Kansas School Board Passes Intelligent Design
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Religion, ScienceClick the picture if you don’t know what it is. Definitely worth a laugh.
So then, by a vote of 6 to 4, Kansas rolled back the clock on logic. They also clearly violates the division between church and state.
I live in Missouri, but I work in Kansas. It’s highly embarassing that I give ANY money to the state that rejects science:
TOPEKA, Kan. – Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent designâ€Â? advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools, in violation of the constitutional ban on state establishment of religion.
In 2006, some of the board members who voted for ID are coming up for reelection.
Need I say more?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 9th, 2005 and is filed under Religion, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 9th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
I lived in NE Kansas for 14 years. I can name all sorts of reasons not to live there. LeFebvrites, Jansenists and the Westboro Baptist Church—and I personally cannot forget that the last man hanged in Kansas shares a last name with myself. Judges may be barred from working a ‘corruption of blood’, but the general public does it all the time.
November 9th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
Thank God for Kansas!
They make my “overzealous” Christian brethren over in Cobb county look positively mainstream!
I certainly have my problems with some of the claims people make in the name the theory of evolution, but this is just embarrassing. ID does not belong in a science classroom. Hopefully, the voters of Kansas will set things straight just like they did the last time this happened.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
“Need I say more?”
No Justin — you’re righteous indignation says it all.
“They also clearly violates the division between church and state.” Oh really. Well, I’m certain your bold constitutional stance will be tested soon. Maybe you are right, but I don’t think so — maybe you can point out either the word “God” or “intelligent design” in the KS science standards — because I don’t think they are there.
What you apparently object to is that in the teaching of human origin, a historic science, which probably should not be in a biology classroom to begin with, there is no longer an ideologically driven limit securing physical phenomenon as the sole explaination of our existence. And that biology teachers now have the right to probe these issues of evolution in their classrooms.
I’m a Missouri citizen, and I applaud Kansas — as far as I’m concerned, if the people of Kansas want to teach their children in public school that the world rests on the back of large turtle — Good for them! One evolutionary step towards school vouchers and greater parental choice.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
I think that DosPeros is right that the new standards don’t address intelligent design. Their criticism of evolutional does clear the way for teachers to choose to teach intelligent design, however, and this is still ridiculous since the board’s criticism of evolution is clearly religiously, and not scientifically, motivated.
DosPeros, no one says that all theories of the origin of human life have to be based on observation of physical phenomenons. However, science deals with the observation of physical phenomenon, so it makes since that intelligent design or creation has no influence on what is taught in a science classroom. The Kansas board dealt with this little hangup, though. As the article Justin linked states:
“In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.”
Totally ridiculous. They are altering reality to fit their personal.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
In other news, the Dover School Board responsible for the controversy there was voted out. Completely. All gone. Clean sweep. It was a narrow victory, so there are still challenges ahead. But it’s a victory nonetheless.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/apparent_end_of.html
November 9th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Damn evangelical protestants!!
Why can’t you accept that _the laws of physics_ are evidence of intelligent design like us Catholics do!
November 9th, 2005 at 3:00 pm
In other news, the Kansas school board has also mandated that pi is now equal to 3, the world is flat, and gravity no longer applies since it is just a theory.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
DosPeros, do you realize that the school board actually changed the definition of science?
From the article:
Ahh yes, but it doesn’t matter to DosPeros. Because then we have this…
Yes, all means to an end, right? DosPeros doesn’t believe in any of this, but is still glad it happened because it will push forward his/her agenda.
Ugh.
November 9th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Actually BOTH theories are hopelessly misguided. Your science is practically prehistoric. Your religion projects everything onto God, when God has nothing to do with things. Ask yourself, do you think evolution created a world of sickness, suffering, pain, and death? Think again.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
“in the teaching of human origin, a historic science, which probably should not be in a biology classroom to begin with, there is no longer an ideologically driven limit securing physical phenomenon as the sole explaination of our existence.”
DosPeros- Please. Biology does not belong in a biology classroom? Human Origins is biology, it explains how we came to be through a very long process of trial and error through evolution. What does not belong there is a theological approach to Biology where you say its too hard to understand and therefore it is assigned to the deeds of a Higher Power. That Higher Power being what y’all pray to, in other words your GOD. I don’t believe in your GOD and you should keep him and your ideas regarding him to your personal teaching at home.
This is all to say that there is an inherent corruptness in the religious right. They are willing to say things that are desperately and, occasionally, transparently misleading to get their agenda across. And I’m sick of IT! Say what you mean, and quit trying to pussy footing around your point to further your agenda. It’s cowardly and pitiful. If you want me to believe what you believe then at least have the balls to tell me what you believe up front. I believe in Evolution, there is scientific evidence that evolution exists. It should be taught to children because it can be shown to occur. Philosophy is pure speculation with no scientific virtues what so ever, and it should not be taught to children in schools, but at home in YOUR home or at YOUR church.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Ugh. My agenda is federalism, much like the ughish agenda of the Founding Fathers. Justin, you are absolutely correct about me and my agenda. For what it is worth, the outcomes of democracy often repulse me (for instance, Californians have recently chosen not to give parental notification to parents for children wishing to have abortions) and, as you pointed out, the voters of Kansas will have an opportunity to rectify the science standards if they so wish.
What I find amusing is the chicken-little drama of those opposing any mere discussion of anything that in the slightest degree challenges Darwinian evolution being taught in school. I believe that there is a direct correlation between the level of vehement opposition to dissent to a given theory and the strength of the theory being challenged. If the definition of science and Darwinian evolution was such a rock-solid theory, then what is the concern? Anybody with a brain will be able to discern the truth, right? All the angst and hand-wringing against mere discussion, let alone dissent, suggests that the market place of ideas might not be too friendly to evolution.
No one should get too worked up about this — the Blue Stater progressives will still consider us backwards hayseeds if we make Noam Chomosky mandatory reading in the 6th grade. And somehow I doubt that this issue will make a huge impact an any give student or teacher.
I guess, I’d only make one small correction, Justin. I do believe in God and that God created the universe and all that is in it and I believe in some kind of evolutionary process — Are these concepts contradictory? I don’t know and that is EXACTLY why allowing the discussion into a classroom of all things does not flabbergast me, nor do I feel compelled to mock it, as if I have human origin all wrapped up and explained for in my back pocket.
Sleipner — I fell on my ass last night when I stepped on the Godforsaken cat and I then I tried to through him off the face of the earth — so I have now proven both gravity and the Earth is a big ball thing. So you can check those off your list.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
sleip- hey dude. Don’t worry- we Kansas have pi covered; it was already rounded to 3 many years ago. The irony is that the REST of our public educational system is excellent. My daughter received a wonderful secondary education here- and she didn’t even opt out of evolution instruction in biology (cringed when I heard she had that option.) Between that damn Thomas Frank book and our State Board of Education, Kansas is getting a bad, though not totally undeserved, rap.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
“I do believe in God and that God created the universe and all that is in it and I believe in some kind of evolutionary process â€â€? Are these concepts contradictory? I don’t know and that is EXACTLY why allowing the discussion into a classroom of all things does not flabbergast me, nor do I feel compelled to mock it, as if I have human origin all wrapped up and explained for in my back pocket. ”
ID does belong in the school system. It has a place in comparative religion, philosophy, civics, and government. It does not belong in a science class next to and offered up as an alternative to Evolution. Again you can prove evolution exists, you can not by any possible means show that through the scientific method that ID can be proven. Evolution does not claim to have “human Origins in its back pocket”. There are plenty of gaps in the theory which give ID believers/followers the opportunity to try to slip their basic religious principals into the same pool mucky-ing up the waters between science and religion enough to convince people that it is a science and not a philosophy/theology.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
And YES, I do get pissed off at this subject. IF you called ID what it is, Creationism-LITE, it would not hold water at all. The Intelligent part of it refers to GOD. The Christian God. However, if I then told the same people who want ID taught in science class that I chose not to teach ID, rather I plan to teach the Hindu creation myth or the fact of Muhammed’s ascention to their children as facts they would be up in arms. Look, It’s religion, and if you love your religion, don’t be ashamed of it, but keep it out of the schools. Or at least offer it in a forum that it applies to.
November 10th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
As I’ve commented on previously, ID strikes me as a cop-out, and a dangerous one at that, even from a theological perspective.
ID is basically a secular rendition of Biblical creationism, intended for one specific purpose: to make an end-run around the wall of church-state separation, into public schools. (It reminds one of the old Dragnet disclaimer: “The story is true; the names [and other particulars] have been changed to protect the church-state separation wall.”) If this tactic is successful (i.e. if it survives court challenges), it’s a foregone conclusion that it will eventually be repeated with other Christian teachings that conservatives may like to see introduced into public schools.
Therein lies the potential trouble. Without an explicit connection to Christianity, this parallel set of teachings, “proselytized,” as it were, by the nation’s public schools, could just as easily take on a life of its own, and emerge not as a gateway to Christianity, as ID’s backers presumably hope, but as a potential substitute for it. (To put it another way: Once you’ve already gotten the gist of Christian teachings [albeit in secularized terms] from a public school, why bother with Christianity itself when all it offers is more of the same?)
You could say, be careful what you pray for.
September 2nd, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Welcome people the 1st step to the Third World.