Kansas State Board of Education chairman Steve Abrams (in photo) argues in today’s Eagle that the federal court ruling against intelligent design has nothing to do with Kansas’ science standards. “It is apples and oranges,” he said. “We do not have intelligent design in the standards.”
As we point out in our editorial today, though it is true that the Kansas board didn’t insert ID by name into our standards, the standards open a space for discussion of ID arguments. The board also changed the very definition of science to accommodate ID. And the Scopes-like trial that the board held last spring was run by ID proponents. It’s also clear, from their personal comments and the standards, that state board conservatives were motivated by religion, not mainstream science — as was the Dover, Pa., school board.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
14 Comments
The KS BOE’s arguments for questioning the theory of evolution have been easily refuted by mainstream scientists.
In summarizing these refutations on my blog site, I conclude:
“So, these errors as pointed out by knowledgeable scientists, begs the question, are Steve Abrams and his conservative supporters:a) too stupid and/or ill-informed to do their job? And/Or…b) intent upon pushing a narrow-minded partisan agenda and lying about doing so the whole time?”
Take your pick, I would say. See my URL for the whole entry.
Statement from Steve Case, Co-Chair of the Science Standards Writing Committee Majority
12/21/05
The parallels between Kansas and Dover, Pennsylvania are striking. In Kansas, the State Board of Education ignored their appointed panel of experts who represented a broad cross section of Kansans. Instead, the State Board chose to rely on outside political pressure groups for their information.
Dr. Abrams and Mr. Bacon of the State Board of Education are arguing that Dover does not apply in Kansas because Kansas did not mandate ID teaching; however, the Dover school board did not do that, either.
While the Kansas State Board of Education may argue, as they do in the introduction to the Standards, that they do not introduce the words, “intelligent design” into the Kansas Standards, they did introduce all of the elements of intelligent design that the Dover court used to define ID (as per the Dover Decision below).
(1) Expanding the Nature of Science (supernatural causation);
(2) Adding Irreducible Complexity (Standard 3 Grades 8-12); and
(3) Criticisms of evolution.
It is clear they are playing word games, but their intent is transparent.
It is interesting that U.S District Judge, John E. Jones says in the decision, “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and time again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.” This is exactly what happened in Kansas. Though the creationist BOE members denied any intent to inject creationist ideas into the science standards, they made numerous public statements that confirmed their religious motives, and they ordered a halt to the science standards writing committee’s process.
The verdict in the landmark federal case, which was the first legal challenge to teaching “intelligent design,” is a victory for the 11 parents from Dover, Pennsylvania. Is the State Board of Kansas willing to listen to parents and allow them input into their children’s education?
Steve Case, Ph.D.Co-Chair, Science Standards Writing Committee
Tracy,
Thank you for the information from Dr. Case.
I am becoming more convinced the religion vs. Darwin part of this drama is a red herring. I don’t really think that Steve Abrams nor Connie Morris care very much about enhancing science like they claim. I don’t think they are merely misinformed and misguided. I am beginning to think there is method to their madness.
I think this drama is a blitz aimed at establishing ideological purity and destroying public schools as we know them. In other words this is really a far right political assault rather than Faith vs. Science community battle.
Connie Morris has held far right views about no education funding going to children of illegal immigrants. That plays better in Western Kansas than what I would hope for.
Steve Abrams posts his rants on the far right Kansas Republican Assembly web site.http://www.ks-ra.org/
I am believing that this is a purely political battle and very little anything else. There was an old poster, Proudman (I think his name was), who made this argument long ago. I scoffed at him then, but I think he may have been right.
It is too bad that our State’s reputation and childrens’ education are going down the tubes in service to the political ambitions a few loonies. Very sad, indeed.
You are welcome, and be sure to vote in the next Kansas Board of Evangelism election!
Will somebody please define “Intelligent design” without using the words evolution or creation or, for that matter, science standards? Forget who coined the term — that shouldn’t matter. A simple definition is needed that all sides can agree on before trying to pigeonhole the term. So, who’s going to step up? Lets hear it.
Steven, I expect Abrams’ website rants will come back to haunt him. Don’t these people realize the things they say outside of the meetings will be judicially–and politically–relevant? (I guess I shouldn’t give them any ideas, but somehow I’m not too concerned about that!).
Jwink, the idea goes that “life” as in the make up of and the construction of is so complex. That is could not have happened by accident. That certain things work so well that they had to been designed by someone. That they are either by fluke or foresight made to work that way. Cells, the repoduction system, etc. work well for their purpose. As such it could not have happened by just a random occurence. Believers of true intelligent design ( Yes there are those that are not saying it was the bible God)basic their believe in math and random sequining to support their claims. Those can not find evidence other then on paper that it is true. Otherwise, “I can not figure out how it happened so someone must have done it!”.
I got that concept from the only true I.D. site I could find. The others were bible based.
Rage, I don’t think he cares any more than BillO and Rush. (What a great name for a drug addict)
Steven E. Thanks for the link.You know the guy was making pretty good sense to start with, but turned into into a rant that basically lashed out at the MAJORITY of Kansans, including parents of school kids, superintendants statewide, well pretty much everybody that doesn’t agree with him.AND… the pornography statement is an embarassment to the WHOLE STATE. I’ve seen his list of ‘porno’ in schools, and it’s laughable. Every book available through public schools has already been viewed, reviewed and approved by caring, moral people with our kids best interest in mind. The way he puts it, you would think Hustler and Juggs magazines are there to be checked out in the school library!! Yeah, I’m wakin’ up to what’s really goin’ on.Scary, ain’t it?
Jwink you really can’t define ID, because as the judge in Dover put so well, when it comes right down to it we’re talking about God.
God IS the definition of ‘undefinable’.
A good article from Reuters:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051222/pl_nm/science_evolution_dc_Evolution named 2005’s top scientific breakthrough_
If anyone wants to read some very interesting articles on evolution and ID check out the current Sceptical Inquier or New Scientist (about 3 weeks ago). They both had very well writen special reports on the subject. You may be able to find them on the web sites, definately worth the time to read.
…”motivated by religion, not mainstream science”…
How do you unpack that? I wonder who can give us a definition of “mainstream science”. Is that like a democratic concept? IE, if 80% of scientists agree to something, then it is appropriate fare for the students of the state? Or do Richard Dawkins’ personal metaphysical views come under scrutiny when he comments on questions of origin? Why is it that “religious motivation”, whatever that is, comes under such tight scrutiny, but “mainstream science”, which is grounded in certain metaphysical assumptions vis a vis the question of origins gets a clean pass as being educationally sound?
I think Steve’s picture underlines the need to cut the fat out of government.