such basics as the Scientific Method if you're ever going to function fully in this world. And ID does not teach that.

 

[Disco]

I saw that Reuters has picked up on this story, so I went over to DI's site & found this:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2570&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

Anybody else see this?

“Darwinian scientists showed contempt for science and the citizens of Kansas by refusing to appear before the State School Board,” said Dr. Jonathan Wells, a biologist at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. “Why won't Darwinists defend biological and chemical evolutionary theory and answer questions posed by their scientific critics? What is it that they’re afraid of? If they are so sure they are right, they should have the courage to be cross-examined.”

Not surprising, and predicted in this thread. Not a million dollar winner, though.

MHB

 

[Roadtoad]

I saw that Reuters has picked up on this story, so I went over to DI's site & found this:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2570&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

Anybody else see this?

“Darwinian scientists showed contempt for science and the citizens of Kansas by refusing to appear before the State School Board,” said Dr. Jonathan Wells, a biologist at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. “Why won't Darwinists defend biological and chemical evolutionary theory and answer questions posed by their scientific critics? What is it that they’re afraid of? If they are so sure they are right, they should have the courage to be cross-examined.”

Not surprising, and predicted in this thread. Not a million dollar winner, though.

MHB

Maybe not a million dollar winner, but expected.

The one thing that keeps running through my mind is something Randi mentioned in his commentary: That the Church has opposed nearly every advancement civilization has made. Makes you wonder.

 

[Orwell]

Ah, yes, it's a b**** when that second edge of the blade comes back to cut, isn't it? Extreme liberal profs wanted that sort of crap in place, to keep themselves and their ideology in place. Now, how do they justify that stance?

The reality is they can't, and we'll be paying for it for years to come.

Huh? sorry, I'm not following, can you explain?

I'll try to explain this to you:

See, in the nice orderly world of the average conservative (it doesn't matter much if they're of the libertarian flavour), even when it's the right wing lunatic fringe that is going on a rampage destroying everything in its path like a very large lobotomised gorilla on the loose, it all still is, somehow, deep down, the fault of those damn liberals.

I hope that clarifies everything.

 

[ReFLeX]

But you have to understand such basics as the Scientific Method if you're ever going to function fully in this world.

Sad thing is, you don't. Unless you redefine "fully"...

 

[dann]

How do you replicate God in the laboratory?

That is easy!! You make a horrible mistake, mix the wrong substances, which results in an explosion that blinds yourself and kills or maims a couple of your assistants. Then you tell yourself and others that all this was meant to be, that it serves a purpose: Somebody is testing you!
QED

 

[Nitpick]

I'll never understand the "intelligent design" argument that suggests that life is so complex that it just has to be the product of intelligence. If that's true, then the intelligence that created it has to be so much more complex than life itself, that you simply cannot avoid the question of who created such a tremendously complex thing.
How can a reasonably non-stupid person put forward the "life's too complex to have just developed" argument and still stop short of questioning the origins of something much more complex than life?

That's why I'm all for teaching the "Grand Theory of The Intelligently Designed Intelligent Designer".
They could add one level each year.

 

[DavidJames]

I'll never understand the "intelligent design" argument that suggests that life is so complex that it just has to be the product of intelligence.

This is because you are thinking logically. These people want everyone to believe in their version of God and they will say whatever necessary to accomplish that goal. It's that simple. When you have God on your side, the end justifies the means.