"Cthulhu didit"
Posted on 04/20/2005 3:31:42 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Religion and science clashed frequently Tuesday in a meeting to set ground rules for next month's hearings that could decide what Kansas students learn about the origins of life. [*sigh*]
At the end of the nearly two-hour meeting, it was decided that proponents of intelligent design -- an idea that the world was started by a supernatural power -- will provide testimony from May 5 through May 7.
And in a surprise move, it appears that supporters of evolution will present their side May 12 through May 14.
Scientists in Kansas and across the nation had previously said they would boycott the hearings on science standards because they felt that conservative [*sigh*] State Board of Education members were using the hearings to criticize evolution and introduce religion in science classes.
But on Tuesday, the majority of scientists serving on a committee that composed the pro-evolution science standards for Kansas students indicated they were ready to challenge the conservatives. [ARRRRGGGHHH!!]
Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, representing the majority on the science standards committee, blasted the hearings process, criticized the use of taxpayer funds to bring in anti-evolution witnesses, and said he would probably call some witnesses of his own.
"We would object to the use of a single penny to conduct what we believe is a political process as opposed to a legitimate issue regarding science," he said.
The three State Board of Education members on a subcommittee overseeing the hearings -- Steve Abrams, Kathy Martin and Connie Morris -- have agreed to allow John Calvert, a proponent of intelligent design, to spend up to $5,000 to bring in witnesses. The board members offered to allow Irigonegaray the same amount for witnesses' expenses, but he said he would not spend any state money on his side. Another $5,000 will be spent for a court reporter to transcribe what could turn into six days of hearings.
Calvert defended the expenses. "This is one of the most important issues facing education in the entire country," he said.
A combative Irigonegaray argued with Calvert and board members, who were part of a teleconference call, over several procedural issues for the hearings.
While Calvert's list of 24 witnesses is already public, Irigonegaray said he may use May 12-14 to present the pro-evolution side, but he would not reveal whom he may call as witnesses.
This angered Morris and Martin. Morris said Irigonegaray should cooperate so that board members could have a "definite agenda that we could be working on and praying over."
Irigonegaray said he couldn't be compelled to produce a witness list "so that a prayer service could occur."
Earlier, Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, said he would continue to ask scientists to boycott the hearings because he didn't want to give any credibility to intelligent design.
But, he said, the group would provide scientists to speak with the media to critique the testimony of Calvert's witnesses.
After Irigonegaray indicated he may use three days of hearings to support the majority report of the science standards committee, McDonald said he wouldn't stand in his way.
"If Pedro gets scientists to agree to come, that would be their prerogative," he said.
Following the hearings, the subcommittee will make a recommendation on science standards to the full 10-member education board.
Hearing schedule
• Hearings on Kansas science standards will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. from May 5 through May 7, and possibly from May 12 through 14 at Memorial Hall, 120 S.W. 10th St., Topeka.
• The first set of days will be reserved for witnesses summoned by John Calvert, a proponent of intelligent design.
• The second set of days will be reserved for witnesses brought in by attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, who is representing the scientists who composed the pro-evolution science standards. He would not commit to needing those days, but he was directed by the State Board of Education subcommittee overseeing the hearings to commit by May 2 on whether he will need those days.
• The auditorium in Memorial Hall seats 180 people.
|
But on Tuesday, the majority of scientists serving on a committee that composed the pro-evolution science standards for Kansas students indicated they were ready to challenge the conservatives. [ARRRRGGGHHH!!]I understand your frustration. That the looney-tunes who keep coming up with flying-saucer-like theories of anti-evolution get to call themselves "conservatives" is very annoying.
The true "conservatives" in biology are the Darwinists, who are sticking with a theory that has stood the test of time. A long test over a long period of time.
A lot of people would be a lot happier if they realized the question of evolution is not the same as the question of creation. Evolution DOES NOT preclude creation. Everyone should repeat this three times before they start debating this issue.
Creationism is a recent invention. Much more recent than Darwin.
Intelligent design is much more recent than creationism.
These recent inventions are radical attempts to cast doubt on a fully-proven, fully-accepted, century-and-a-half old respectable, working, testable scientific theory.
In what sense are these untrained, unscientific, ideology-driven radical zealots --- inventing brand new theories out of whole cloth --- to be considered "conservative"?
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Hillary's supporters are secretly behind the recent push for creationism in the schools. They'll do anything to discredit conservatism. Although I'd expect Hillary to support this stuff if she had to, my fear is that she doesn't need to spend a dime. The creationism (and ID) movement is a pure gift to her from the anti-science Luddites. The really sad part is that some conservatives get bamboozled by this stuff and mis-identify it with their religion.
So, is this like a one-per-century thing in Kansas?
Dorothy doesn't like there anymore, but the Stokes "Monkey Trial" will be replayed at least once every century!?
Oh really? I think these ideas have been around a while.
read later
Thanks for the ping!
I beg to differ. William Paley published Natural Theology in 1802. It contains every argument now being used by the ID movement. It was, in fact, the inspiration for darwin's work. Virtually everything in Darwin's Origin is a direct response to Paley.
I can see some advantages to the "long day" approach to creation, particularly if you implement this interpretation on the day of rest.
Uhmm ... Not quite.
Every culture has a "creation" myth."
Creation science" is a innovation to counter evolutionary science after the US Supreme court struck down the Arkansas statute that prohibited teaching evolution. (Epperson vs. Arkansas 1968).
Intelligent design is much more recent than creationism.
Long before Darwin, philosophers such as John Ray and William Paley made the argument that the complexity, function, and adaptations of living things required a designer. And that designer was God.
The modern ID movement is an attempt to end run around another USSC decision that struck down Louisiana's "Creationism Act" (Edwards vs Aguillard 1987). Louisiana's law had forbid the teaching of the theory of evolution unless accompanied by teaching the theory of "creation science."
By calling ID a "science" and calls to "teach both theories", the neo-creationists hope to get a "Creationism Act" that'll pass constitutional muster by not specifying the designer ...
(JohnDoe didit)
They're pretty much hosed any way they turn. First of all, the ID movement has a paper trail that documents the fact that they are promoting religion. This paper trail has been adjudicated and is a primary reason Louisiana was struck down. It's pretty hard to disown.
Second, if they succeed, every fringe group and non-Christian religion in the world will sue to have their mythology treated as science.
While Calvert's list of 24 witnesses is already public, Irigonegaray said he may use May 12-14 to present the pro-evolution side, but he would not reveal whom he may call as witnesses. This angered Morris and Martin. Morris said Irigonegaray should cooperate so that board members could have a "definite agenda that we could be working on and praying over."
WTF????
Since when is it a proper function for a government entity (this state board) to "pray over" an agenda?
Note that this is different than a brief ceremonial invocation such as is said at the opening of a Congressional session; this is about the substance of the committee's work.
If a member of the committee wishes to seek "divine guidance" on an issue, it is their right as individuals to do so on their own time, but I'm having trouble understanding how this can be appropriate for the committee to "pray over." What's next; anointing witnesses with Holy water before they testify? A quick wine 'n' wafer snack before the committee votes?
Put this in perspective; how would the public feel if committee members fired up a prayer wheel and chanted Bhuddist Incantations while parading a picture of the Dalai Lama, or more interestingly, what if they all faced Mecca before voting?
Beware, as H.L. Mencken admonished; "The people usually deserve the government they get, and the ought to get it good and hard." So be it for Kansans; I feel sorry for those of them who aren't nuts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387237/posts?page=18#18
is, of course, intended as a platform from which you can now tee-off on the subject of how damaging this all is to the conservative movement, that it is a PR disaster, because all conservatives will now be painted with the same brush by the Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media.....
he-he!
regards,
"Cthulhu didit"
I have trouble getting fired up over stuff like this.
If ID gets forced into the schools, everyone will know how and why. It will be laughed at by the teachers (quietly) and kids (openly). It will be counterproductive for the people who sponsored the legislation.
I am old enough to remember when Florida mandated a course in Americanism vs Communism. I was going to a military prep school, for crying out loud, and the course, and the poor teachers assigned to teach it were hooted off the stage.
We weren't sympathetic towards Communism -- a couple of students had been lost to the Castro revolution -- but kids know when something is being rammed down their throat.
I understand that creationists think evolution is being rammed down their throats, but so is the rest of science. All you have to do is look at the current thread on radiometric dating and realize there are no sciences -- geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry or biology -- that can be conformed to a literal reading of the Bible.
This begs the question of who will be packing the audience?
Of course, that begs the question of why have an audience at all?
Too bad we already know the answers.
Are you speaking of 'Comparative Political Systems: US and the USSR' ?
It was a HS freshman requirement in the '70s; I thought it was a good course. But then, it might have just been the instructor.
Irigonegaray said he couldn't be compelled to produce a witness list "so that a prayer service could occur."
1) The "ID'ers" have been saying all along that this isn't about religion. Sounds like they haven't been exactly honest.
2) They also don't even know what their "agenda" is? They have been the ones pushing for a debate, they have been the ones bad-mouthing scientists for boycotting the debate, and now that they are going to have their debate, they don't even know what they are going to be debating? WTF?
1960
Your point is well taken, but every minute of the instructional day devoted to rubbish, whether touchy-feely courses in self-esteem or pseudo-scientific rubbish like ID, is a minute that cannot be used to teach students to read, write, and do arithmetic.
That alone is sufficient reason to be concerned about this sort of garbage sneaking into the classroom.
Besides, once the camel has his head inside the educational tent, what else will he bring in with him:
Numerology to compete with Arithmetic?
homeopathy to compete with aliopathic medicine?
Astrology to compete with Astronomy?
Alchemy to compete with Chemistry?
Ebonics to compete with English?
No thanks; I'd rather keep the camel out of the tent altogether.
I have come to agree with this. This ID business is going to eventually blow up in their faces. Once the fog clears, I dont see it ending any other way.
The biggest problem here is that anti-science agendas are tied to conservatism in the media (and subsequently, public opinion).
Well...
The argument from design is not a theological argument, because we aren't necessarily talking about God. But any rebuttal of the design argument is theological, because it requires us to say "God wouldn't do it this way", and this is not legitimate. (from The Quixotic Message);^)
When it comes to this nonsense, the camels OWN the damn tent!
Seriously, do they even bother to teach math, reading, and writing to grade school kids anymore?
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Hillary's supporters are secretly behind the recent push for creationism in the schools. They'll do anything to discredit conservatism. Although I'd expect Hillary to support this stuff if she had to, my fear is that she doesn't need to spend a dime. The creationism (and ID) movement is a pure gift to her from the anti-science Luddites. The really sad part is that some conservatives get bamboozled by this stuff and mis-identify it with their religion.Good point. The left has lost the main economic argument that is their central article of faith. They need something to cling to. It's easy to imagine them setting up this straw man, or at least supporting it strongly. Anything to discredit true conservatives.
They do where I live. I've never seen a perfect school, but My kids were taught everything they needed for their achievement tests, including the AP exams.
I do believe that slower students may get screwed. Schools tend to expect one teaching method to fit all, and it doesn't.
Here's my rebuttal to ID....
There is no affirmative evidence of a designer. All existing arguments ostensibly FOR ID, are merely arguments AGAINST the existing science of evolution.
ID is nothing less than an attempt to "scientifically" prove the existence of a God/designer. Sorry, science doesn't go there.
That's why they call what you do on Sunday, "faith".
Just as long as it doesn't creep into Monday through Saturday, or require good works.
I'm exaggerating, but here in the NYC area, no educational theory is too hare-brained to try out on elementary school kids.
That's 180 people who usually bathe. If the audience is packed with Luddites, they may have to sit a bit more apart from one another than with the usual audience. As for why have an audience ... well, the entire nature of the cosmos will be decided by reading an applause meter after each round of this "debate."
No argument here ;^)
A rational alternative would be to close the hearings and show them over closed-circuit TV or on a local public-access channel.
I can think of at least 1720 wildly elliptical examples from FR threads that indicate they don't teach it at all anymore....
;-)
An even more rational alternative would be to sell pies at the door, and let the audience throw the pies at the debaters. And invite Don King to bid for the exclusive right to sell closed-circuit TV access.
Successful teaching would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
I wonder why Cthulu is represented by an "octopus".. I always pictured a giant Brontosaurus like head with many tentacles and a pair of loong fangs.
I doubt if dems are pushing a creationist agenda to discredit conservatives.. seems a bit far fetched.
Not to mention that it would violate Information Theory! One teacher imparting knowledge to 20 students; where did all that information the twenty students now possess come from? The teacher doesn't know any less than he started, but the 20 students certainly would know more. And since knowledge is information, this situation would represent a decrease in random information in the Universe, which is obviously impossible. Thus, successful teaching is an Informational impossibility.
< /lunatic Luddite Mode>
Once evolution is replaced by creationism, US schools might risk turning into Christian Madarsas.
Once evolution is replaced by creationism, US schools might risk turning into Christian Madarsas.
Once evolution is replaced by creationism, US schools might risk turning into Christian Madarsas.
sorry for the multiple posts
I forgot about information theory. I wonder wher the information came from in the first place. It certaintly seems to be on the increase.
Perhaps. But the point the previous person was making that I was agreeing with is that the creation/ID argument brings such discredit to conservatives, that it's not unreasonable to imagine that leftists would push it... especially given the fact that they're basically on the losing side of just about all other arguments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.