PvM posted Entry 2076 on March 1, 2006 02:35 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2071

We, the undersigned faculty and professional staff of Kansas State University science departments, express our continued commitment to maintaining the highest quality science education for the children of USD 383 and Kansas. We are also concerned about the negative impact the Science Standards recently passed by the Kansas State Board of Education will have on our children, our community, and Kansas State University. We are especially concerned about the continued high quality of science teaching, and the continuing recruitment efforts to bring talented workers and educators to our community. We ask that you adopt the following resolution:

USD 383 endorses the following definition of science developed by the Kansas Science Education Standards Revision Committee on March 9, 2005, a definition consistent with that of all major professional science organizations in this country:

Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us. Throughout history people from many cultures have used the methods of science to contribute to scientific knowledge and technological innovations, making science a worldwide enterprise. Scientists test explanations against the natural world, logically integrating observations and tested hypotheses with accepted explanations to gradually build more reliable and accurate understandings of nature. Scientific explanations must be testable and repeatable, and findings must be confirmed through additional observation and experimentation. As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 27st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural) causes.

The Science Standards that use this definition will be used in science curricula in all appropriate USD 383 K-12 science courses.

USD 383 does not support the redefinition of science included in the Science Standards passed by the Kansas State Board of Education on November 8, 2005; this document changed the definition of science to allow non-natural (including supernatural) explanations of natural phenomena.

The reasons we urge you not to support the Science Standards passed by the Kansas State School Board that redefine science include the following:

1. Adoption of these standards will diminish the quality of science teaching in USD 383 and disadvantage our children relative to their peers in states that adhere to the standard practice of science.

2. The Kansas State Board of Education standards have created enormous negative publicity, which threatens to compromise K-State and local business efforts to recruit and retain highly qualified professionals to the district.

3. The Kansas State Board of Education standards singled out evolution for criticism while excluding other scientific theories from such criticism. We think this is unfair and suggests there may be ulterior motives at work, such as the introduction of a particular religious viewpoint into the curriculum. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, a federal district judge has
ruled actions such as this to be unconstitutional.

4. There is clear concern in all quarters that U.S students are falling farther and farther behind worldwide norms. It is highly predictable that students from other countries will gain even more on U.S. students, as measured by achievement, if we accept the modified definition of science recently adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education.

5. The changes made to the science standards are based on the utterly false belief that evolutionary science, and the scientific method itself, is based on an atheistic philosophy. Promoting this false conflict between science and faith erects unnecessary barriers to student learning, discourages many students from pursuing careers in the sciences, and perpetuates public misunderstandings of the nature and conclusions of science.

Signed,

Michael Herman
Associate Professor
Biology

Gary W. Conrad
University Distinguished Professor
Biology

Walter Dodds
Professor
Biology

Carolyn Ferguson
Assistant Professor
Biology

Anthony Jeorn
Professor
Biology

Loretta Johnson
Associate Professor
Biology

A. Lorena Passarelli
Assistant Professor
Biology

A. Spencer Tomb
Associate Professor
Biology

Mark Ungerer
Assistant Professor
Biology

John Staver
Professor
Education
Center for Science Education

Ruth Douglas Miller
Associate Professor
Electrical and Computer Engineering

Keith B. Miller
Research Assistant Professor
Geology

Bruce Glymour
Associate Professor
Philosophy
Director, Center for Origins

Timothy Bolton
Professor
Physics

Bharat Ratra
Professor
Physics

Michel D. Ransom
Professor
Agronomy
Assistant Head for Teaching

Charles W. Rice
Professor
Agronomy

James P. Shroyer
Professor
Agronomy

John Tatarko
Adjunct Professor
Agronomy

Paul White
Research Assistant
Agronomy

Kimberly Kramer
Assistant Professor
Architectural Engineering and Construction
Science

Larry Davis
Professor
Biochemistry

Michael Kanost
University Distinguished Professor and
Mead
Biochemistry

Karl Kramer
Adjunct Professor Emeritus
Biochemistry

S. Muthukrishnan
Professor
Biochemistry

Thomas Roche
Professor
Biochemistry

Qize Wei
Assistant Professor
Biochemistry

Anna Zolkiewska
Associate Professor
Biochemistry

Michal Zolkiewski
Associate Professor
Biochemistry

James K. Koelliker
Professor
Biological and Agricultural Engineering

Kyle R. Mankin
Associate Professor
Biological and Agricultural Engineering

Kasutra Asano
Assistant Professor
Biology

Susan Brown
Associate Professor
Biology

Stephen K Chapes
Professor
Biology

Rollie Clem
Associate Professor
Biology

Abigail Conrad
Research Professor
Biology

Jack Cully
Associate Professor
Biology

Robin Denell
University Distinguished Professor
Biology
Director, Johnson Center for Basic Cancer
Research

Keith Gido
Assistant Professor
Biology

Lynn Hancock
Assistant Professor
Biology

David C. Hartnett
University Distinguished Professor
Biology

Helmut Hirt
Assistant Professor
Biology

Eva Horne
Research Assistant Professor
Biology

Ari Jumpponen
Assistant Professor
Biology

Donald Kaufman
Professor
Biology

George Marchin
Associate Professor
Biology

Mark Mayfield
Research Assistant Professor
Biology

Beth Montelone
Professor
Biology
Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

David Rintoul
Associate Professor
Biology

Robert J. Robel
Professor Emeritus
Biology

Judith Sabah
Research Associate
Biology

Jyoti Shah
Associate Professor
Biology

Brian Spooner
University Distinguished Professor
Biology
Director

Chris Thorpe
Assistant Professor
Biology

Larry Williams
Associate Professor
Biology
Associate Director for Undergraduate
Education

Gail Wilson
Research Assistant Professor
Biology

Samantha M. Wisely
Assistant Professor
Biology

Peter P. Wong
Professor
Biology

Larry A. Glasgow
Professor
Chemical Engineering

Keith Hohn
Associate Professor
Chemical Engineering

Peter H. Pfromm
Associate Professor
Chemical Engineering

Mary Rezac
Professor and Head
Chemical Engineering

Christer B. Aakeroy
Associate Professor
Chemistry

Stefan H. Bossmann
Professor
Chemistry

Daniel A. Higgins
Associate Professor
Chemistry

Duy H. Hua
Professor
Chemistry

Ryszard Jankowiak
Professor
Chemistry

Kenneth J. Klabunde
University Distinguished Professor
Chemistry

Christopher J. Levy
Assistant Professor
Chemistry

Eric A. Maatta
Professor and Head
Chemistry

Maria K. Paukstelis
Instructor
Chemistry

Sundeep Rayat
Assistant Professor
Chemistry

Lou Wojcinski
Instructor
Chemistry

Maarten van Swaay
Professor Emeritus
Computing and Information Sciences

Alley Stoughton
Associate Professor
Computing and Information Sciences

Luba Roitman
Application Developer
Continuing Education

Larry Scharrnann
Professor
Education

Richard Beeman
Adjunct Professor
Entomology
Research Entomologist, USDA-ARS

Ming-Shun Chen
Adjunct Associate Professor
Entomology
Research Scientist USDA-ARS

J.P. Michaud
Assistant Professor
Entomology

James Nechols
Professor and Interim Head
Entomology

Brenda Oppert
Adjunct Assistant Professor
Entomology
Research Molecular Biologist- USDA-ARS

John Reese
Professor
Entomology

Susan Romero
Research Associate
Entomology

Greg Zolnerowich
Assistant Professor
Entomology

Ludek Zurek
Assistant Professor
Entomology

George Clark
Professor
Geology

Robert Cullers
Professor
Geology

Mary Hubbard
Professor and Head
Geology

Kirsten Nicolaysen
Assistant Professor
Geology

Jack Oviatt
Professor
Geology

Iris Totten
Assistant Professor
Geology

Matf Totten
Associate Professor
Geology

Ron West
Professor
Geology

Bradford W. Seabourn
Research Chemist and Adjunct Professor
Grain Science

Paul Seib
Professor
Grain Science

Feng Xie
Research Associate
Grain Science

Zhikai Zhong
Research Associate
Grain Science

Chen-Yen Cochrane
Research Associate Professor
Human Nutrition

Margaret J. Rys
Associate Professor
Industrial and Manufacturing Systems
Engineering

Tom Barstow
Professor
Kinesiology

David Dzewaltowski
Professor
Kinesiology

Craig Harms
Associate Professor
Kinesiology

David C. Poole
Professor
Kinesiology
Anatomy and Physiology

Stewart Trost
Associate Professor
Kinesiology

Maria Angeles Alfonseca
Assistant Professor
Mathematics

David Auckly
Professor
Mathematics

Andrew Bennett
Professor
Mathematics

Robert Burckel
Professor
Mathematics

Todd Cochrane
Professor
Mathematics

Marianne Korten
Assistant Professor
Mathematics

Zongzhu Lin
Professor
Mathematics

Genevra Neumann
Instructor
Mathematics

Michael Roitman
Assistant Professor
Mathematics

Yan Soileiman
Professor
Mathematics

William L. Stamey
Professor Emeritus
Mathematics
Former Dean of Arts and Sciences

Huanan Yang
Associate Professor
Mathematics

Kevin Carnes
Associate Research Professor
Physics

C. Lewis Cocke
University Distinguished Professor
Physics

Brett DePaola
Professor
Physics

Glenn Horton-Smith
Assistant Professor
Physics

Hongxing Jiang
University Distinguished Professor
Physics

Tina Kahniashvili
Associate Research Professor
Physics

Jingyu Lin
Professor
Physics

lgor Litvinyuk
Assistant Professor
Physics

Yurii Maravin
Assistant Professor
Physics

Michael O’Shea
Professor
Physics

Carol Regehr
Assistant Scientist
Physics

Pat Richard
University Distinguished Professor
Physics

Chris Sorensen
Professor
Physics

Uwe Thumm
Professor
Physics

Larry Weaver
Professor
Physics

Dean Zollman
University Distinguished Professor and
Head
Physics

Robert Bowden
Adjunct Professor
Plant Pathology

Bernd Friebe
Research Professor
Plant Pathology

Bikram Gill
University Distinguished Professor
Plant Pathology
Director, Wheat Genetics Resource Center

Scot Hulbert
Professor and interim Head
Plant Pathology

Doug Jardine
Professor
Plant Pathology

Judy O’Mara
Plant Pathology
Instructor

Xiaoyan Tang
Associate Professor
Plant Pathology

John E. Boyer
Professor and Head
Statistics

Suzanne R. Dubnicka
Assistant Professor
Statistics

Paul St. Amand
Research Geneticist
USDA Agricultural Research Service

Rachel Allbaugh
Ophthalmology Resident
Veterinary Medicine

James Carpenter
Professor
Veterinary Medicine
Clinical Sciences

Lisa Freeman
Professor
Veterinary Medicine
Associate Dean for Research and Graduate
Programs

George Kennedy
Professor Emeritus
Veterinary Medicine

Donald C. Robertson
Professor
Veterinary Medicine
Diagnostic Medicine

Chris R Ross
Professor
Veterinary Medicine
Anatomy and Physiology

Masaaki Tamura
Associate Professor
Veterinary Medicine
Anatomy and Physiology

Mark L. Weiss
Professor
Veterinary Medicine
Anatomy and Physiology
Associate Director, Terry C. Johnson Center for Basic Cancer Research

Kimberly D. Douglas
Director Women in Engineering & Science

John Blair
Professor
Biology

Brad Logan
Research Associate Professor
Sociology, Anthropology & Social Work

Donna C. Roper
Research Associate Professor
Sociology, Anthropology & Social Work

Timothy H. Parker
Research Assistant Professor
Biology

George Strecker
Professor
Mathematics

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #82833

Posted by csadams on March 1, 2006 7:09 AM (e)

Manhattan, KS, is one of the largest cities in KS state board of education member Kathy Martin’s district.

Kudos to USD 383!!

Comment #82839

Posted by JONBOY on March 1, 2006 8:19 AM (e)

csadams post,Some of Kathy Martins are worth highlighting

Martin said, “Evolution has been proven false. ID is science-based and strong in facts.”

While Martin was unable to provide examples of scientific facts that
back up Intelligent Design Theory, she did explain that ID believes in micro evolution,” but not “macro evolution.”

Some scientists claim that ID is thinly disguised creationism with a
hidden Christian agenda at its root. Martin agrees that the agenda is
not well disguised.

“Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation,” said
Martin. “Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don’t
often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard,”
said Martin.
Some scientists claim that ID is thinly disguised creationism with a
hidden Christian agenda at its root. Martin agrees that the agenda is
not well disguised.

“Of course this is a Christian agenda. We are a Christian Nation,” said
Martin. “Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don’t
often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard,”
said Martin.Most high school students don’t care where they came from. They are
more worried about where they are going on Saturday night,” said Martin.
Lenny will have a great time with that

Comment #82841

Posted by JONBOY on March 1, 2006 8:21 AM (e)

Sorry for the double post

Comment #82847

Posted by Don on March 1, 2006 8:56 AM (e)

I just think it’s funny that there are about 150 signatures of actual scientists on just this one single letter from this one single school in a district of Kansas. This slightly obliterates the pace of the Disco Institute’s Dissent from “Darwinism”, who claim that in 5 years, worldwide, they’ve accumulated about 150 biologists and lesser amounts each of chemists and physicists. And I thought Project Steve was illuminating.

Comment #82855

Posted by Doc Bill on March 1, 2006 9:36 AM (e)

And, all of the signers of the KSU letter are alive!

Double Bonus Score!

Comment #82858

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 1, 2006 9:42 AM (e)

It’s people like Kathy Martin that make me think that representative government based on popularity contests is fundamentally nuts.

Comment #82859

Posted by Raging Bee on March 1, 2006 9:43 AM (e)

“Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don’t often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard…”

Typical Christofascist double-talk: “We’re the majority, but we’re also a persecuted minority and we have to speak up against all the bad people who are oppressing us!”

How these crybabies get to call themselves God’s children is beyond me.

Comment #82861

Posted by wamba on March 1, 2006 9:48 AM (e)

Ha! Apparently not one single member of the Phys-Ed department has signed on to this letter. Teach the controversy!

Comment #82862

Posted by AD on March 1, 2006 9:50 AM (e)

Silencing the irrevocably stupid is not oppression, it’s public service.

It’s people like Kathy Martin that make me think that representative government based on popularity contests is fundamentally nuts.

Was the use of “fundamentally” a deliberate pun there? Or do I just over-think these things?

Either way, I think Kansas, should they not repeal such standards, is leaving the same kind of wildly religious paper trail that slaughtered the ID crowd in Dover. It seems the decision is almost already made…

Comment #82871

Posted by Mr Christopher on March 1, 2006 10:24 AM (e)

In an email Kathy Martin scolded me for “mocking god” once. I should have kept a copy. She’s a full mooner to be sure.

Comment #82878

Posted by normdoering on March 1, 2006 10:37 AM (e)

Rilke’s Granddaughter wrote:

It’s people like Kathy Martin that make me think that representative government based on popularity contests is fundamentally nuts.

True, but do you know a better system?

The only reason democratic representative government is fundamentally nuts is because human beings are fundamentally delusional.

Seeing as we’re not out to change the system of government, (at least I hope you aren’t) we have to learn to work within it. ID is a case of shrewd marketing and the recasting of a religious belief as science. In the end court cases will not win the war – we have to reach the whole monkey mass and change millions of minds.

Scientists are going to have to start marketing their ideas. And I see hope for a real interest in science movies after seeing how well “March of the Penguins” did at the box office. Though I wonder, if the word “evolution” had been inserted into the film, would it’s box-office have dropped?

I wish they would follow up “March of the Penguins” with a sequel called “Evolution of the Penguins.”

Comment #82880

Posted by Stephen Elliott on March 1, 2006 10:38 AM (e)

Posted by Mr Christopher on March 1, 2006 10:24 AM (e)

In an email Kathy Martin scolded me for “mocking god” once. I should have kept a copy. She’s a full mooner to be sure.

I remember you posting that. Either in whole or on part. IIRC it was on a thread about the FSM.

You posted replies from board members saying how funny and original most writers had been, while she said, “mocking God is a sin” or words to that effect.

Anyhoo, my point is that you may be able to find it in the archives.

Comment #82885

Posted by Dizzy on March 1, 2006 10:49 AM (e)

Maybe Martin and her fellows are from the distant future, when major discoveries about the origin of life produce irrefutable proof of the non-existence of God, and the resulting collapse of major governments precipitates a nuclear holocaust that wipes out 99.9% of the human race and leads to the rise of giant flesh-eating squirrels, so their efforts to come back in time and undermine biology and science are a last, desperate attempt to save humankind from near-extinction!

Or maybe they’re just hyper-religious wackos.

Does Occam’s Razor apply to explanations for social behavior?

Comment #82892

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 1, 2006 11:30 AM (e)

True, but do you know a better system?

The only reason democratic representative government is fundamentally nuts is because human beings are fundamentally delusional.

Government by elected representatives is predicated on the existence of a reasonably informed and intelligent electorate. If no such electorate exists (and I’d argue that the push towards universal sufferage that began in the nineteenth century made that inevitable), then perhaps we seriously ought to rethink how we create a government.

Seeing as we’re not out to change the system of government, (at least I hope you aren’t) we have to learn to work within it. ID is a case of shrewd marketing and the recasting of a religious belief as science. In the end court cases will not win the war — we have to reach the whole monkey mass and change millions of minds.

And this is what causes me to be a closet monarchist - we have no hope whatever of changing millions of minds. Worse yet, under our current system, we don’t have the right to change their minds. People in America (and most other places) possess the God-given, inalienable right to be stupid as bricks (e.g. Larry, Carol, and David: see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil). Given that people aren’t generally interested in being educated; given that they really don’t care what’s going on, why should we include them as part of the electorate? I’d argue that we do so out of ‘moral’ fairness, not rationality.

But then, I’m a flagrant and unreconstituted elitist: I don’t believe that all men (and women) are created equal. And to predicate a governmental system on that demonstrably false idea is… well, nuts.

Comment #82904

Posted by CJ O'Brien on March 1, 2006 11:58 AM (e)

I’m a flagrant and unreconstituted elitist: I don’t believe that all men (and women) are created equal. And to predicate a governmental system on that demonstrably false idea is… well, nuts.

erm, not to derail…
But, isn’t this just begging the question, in that I don’t think anyone believes it, in a strong sense, i.e. it’s clear that not everyone has the same abilities.

The point of operating on egalitarian principles, based on a “false idea” though they may be, is who gets to decide who is “more equal than others?”

You? I’m sure you’re a well-intentioned elitist, but we’ve heard that before. No thanks.

Comment #82905

Posted by AD on March 1, 2006 11:59 AM (e)

There is a very significant upside to democracy; when you have a large group of idiots in conflict with themselves, they often manage to accomplish nothing particularly bad, because there is no consensus on which idiotically bad thing they should be doing.

That barrier is removed with monarchic systems of government. Plato’s Republic is perfectly useful in an ideal world, but we do not live in an ideal world. There is no way to distinguish the philosopher king, so to speak.

I’m all for gridlock through stupidity. It sure beats efficient oppression by an organized elite.

Just remember: Democracy is a terrible form of governemt, but we use it because it’s still better than everything else we’ve come up with.

Comment #82909

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 1, 2006 12:04 PM (e)

I’m all for gridlock through stupidity. It sure beats efficient oppression by an organized elite.

Just remember: Democracy is a terrible form of governemt, but we use it because it’s still better than everything else we’ve come up with.

So your argument is that Democracy is good because it’s bad? %:->

Comment #82912

Posted by Dizzy on March 1, 2006 12:16 PM (e)

I think he’s arguing that it’s good because it’s relatively difficult to make sweeping changes to the status quo without almost universal agreement.

Compare to dictatorship or monarchy where someone can immediately decree that all brown-haired people must be neutered/spayed.

The problem is that an individual with a good grasp of events and facts about how policies will affect them has as much voting power as someone who lives in a cave. And the fact that people are elected based not on their actual ability to lead or govern, but on how they present themselves to the public (via sound bites, TV, advertisements).

Comment #82913

Posted by wamba on March 1, 2006 12:18 PM (e)

Government by elected representatives is predicated on the existence of a reasonably informed and intelligent electorate.

Well, they seem to be reasonably informed about prime time animation:
Study: Few Americans Know 1st Amendment

CHICAGO - Americans apparently know more about “The Simpsons” than they do about the First Amendment.

Only one in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half can name at least two members of the cartoon family, according to a survey….

Comment #82915

Posted by AD on March 1, 2006 12:23 PM (e)

So your argument is that Democracy is good because it’s bad? %:->

No, I said terrible, in fact!

I’m arguing it’s good, however, because it is LESS terrible than everything else. Dizzy hit the nail on the head - the primary benefit of a democratic system is that it makes it very hard to efficiently do anything highly negative. We’d actually have to pass an ammendment through congress and the senate, then have it ratified by a super-majority of states, and then signed into law by a president to start doing something like putting all people with “e” in their name to death. In a monarchy, you could just order it.

Find me a system that is better in practice (which is different than in principle - I don’t care how government works in some ideal world, I care how it works in this one), and I’ll support it.

Comment #82916

Posted by Henry J on March 1, 2006 12:23 PM (e)

Re “As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 27st century,”

27st?

Comment #82917

Posted by Dizzy on March 1, 2006 12:24 PM (e)

Haha. You know, back in 17th-century China when the printing press started being put into widespread use, the vast majority of literate people were interested primarily in pornographic literature. So a Confucian scholar decided to write an erotic novel (“The Carnal Prayer Mat”) embedded with moral lessons in order to reach the masses.

Maybe they should start doing that with the Simpsons and CSI…

Comment #82942

Posted by AC on March 1, 2006 1:46 PM (e)

I can’t help but hear the subtext of Ms. Martin’s comment:

“Most high school students don’t care where they came from, nor should they; just read Genesis and shut up. They are more worried about where they are going on Saturday night, which of course is not to have ignorant, unprotected sex, since we have done our jobs as good Christian parents so well.”

Or perhaps I have become too cynical.

Comment #82950

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 1, 2006 2:23 PM (e)

I’m arguing it’s good, however, because it is LESS terrible than everything else. Dizzy hit the nail on the head - the primary benefit of a democratic system is that it makes it very hard to efficiently do anything highly negative. We’d actually have to pass an amendment through congress and the senate, then have it ratified by a super-majority of states, and then signed into law by a president to start doing something like putting all people with “e” in their name to death. In a monarchy, you could just order it.

So only a monarch could unilaterally order torture, suspension of habeaus corpus, and warrant-less wire-tapping? Did I miss something?

Comment #82952

Posted by Dizzy on March 1, 2006 2:26 PM (e)

So only a monarch could unilaterally order torture, suspension of habeaus corpus, and warrant-less wire-tapping?

Yep! I mean…er…hmm.

Comment #82983

Posted by AD on March 1, 2006 4:42 PM (e)

So only a monarch could unilaterally order torture, suspension of habeaus corpus, and warrant-less wire-tapping? Did I miss something?

Only the demolishing of the checks and balances that define our democratic form of government so that we are, in fact, moving closer and closer to the monarchic ideal.

Well, we modeled our government after the romans in part. I suppose it should come as no surprise we flirt with the Empire idea either.

Comment #82986

Posted by Andy H. on March 1, 2006 5:13 PM (e)

Wow – look at all the physicists, engineers, mathematicians, etc., who signed the letter — all experts, no doubt, in evolutionary biology.

A layperson who accepts Darwinism is considered qualified to have an opinion about it, otherwise not.

Having a Ph.D. in a technical field that is unrelated to the origin of species is no evidence that one knows anything at all about the controversy. Of course, this applies to signers of anti-Darwinism letters as well as signers of pro-Darwinism letters, but I presume that the signers of the anti-Darwinism letters tend to have given the issue more thought because they are taking a position that is considered to be unorthodox in the scientific community.

Defining science as limited to natural explanations does not prevent scientists from admitting that there is no reasonable natural explanation for a particular natural phenomenon, e.g., the origin of species.

The letter has the usual phony scare predictions that the new state standards will hurt the state’s technological competitiveness and result in discrimination against the state and state residents.

Comment #82990

Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 1, 2006 5:45 PM (e)

Larry. you haven’t answered the questions:

1. Are you aware that posting in violation of rule 6 makes you look like an idiot?

2. Given that you have no credentials, experience, or study on any of these topics, why should we take anything you say seriously?

Comment #83012

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 1, 2006 7:43 PM (e)

In an email Kathy Martin scolded me for “mocking god” once.

I’ve emailed her twice. Both times, my message consisted of a single word. In December, it was:

“Dover”.

And a few weeks ago, it was:

“Ohio”.

Never heard back from her.

Comment #83014

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 1, 2006 7:45 PM (e)

Shut up, Larry.

Comment #83018

Posted by B. Spitzer on March 1, 2006 8:33 PM (e)

I’m surprised that nobody’s quoted Winston Churchill:

“Democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the others.”

Comment #83071

Posted by Paul Flocken on March 1, 2006 11:55 PM (e)

Comment #82859 Posted by Raging Bee on March 1, 2006 09:43 AM

Quoted from above:
“Our country is made up of Christian conservatives. We don’t often speak up but we need to stand up and let our voices be heard…”

Typical Christofascist double-talk: “We’re the majority, but we’re also a persecuted minority and we have to speak up against all the bad people who are oppressing us!”

How these crybabies get to call themselves God’s children is beyond me.

Comment #82862 Posted by AD on March 1, 2006 09:50 AM

Silencing the irrevocably stupid is not oppression, it’s public service.

But, RB and AD, aren’t we supposed to remember that we must always be polite and not offend the people on the opposite side of the debate with unnecessarily hostile, inflammatory language. Especially, RB, about their religion. Isn’t that right?

Comment #83186

Posted by AD on March 2, 2006 9:56 AM (e)

I do not necessarily advocate being polite or nice in all circumstances. I would go so far as to say that there are times when it is, in fact, counterproductive to do so.

However, what I do advocate is being impolite and not so nice to the correct target. Personally, I find it frustrating when I hear things like “most Christians” or “most scientists” or “most Darwinists” being thrown around, because it’s a giant, giant red flag that someone is rolling out a biased and unrealistic stereotype, then blasting a bunch of people who are entirely innocent as a result of their choice of language.

I think irrevocably stupid is a pretty clear target - I am specifically referring to, in this case, any group which is willfully ignorant, deliberately obstructive, and incapable of changing their beliefs based on those pesky things called facts.

I would cite Larry “Legion” as an example.

Comment #83298

Posted by Raging Bee on March 2, 2006 3:06 PM (e)

Larry: given your demonstrated — and often admitted — lack of knowledge of the subjects of which you speak; given your constant refusal to answer questions regarding your motives and dishonest use of multiple names; given your blatant repetition of arguments that have been refuted several times before; given your explicitly-stated disregard for all facts and logic that contradict your assertions; given the mockery you now consistently attract; and given your now-obvious reputation as a lonely pathetic dishonest cranky loser; I have to ask the following questions:

Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?

What makes you think you can convince anyone of anything here?

What makes you think your assertions have any credibility?

Comment #83410

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 2, 2006 9:14 PM (e)

not offend the people on the opposite side of the debate

Um, no — that would be “on the SAME side of the debate”.

Unless you are debating something different than the rest of us are . . ?

Comment #83411

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on March 2, 2006 9:16 PM (e)

Dudes, Larry (or whatever his name is this week) is a parasite. A tapeworm.

So why offer him your intestines? Let him find his nourishing sh*t somewhere else. (shrug)