Here’s a relevant pre-sponse from Richard Dawkins, “Why I Won’t Debate Creationists”:http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

I agree with his suggestion that the case for evolution be entrusted to “a local undergraduate majoring in biology.” Otherwise, these people get undeserved credibility. They desperately want their position to regarded as of equal validity!

Scientific heavy-hitters should definitely weigh in when government bodies are pondering doing something stupid–and they have (how many more scientists, how many more scientific organizations, how many more Nobel laureates, need to speak up about this?–I mean, geez!). But participating in the slanted show trial would have only been propaganda for their side. Schrock is wrong.

Okay, good, I’ll remember that.

Fact:

The school board members ran on an agenda. Kansans in six districts voted them in.

Fact:

They had a hearing on the science standards. The ’scientists’ boycotted the hearings.

Fact:

Unlike aguing their point in the media, both sides were to be heard at the hearings. The scientists chose to fight in a friendlier more biased arena.

Fact:

No matter which side you are on, the new science standards are what the people of Kansas deserve. Maybe not what they want, but what they deserve.

Fact:

The liberals lost at the ballot box. They were a no-show at the hearings. They are only winning in the editorial room of the WE, which isn’t much of a victory!

The answer is very often, “Not really.” Imagine the confusions if curricula are changed every year. Also, by this argument, we need a system to decide how the votes are weighted, one person each, or based on the tax paid. Also, this would mean that the old segregation would have been practised, since it had been the prevailing sentiment of the populace (at that moment). This sentiment could have been passed on to students in school, thus perpetuating the idea.

So, in the interest of educating the children, schools often must present materials that may unsettle some constituents.

Like what Rush Limbaugh wishes he had these days, what with Bush down to 34 percent approval–HALF of Clinton’s when he was getting impeached.

“To say that all life sprang from one chance gathering of molecules requires such faith as to be a religion.” Actually, Darwinism doesn’t have that much to say about the BEGINNING of life–he was only talking about the progression of it once it started.

Also, one of the laws of thermodynamics does claim that order inexorably becomes more chaotic, BUT ONLY IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.

The earth is not a closed system because of the tremendous energy we receive everyday from the sun (and to a much lesser extent from geothermal and tidal energy).

The fetal record clearly shows evolution at work–the lizard brain first develops, then the mammel brain, and finally the distinctively human brain.

The fossil record shows evolution.

The genetic record–that Darwin had no idea of when he postulated his theory–fits perfectly with evolution.

The scientists don’t need a public debate because they don’t debate in public–they debate in academic journals. And when the ID people come up with something that’s worth considering, the journals will print it.

What drives the reactionaries nuts is that science is one “reality based” community that can’t be spun with swift boats and Fox news.

Sucks to be you.

You disengenuously state:”I finally got curious enough to check the archives and read some of Hank’s stuff. He’s really a lot nicer than I am.

I’ve never argued against evolution from religious standpoint. In fact, I’ve never argued against evolution.”

Come ‘on, Hake/Nathan, you know this claim is B.S. on the face of it. Therefore, anything else following it, is B.S. as well.

Anything you have to say about evolution is B.S. Sorry.

I finally got curious enough to check the archives and read some of Hank’s stuff. He’s really a lot nicer than I am.

I’ve never argued against evolution from religious standpoint. In fact, I’ve never argued against evolution.

This evolution,ID argument is simply; Do the people that pay property taxes and vote have the right to have a say in what is taught in the schools.

Most Kansans don’t believe they have evolved. The conservative school board members have ‘hijacked’ nothing. They ran on their beliefs and the people of Kansas elected them.

The curiculum in schools around the country is decided by politics. Sorry. Vote ‘em out, I don’t care. But if you do argue against me at least try and figure out the point I am making. Don’t assume I am Hank or someone else or assume I don’t even believe in evolution.

And, my God, get a life!

The theory of evolution is observable and testable; we have observed natural selection in action many, many times. We haven’t observed one species transforming into another species because the process is so slow.

But let’s take the “sketchy” fossil record and see how we’ve applied the scientific method to it, in very, very simplified terms.Well after the publication of the origins of species, scientists thought “Ok, IF Darwin had the right idea and there are evolutionary transitions that create new species from old ones, THEN there should be fossils that look like this, in that layer of rock approximately x years old”.Well, they’ve found fossils of transitional forms that SUPPORT this hypothesis. Have they PROVEN evolution? No, they just see that things make sense when using this viewpoint, and can predict what types of transitional fossils should exist.

They can also use the Darwinian viewpoint to explain similarites between different species on different parts of the continent.

You can’t form educated hypothesis and expected results using an ID viewpoint. So to lump them together in the same category under “theories” is ludicrous.

But enough…why is all of this an affront to God? I can’t think of a more brilliant design.Happy Thanksgiving!

And there you have it.

I read the damn standards.

Supernatural explanations won’t be able to be based on the scientific method. It’s impossible, because supernatural explanations aren’t observable, testable or falsifiable.

So, Sam, if explanations have to be based on the “scientific rules of testing”, then ID or creationism won’t be mentioned in the classroom. It’s not even an issue.

So WHY change the standards in the first place? WHY WHY WHY???? Why replace those words “natural explanations” with “logical” and “more adequate explanations”?

Right now, the standards aren’t too scary, but they open a door to scary things. Otherwise, why bother reaming our state’s image with this nonsense?