Comment #28944

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 8, 2005 02:21 AM (e) (s)

From Thoughts From Kansas

She pointed out that there are two theories of chemical bonding taught in chem classes, so why not teach creationism?

Refresh my memory: is it ionic bonds or covalent bonds that are bogus supernatural garbage?

Seriously, I remember it was in my public high school chemistry class that I discovered a whole stack of Skeptical Inquirer magazines.  I’d never seen the magazine before.  I also had no idea that human beings existed who made weirdo fake “scientific” arguments to justify Noah’s Ark and other Bible stories.  I also remember feeling sorry for those human beings because the drubbing they got in the Skeptical Inquirer was a serious one.  That was a long long time ago but if you look at the “scientific advances” made by creationists since then, it might as well have been an ten minutes ago.

Comment #28965

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 8, 2005 09:38 AM (e) (s)

Yes - my jaw dropped a bit at Bryson’s remark.  My first thought was “What two “theories?”  Then I realized that she probably meant two kinds of bonds, and that she was equating that to teaching evolution and ID as two “theories.”

Mind boggling.  Another example of scientific vandalism - throwing a brick through a window and in one fell swoop making a mess that would take hours to clean up.* (*Credit to my friend Bob Hagen for this excellent metaphor.)

Of course Pedro was not going to take time to cross-exam that stupid remark, but now it was on the record and in the minds of the Board subcommittee and the ID supporters in the audience.

There were literally dozens of such moments in the hearings.  I encourage Panda Thumbers to listen to the hearings, found at www.audible.com, and supply other such examples as well as more general reflections.  I will be helping Pedro prepare his final summation this week and we may find a good use for gems like this.

Comment #28970

Posted by D.B. Light on May 8, 2005 10:13 AM (e) (s)

One of the best blogs covering this controversy and the broader issues it raises is Pandasthumb [a reference to an excellent essay by the late Stephen Jay Gould]. It presents the intelligent design controversy from the perspective of scientific authority. Read it here.

Comment #28972

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 10:37 AM (e) (s)

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

We should all chip in and buy Pedro dinner afterwards. I would not be able to endure two weeks of this shit.

Comment #28996

Posted by Bing on May 8, 2005 12:31 PM (e) (s)

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/137/3111/640/DSCN00081.jpg…

She even looks like Dana Carvey’s “Church Lady” character from SNL.

Comment #29019

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 8, 2005 02:59 PM (e) (s)

I thought one of the funniest moments was Wells stating - twice, and very carefully - that he is supported by grant from the DI for which “no goods or services are required” (I wish all my grants were like that!).  Anyway, Wells is certainly fulfilling the grant requirements to the letter - LOL!

Comment #29021

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 8, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)

Actually, I think Bryson may have been referring to valence bond theory vs molecular orbitals theory.  However, if I remember the issue right, she’d be wrong anyway - MOT is just a better theory than VBT, and it explains the nature of certain bonds that VBT can’t cover.  However, VBT is OK for most bonds, and is much simpler, so it is still taught as a useful approximation (much like newtonian mechanics is still perfectly fine for most phenomena, though general relativity is a more encompassing theory).  This really is not a valid example of teaching two competing theories (leaving aside that there is no ID theory to teach anyway, by the ID theorists’ own admission).

Comment #29024

Posted by Ben on May 8, 2005 03:53 PM (e) (s)

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

We should all chip in and buy Pedro dinner afterwards. I would not be able to endure two weeks of this shit.

(Image from the SomethingAwful.com forums)

http://img219.echo.cx/img219/4985/dscn00075yx.jpg…

Comment #29046

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 8, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)

I saw this statement on a CNN Online article:

Intelligent design advocates contend the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power.

I love it.

How much time and money and effort did the ID peddlers spend trying to convince the lay public that intelligent design creationism is not creationism?

All for naught.

I find especially interesting the use of the term “higher”, particularly when — time after time after time — the dissembling promoters of this bogus theory insist that their alleged “theory” says “nothing” about the nature of the designers.

The journalists at CNN apparently understand what the ID peddlers are up to better than the ID peddlers themselves!

Either that, or the ID peddlers are liars and habitual obfuscators and the CNN journalists see right through it.

I remember when a certain ID apologist by the name of DaveScot tried to compare the synthesis of a viral genome to the task of designing and creating all the life forms that ever lived on earth.  And I remember when another ID apologist claimed that he could not rule out the possibility that humans could be the designers.

Humans everywhere will be very excited the day that a giant flying saucer lands on this planet, carrying the mysterious alien beings who designed all the life that ever lived on earth, humans everywhere will be very excited.  I supposed Bill Dembski, Michael Behe, Paul Nelson et al. will be more excited than any of us.  On that day, they will be vindicated. For their sake, we should hope that the aliens don’t also admit to writing to the Bible.

Comment #29049

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 06:00 PM (e) (s)

SomethingAwful is jumping on these guys?

Comment #29050

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 8, 2005 06:19 PM (e) (s)

When are the transcripts of the Kansas Kangaroo Court coming out?  I would like to count how many times the ID witnesses said “I’m not an expert” on crucial topics like human evolution and the age of the earth.

Comment #29053

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 8, 2005 06:42 PM (e) (s)

The transcripts will be a long time coming, I imagine - 3 full days of talk.  I like the idea of dividing up the job of listening to the audio files at www.audible.com, with a checklist of things to look for.

Comment #29054

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)

“How much time and money and effort did the ID peddlers spend trying to convince the lay public that intelligent design creationism is not creationism?”

grrr.  yeah, and part of it was OUR freakin’ money!

Comment #29056

Posted by Charlie Wagner on May 8, 2005 07:13 PM (e) (s)

You’ve got to love this debacle going on in Kansas. Only in America!

Evolutionists and Creationists, fighting it out for the bottom rung on the credibility ladder.

  If H.L. Mencken was alive today, he’d roll over in his grave.

“The history of our race, and each individual’s experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
  Mark Twain (1835 - 1910), Advice to Youth

Comment #29057

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 07:21 PM (e) (s)

… oh and CW rises above the “rabble” on angels wings…

it is too laugh.

Comment #29060

Posted by Charlie Wagner on May 8, 2005 07:49 PM (e) (s)

I’m in a Mencken kind of mood tonight…

“All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it.
I myself deny it.”

“All professional philosophers tend to assume that common sense
means the mental habit of the common man. Nothing could be further
from the mark. The common man is chiefly to be distinguished by his
plentiful *lack* of common sense: he believes things on evidence that
is too scanty, or that distorts the plain facts, or that is full of non
sequiturs. Common sense really involves making full use of *all* the
demonstrable evidence—and of nothing *but* the demonstrable evidence.

“The scientist who yields anything to theology, however slight, is
yielding to ignorance and false pretenses, and as certainly as if he
granted that a horse-hair put into a bottle of water will turn into a
snake.”

God, I LOVE this guy!!

Comment #29061

Posted by Flint on May 8, 2005 07:57 PM (e) (s)

My favorite Mencken is “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” (that quote may not be exact, I see lots of variations)

Mencken for this reason wasn’t much of a fan of elected officials, which he regarded as members of as well as pandering to the least common denominator.

Charlie apparently hasn’t noticed yet that no evolutionists are involved. This is strictly the creationists fighting it out. Real scientists have conceded the bottom rung without argument.

Comment #29064

Posted by Charlie Wagner on May 8, 2005 08:12 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

Charlie apparently hasn’t noticed yet that no evolutionists are involved. This is strictly the creationists fighting it out. Real scientists have conceded the bottom rung without argument.

That’s not exactly true.

Scientists Boycott Kan. Evolution Hearings

By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer Sun May 8, 4:54 PM ET

TOPEKA, Kan. - Scientists have refused to participate in state Board of Education hearings this past week on how the theory of evolution should be treated in public schools, but they haven’t exactly been silent.

About a dozen scientists, most from Kansas universities, spoke each day at news conferences after evolution critics testified before a board subcommittee. They expect to continue speaking out as the hearings wrap up on Thursday.

“They’re in, they do their shtick, and they’re out,” said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. “I’m going to be here, and I’m not going to be quiet. We’ll have the rest of our lives to make our points.”

Comment #29068

Posted by steve on May 8, 2005 08:28 PM (e) (s)

Hey Charlie, do you believe that the medical community is not telling us the truth with regard to cholesterol, blood pressure, and heart disease?

Comment #29069

Posted by Flint on May 8, 2005 08:35 PM (e) (s)

Charlie:

You’re right, scientists are presenting science to anyone who will listen, as they always have.

But perhaps we agree on the underlying point here: Science lost this case at the polls. The people of Kansas, in their electoral wisdom, have selected a school board of creationists because they wish their children to be taught creationism, and by golly that’s what they’re going to get. Certainly I also expect those I elect to at least make the effort to keep their promises.

Ultimately, I expect the US Constitution to trump any introduction of religious doctrine into science classes, so that probably won’t be attempted. But the school board CAN provide a bully pulpit for the celebration of the creationist “worldview”, and they can also make it limpidly clear that any high school science teacher who even THINKS the word “evolution” can kiss any academic career in Kansas goodbye.

At this point, once the foxes rule the henhouse, the hens really lack any workable strategy. They can show up and get misrepresented, they can stay home and get misrepresented, they can try to win some offstage shekels, but those efforts are ignored by the national news media.

I’d like to think that if a few major employers left the state, the voters would think twice, but there is no guarantee of this either. Religious zealotry is not diminished by adversity — if sacrifices aren’t pleasing the gods, make more sacrifices!

Comment #29079

Posted by bill on May 8, 2005 09:05 PM (e) (s)

Many questions.

When is the next election for Kansas state school board?

Will the conservative incumbants see the writing on the wall, or in the burning bush as the case may be, and decline to run?

Will the electorate be fed up enough and remember enough to vote in a sensible board?

Will Kathy Martin eventually read the science standards and have a Come to Darwin moment?

Oh, Kathy, evolve me baby!

…but I digress.

Comment #29082

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 8, 2005 09:15 PM (e) (s)

Listening to the KS day 1 proceedings, and Harris was asked to define “intelligent design”. Harris started out talking about “Darwinism” and then said that “intelligent design” was simply a disagreement with “this view”.

Thank you very much, Dr. Harris. That was very helpful.

Comment #29084

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 09:22 PM (e) (s)

“But perhaps we agree on the underlying point here: Science lost this case at the polls. The people of Kansas, in their electoral wisdom, have selected a school board of creationists because they wish their children to be taught creationism, and by golly that’s what they’re going to get. Certainly I also expect those I elect to at least make the effort to keep their promises.”

idiot.

I guess you forgot that kansas tried this shit before, in 1999.  As soon as they changed the science standards, and folks in kansas actually started paying attention, they were tossed out.

then kansas went back to sleep again, and allowed a new group of dunces to take over the BOE.

once they finish changing the science standards AGAIN, what exactly do you predict will happen?

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess… they’ll get tossed out again.

all the while Kansas keeps taking credibility hits.  one would think the voters would learn a bit and keep sensible folks who can actually read on the BOE.

Comment #29089

Posted by Flint on May 8, 2005 09:49 PM (e) (s)

ST:

Yes, I’m well aware of the Kansas history. The flipflopping we’ve seen in the last three school board elections can be interpreted two ways: Either everyone fell asleep except the fanatics (who never sleep), woke up briefly to toss the bums out, falsely believed they’d put the fire out, and went back to sleep. If you’re right, maybe next time this silent majority will stay awake and the creationists will never again have a prayer (so to speak).

But what I consider the more reasonable interpretation is that the Kansas voters are very closely split between creationists and “take the default and trust the experts” zombies. And this tends to make for very close elections, which can go either way depending on things utterly outside of any creationist platform: public bungling during the campaign, ill (or favorably) timed human interest events (wife/husband diagnosed with cancer, child rescued from dire circumstances, etc.)

You don’t seem to understand that in the mind of the creationist, Kansas is doing the exact opposite of taking a credibility hit. They are leading the inevitable march of God’s soldiers.

I don’t think these PR proceedings are hurting the creationists at all. They don’t care about facts or integrity, they care about publicity and votes. They are getting these. I have very little confidence that the polls showing a small majority of Kansas voters believe in a young earth and the creation of man POOF in current form are far from the reality.

So you can listen to the proceedings and see the creationists making fools of themselves. A creationist hears the same testimony and swoons in delight.

Comment #29091

Posted by jeebus on May 8, 2005 09:53 PM (e) (s)

“…As if he granted that a horse-hair put into a bottle of water will turn into a snake.”

IIRC, Jesus performed this very miracle on a number of occasions… and once while on the cross.

Only a scientist would be so closed-minded as to assume - simply by means of reason - that such an act would be an  impossibility.

Comment #29099

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 10:43 PM (e) (s)

@flint:

“But what I consider the more reasonable interpretation is that the Kansas voters are very closely split between creationists and “take the default and trust the experts” zombies.”

first, I apologize for the vitriol.  I’m a bit nonplussed today, and CW’s original post kinda set me off a bit.

I personally lean towards the idea that even in Kansas, the majority actually don’t want to see changes to the science standards.

hmm.  How difficult would it be to figure out some real world numbers? 

I bet KCSE might have a better idea on this.  Would it be worth pursuing to get a real world answer to the question:

Do most Kansas citizens wish to see the current science standards changed?

after all, the idea that the republicans have a “mandate” because GW got re-elected is certainly arguable.

Comment #29101

Posted by bill on May 8, 2005 11:02 PM (e) (s)

Toejam, old fruit, give me a break!  How many Kansans have a freaking clue what the science standards are, unless they’re teachers?  Until this entire unfortunate brouhaha started, and I so seldom get to use the word brouhaha in a sentence, people in Kansas were opaque to standards.

This is the voting public, Sir T, who can’t find the Atlantic Ocean on a globe if you give them the big hint that it’s the blue bit.

Do Kansans want the standards changed?  Do Kansans know the standards exist?

Oh, hang on, they went through this in 1999.  My mistake.  They must’ve forgot.

Sorry.

Comment #29102

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 11:12 PM (e) (s)

eh, on any other day, I’d be arguing your position, bill.

I’m just in a mood to see something concrete for a change.

Why did they even bother to vote in the folks who changed the standards back to including the teaching of evolution, if there wasn’t at least some knowledge that changing it to begin with was a mistake?

Comment #29111

Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on May 9, 2005 02:10 AM (e) (s)

as vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, he is too busy to act as a reporter for us

Scary! Normally if something’s happening on any of the (many) patches that I have responsibility for, I’d try and make sure I was in the loop - and reading this isn’t one of them. He must be, like, REALLY busy.

Comment #29114

Posted by NDT on May 9, 2005 03:11 AM (e) (s)

Flint said:

Yes, I’m well aware of the Kansas history. The flipflopping we’ve seen in the last three school board elections can be interpreted two ways: Either everyone fell asleep except the fanatics (who never sleep), woke up briefly to toss the bums out, falsely believed they’d put the fire out, and went back to sleep.

I think your first interpretation is the correct one. And I think if the sensible people wake up briefly to toss these bums out, they’ll just fall back asleep again.

Comment #29121

Posted by Paul Flocken on May 9, 2005 06:15 AM (e) (s)

Comment #29102
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 8, 2005 11:12 PM

Why did they even bother to vote in the folks who changed the standards back to including the teaching of evolution, if there wasn’t at least some knowledge that changing it to begin with was a mistake?

Sir Toejam, remember what, exactly, activism does.  It is not that a majority of Kansans elected these people into office.  An election is not determined by the 49 out of 100 who vote for side A or the 49 out of 100 who vote for side B.  An election is determined by the 2 who flip the boat.  The creationist activists only had to get their supporters to vote as a consistent block to be able to push the election to their side.
Sincerely, Paul

Comment #29123

Posted by Paul Flocken on May 9, 2005 06:28 AM (e) (s)

“An election is determined by the 2 who flip the boat.”—-It being probable that the other 98 weren’t paying any attention anyway and so their votes were taken for granted as being split.  The numbers involved in such “relatively trivial” elections are so small anyway.  Finding the necessary votes can’t be that hard.  The time that passed since 1999 played into the creationists hands.  Non-missionary Americans have too short an attention span.  The brouhaha over this may lead Kansans to re-elect more rational types again, just like in 2000.  But in five years this will have to happen all over again.  That is what missionary zeal does.  They will never give up.  And unfortunately they won’t stop breeding.
Paul

Comment #29125

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 9, 2005 07:15 AM (e) (s)

I don’t think these PR proceedings are hurting the creationists at all.

It is, and in a very important way.  Prior to the hearings, the press tended to treat the IDiots with kid gloves.  Alas, afyter the first day of hearings, the press realized that the IDiots are dishonest evasive liars.  The kid gloves are gone.  The IDers will never again get the free ride from the Fourth Estate that they had before.

Comment #29129

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 08:06 AM (e) (s)

Flank:

While you may be right, I don’t read it quite the same way. Here is today’s CNN writeup (5-9-05):

Scientists snub Kansas evolution hearings
Education hearings rigged, say science organizations
Sunday, May 8, 2005 Posted: 6:22 PM EDT (2222 GMT)

 
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) — Scientists have refused to participate in state Board of Education hearings this past week on how the theory of evolution should be treated in public schools, but they haven’t exactly been silent.

About a dozen scientists, most from Kansas universities, spoke each day at news conferences after evolution critics testified before a board subcommittee. They expect to continue speaking out as the hearings wrap up on Thursday.

“They’re in, they do their shtick, and they’re out,” said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. “I’m going to be here, and I’m not going to be quiet. We’ll have the rest of our lives to make our points.”

The scientists’ boycott was led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, which believe the hearings are rigged against the teaching of evolution.

Scientists said they don’t see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses who were called by advocates of the “intelligent design” theory.

But the boycott has frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.

“I am profoundly disappointed that they’ve chosen to present their case in the shadows,” board member Connie Morris said. “I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner.”

The theory of evolution says that changes in species can lead to new species, and that different species, including man and apes, have common ancestors. Intelligent design advocates contend the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power.

In 1999, the board deleted most references to evolution in the science standards. But standards were adopted later to include evolution as a key education concept.

The state board’s standards determine what is on statewide tests, but local school boards decide what is actually taught and which textbooks are used. The state board plans to consider changes to its standards this summer.

Leaders of the science groups said the three subcommittee members already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates. All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution.

This looks to me like a typical journalistic exercise in presenting both sides “objectively” - here’s what side A says, here’s what side B says, here is the issue. You get to cheer for the side of your choice.

Paul Flocken:

Yes, I agree with you (not surprising, since you echoed what I wrote). The vote is very close, and those committed to one side or the other basically cancel each other out. The number of swing voters is very small and often focused on some other issue anyway.

Now, how would those swing voters respond to a billboard on I-70 saying “Put God back into classrooms where He belongs!”? I’m not optimistic about this. Kansas is a VERY red state.

Comment #29130

Posted by Aagcobb on May 9, 2005 08:18 AM (e) (s)

Kansas’ problem is that it allows an independently elected board to decide its educational policy, so one issue fanatics can run on a creationist plank to get the churches to bus the fundies to the polls without any concern for how they are trashing Kansas’ reputation or its economy.  If I were governor of Kansas, I would want to try to amend the constitution to bring educational policy under the governor’s control so he can appoint responsible people to run the schools. Governors in general realize that the long term economic well being of their states require educational excellence, and a governor’s race is too high profile to run a stealth creationist campaign for an obscure office.

Comment #29134

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 08:38 AM (e) (s)

Agacobb:

If I were governor of Kansas, I would want to try to amend the constitution to bring educational policy under the governor’s control so he can appoint responsible people to run the schools. Governors in general realize that the long term economic well being of their states require educational excellence, and a governor’s race is too high profile to run a stealth creationist campaign for an obscure office.

May I suggest a study of American history? The problem you inadvertently raise has in fact been raised many times, enough to see the pattern. Should school board members, judges, dogcatchers, the chief of police or sheriff, etc. be appointed or elected?

The only consistently right answer is “neither, but we’re out of options”. The governor is an elected official, who in practice tends to fill every appointive office with those of his general political views. In the case of judges, those appointments are for life and dislodging an appointed judge (regardless of the justification) is damn near impossible. The result of all these appointments is an oppressive governmental sameness — wherever you turn, you see the same basic face. At least if they’re elected, they tend to exhibit much more variety in viewpoints and (in the case of judges) are much easier to evict if they are incompetent.

Conversely, they’re easier to evict if they are unpopular for being competent. And this is the flip side you are seeing now: elected officials tend to hew much closer to party lines and the sense of their constituencies, because this is the route to re-election. If the majority of the constituency is creationist, you can’t expect non-creationists to be elected. If the governor himself is a creationist and gets to appoint all these people, then he does much more than appoint a creationist school board, he appointes judges who approve of the school board’s activities, and he appoints all the bureaucrats that implement the board (and court) decisions.

So to generalize: consolidating political power in fewer hands is NOT a cure for abuse of that power, and often makes it worse. Alabama pundits give Judge Roy Moore an excellent probability of being elected governor. You want HIM appointing the school board? Really?

Comment #29140

Posted by Russell on May 9, 2005 09:43 AM (e) (s)

…a billboard on I-70 saying “Put God back into classrooms where He belongs!”

Does He? Heck, I thought He would have aced His courses first time around, what, being omniscient and all.

Comment #29144

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 10:00 AM (e) (s)

Russell:

Apparently not, if He is diddling with reality offstage, in response to prayer or whatever. I guess reality is a work in progress, requiring refresher courses from time to time.

Comment #29148

Posted by Blue the Wild Dog on May 9, 2005 10:08 AM (e) (s)

It seems to me the most likely explanation for the return of the creationist school board members is the coattail effect - Bush’s campaign did an excellent job of voter turnout with right-wing Christians, and of course that would benefit the creationists.

Comment #29149

Posted by Frank J on May 9, 2005 10:14 AM (e) (s)

Jack Krebs wrote:

Yes - my jaw dropped a bit at Bryson’s remark.  My first thought was “What two “theories?”  Then I realized that she probably meant two kinds of bonds, and that she was equating that to teaching evolution and ID as two “theories.”

Maybe, but a much more appropriate analogy is how those ”dogmatic Benzenists” refuse to grant equal time for “Intelligent Electron Theory.” ;-)

Comment #29150

Posted by HPLC_Sean on May 9, 2005 10:16 AM (e) (s)

I love this gem by CW in his first post:

If H.L. Mencken was alive today, he’d roll over in his grave.

Hilarious! ID is lucky to have you, Charlie.

Comment #29152

Posted by Mark D on May 9, 2005 10:37 AM (e) (s)

I wonder if Charlie realizes that Mencken was firmly on the side of Darwinian evolution…

Comment #29153

Posted by Aagcobb on May 9, 2005 10:53 AM (e) (s)

Flint:
So to generalize: consolidating political power in fewer hands is NOT a cure for abuse of that power, and often makes it worse. Alabama pundits give Judge Roy Moore an excellent probability of being elected governor. You want HIM appointing the school board? Really?

Obviously not, but Alabama, is, well, Alabama; most states aren’t going to elect a one issue religious zealot governor.  Besides if the Alabama BOE was independently elected (I don’t know if they are or not), don’t you think ‘Bama voters would elect a creationist school board?  Kentucky, where I live, isn’t exactly the most progressive state in the country, but governors here have been running on educational excellence and economic development for decades.  Even with the number of fundies here, no legitimate candidate for governor has run on the issue of trashing science standards in education.  In a BOE election, however, the vast majority of voters aren’t going to have a clue who the candidates and what their platforms are, making it much easier for a relative handful of one issue voters to swing an election.  Frankly I think that if a governor is supposed to set policy for the well being of his state he should have the power to do so, and he can be held responsible at the polls by the voters, rather than have a bunch of independent executive branch boards elected by people who have no idea who they are voting for free to run amok if they so chose.

Comment #29154

Posted by Jim Harrison on May 9, 2005 11:11 AM (e) (s)

Formal political arrangements are not the root of the Kansas problem. Americans tend to believe that everything will be OK if only the right institutions are in place; but people, not laws, are finally responsible whatever the system. A bad governor could have appointed an even worse school board. An alert and informed electorate could have chosen better candidates for the existing elected board.

Comment #29156

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 11:30 AM (e) (s)

Procedures are important. Aagcobb is saying (if I interpret him correctly) that IF you can be sure of electing a governor whose ideas you agree with, THEN of course you want him to appoint people of like mind as much as possible. But if you do NOT like his platform, then of course you want as many different elective offices as possible, because it can’t be worse that way.

The point seems to be lost beyond my ability to emphasize it: Creationists in Alabama want the school board to be appointed by the governor for the same reason Aagcobb does: To get the “right people” where they will do the most good.

Jim Harrison is correct, ultimately the people themselves are responsible. We get the government we deserve, because we elect it ourselves. Adding layers of middlemen between the people and their government is a double-edged sword. It is a buffer against mob rule if you don’t agree with the mob, and it is a stifling and frustrating bureaucracy ignoring popular needs if you agree with the majority. Either way is going to delight those one one side of any issue while infuriating those on the other. The only hard-and-fast rule must be that we can’t vote away our ability to vote. (See most places we have imposed “democracy” and it lasted for ONE election, whose winner promptly declared himself President-for-life and exterminated the opposition).

So should we elect or appoint? As I wrote earlier, the only consistently right answer is “neither, but we’re out of options”. I think it was Winston Churchill who observed that democracy is the worst of all possible political systems except for everything else. When the majority is a fool, we all dance to that tune.

Comment #29159

Posted by tytlal on May 9, 2005 11:39 AM (e) (s)

HOW does one become a biology teacher without accepting biology?  My wife, herself a university teacher from Russia, is in the process of becoming a teacher in the US and is amazed that I visit this site everyday to learn of the latest follys of the Crea, er, ID crowd, much to her dismay :)

She thought teaching ID, er, Creati, er, GOD(!) in a science classroom was a joke.  After showing her the various antics (politics?) of ID, she became extremely angry.  “How does one become a biology teacher and NOT teach evolution?  Where are your standards?  Are they local?  Federal?  I don’t understand.  How are they even allowed to teach creationism (her words)?”

I asked her how she would teach biology without evolution.  Her reply is that she would not.  (She is not a biology teacher, btw, but her PhD is in methods of teaching.)

Curious.  Any biology teachers on this site who do not “believe” in evolution?  I assume passing a test and believing in what you learned are two separate issues …

Comment #29164

Posted by Paul Flocken on May 9, 2005 12:14 PM (e) (s)

Comment #29129
Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 08:06 AM
“not surprising, since you echoed what I wrote”
Oops.  Sorry Flint.  That’s what happens when posting before reading.
Paul

Comment #29167

Posted by Kay on May 9, 2005 12:35 PM (e) (s)

I don’t get what the problem with teaching both evolution and creationism equally is — if they really are taught equally, you’ll probably have LESS creationists around in the long run. Unless the entire “equal time” thing is a way to get at least some permission to cheat. Can someone help me out here? ^^;

Comment #29168

Posted by Charlie Wagner on May 9, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s)

Mark D wrote:

I wonder if Charlie realizes that Mencken was firmly on the side of Darwinian evolution…

I do know that. So what?
There are a number of people with whom I agree on almost every issue except evolution.

Paul Myers comes to mind…

Comment #29169

Posted by tytlal on May 9, 2005 12:47 PM (e) (s)

Kay,

Creationism should not be taught in a science classroom any more than witchcraft or any other pseudoscience.

I’m not sure what “teaching equally” means.  To teach creationism - approx. 1 minute?  “God created everything and has all of the answers.”

I would just like to have evolution TAUGHT, forget about “equally”!

Comment #29171

Posted by Charlie Wagner on May 9, 2005 12:50 PM (e) (s)

tytial wrote:

Any biology teachers on this site who do not “believe” in evolution?

Here!
Although I am retired, so maybe that doesn’t count. I have a BA degree in Biology from NYU and a MS in Biology from Hofstra University. I taught science for 33 years in one of the best school districts in the country in New York.
Maybe I could answer your question better if you explained to me what you mean by “evolution”.

Comment #29173

Posted by Aagcobb on May 9, 2005 01:01 PM (e) (s)

Flint: So should we elect or appoint? As I wrote earlier, the only consistently right answer is “neither, but we’re out of options”. I think it was Winston Churchill who observed that democracy is the worst of all possible political systems except for everything else. When the majority is a fool, we all dance to that tune.

  Just to clarify my position, I don’t really think I’m advocating less democracy here.  I honestly believe that even in a place like Alabama, people who care a lot about teaching creationism are outnumbered by people who just want their kids to get a good education.  I also think it enchances democracy to have one person, a democratically elected governor who runs a well publicized campaign, responsible for executive branch policy, rather than a bunch of virtually anonymous board members who can get elected by running a stealth campaign through the fundamentalist churches appealing to one issue voters.  I hope Roy Moore does run for governor of Alabama, because I think even though he has a good shot at winning the GOP primary, there are a lot of people there who don’t want their state to become a theocracy.

Comment #29174

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 01:08 PM (e) (s)

Kay:

I can try to help. Creationists are always screaming “teach the controversy” and “present both sides” — when talking about public school science classes. But go to any creationist-run blog or website, and you will find that any disagreement with their doctrine is met with two rapid responses: the dissenting post disappears, and the poster is banned. THIS is how creationists “present both sides” when THEY are in charge of the henhouse.

Consider the very topic of this thread. The creationists don’t even bother to pretend that this is a means of presenting both sides. They didn’t even read the majority report they are replacing! They don’t even care that one side didn’t show up, since the decision was foregone.

And so one answer to your question is that it’s no secret how creationists would “present both sides” if they get control of the curriculum. No surprises there.

But there’s another issue here: If claims based on no evidence whatsoever are permitted to be called “scientific theories” and allowed in science classes, whose doctrine should be dubbed ‘Truth’? Absent any appeal to the authority of evidence, this becomes a purely political issue. Biology teachers necessarily become hostage to the religious preferences of the current school board.

Then also, there is the confusion ID is guaranteed to introduce, since it is anti-scientific in nature and bears no resemblance to scientific inquiry at the most fundamental level. Confused minds are easy prey for specialists at exploiting them (“follow me, and I will lead you to absolute answers”). Remember that creationists are not persuadable by logic or evidence.

Comment #29175

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 01:14 PM (e) (s)

Jim wrote:

” An alert and informed electorate could have chosen better candidates for the existing elected board.”

I gotta agree with this.  It is the main reason i decided that there is still hope for education to resolve this issue in the long run.

…still workin’ on that proposal…

:)

Comment #29176

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 01:22 PM (e) (s)

Aagcobb:

OK, you are solidly on the side of inserting “protective” buffers between the people and the policies the people wish to see implemented. In this, you are in agreement with the founding fathers, who inserted quite a few layers. Initially, there was an electoral college even to elect senators.  And I doubt you could find a political observer who would like to see “democracy by instant national plebiscite” without any middlemen not absolutely required.

Much as I admire your optimism, I was trying to say that history fails to ratify it very consistently. Give power to anyone, and it will be abused. By governors and school boards, by judges and dogcatchers, etc. Favoring more appointment or more direct election, either way, isn’t advocating less democracy. But I think I need to emphasize that your position is more along the Alexander Hamilton lines, that the people can’t be trusted very far, and we need “right thinking responsible people” in positions of real power to make sure the public doesn’t vote for any truly threatening mischief. And once again, I point out that consolidating power in this way is a wonderful thing when it’s in the right hands, and terrible in the wrong hands. More election and less appointment leads to a bit less governmental organization and direction, which is neither good nor bad per se. But increased governmental organization and direction is, in and of itself, a more powerful weapon. How it’s used makes more of a difference, the more powerful the weapon is.

Ultimately, a king or dictator as repository of all unchecked power can be by far the best possible form of government in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number. But such point-source power is rarely applied for those ends.

I honestly believe that even in a place like Alabama, people who care a lot about teaching creationism are outnumbered by people who just want their kids to get a good education.

Sadly, in most of Alabama, these are regarded as exactly the same thing. I fear most Alabama voters agree with William Dembski, that unless faith in Jesus Christ lies at the heart of it, it’s not good science.

Comment #29177

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 01:26 PM (e) (s)

well, to scale up Aagcobb’s argument, I would prefer the system we currently have for appointing federal judges.  appointments are filtered through congress, and so, at least for the last 200 years, have been subjected to checks from minority rules like fillibusters.

well, unless, of course, they nuke the fillibuster.  but i guess that’s another kettle of fish.

Comment #29180

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 01:35 PM (e) (s)

Flint-

“And I doubt you could find a political observer who would like to see “democracy by instant national plebiscite” without any middlemen not absolutely required.”

funny you should mention this; Governor Schwarzenegger here in CA is trying to do just that by “governing through referendum” and bypassing the state legislature.

I am absolutely positive that this is a conservative experiment designed to test the idea that you can bypass all the checks and balances built into the constitution.  If successful, you will be seeing this strategy attempted in your town, and at the national level.

It will be appealed to voters as a “purer form of democracy”; and yet any knwoledgeable person knows why we have checks and balances built into government, yes?

In a positive development, the gubernator’s popularity has been plummeting here in CA, and many attribute this to his blatant attempts at bypassing the legislature.

However, CA is considered to be a reasonably politically knowledgeable state.  I’m sure governing via referendum will be tried in other states, with perhaps more success.

Comment #29183

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 01:53 PM (e) (s)

ST:

It’s not as unusual as you seem to think. I’ve lived in a couple of states that do a lot of governing by amendment to the state constitution. Some states have literally thousands of such amendments, and every time I go to the polls, I’m faced with a long list of proposed amendments — all of which concern matters the legislature ought to be deciding.

The problem is, the legislative districts were set up in 1900 by and for the plantation owners. The courts demand redistricting to (more or less) make everyone’s vote count equally, but of course the news lines are to be drawn by the very legislators who owe their careers to the current lines. So the state pays a yearly fine for failure to comply (costing the legislators themselves nothing), and life goes on.

I find this frustrating. I live in Huntsville, which is a city of engineers and rocket scientists. These people place a very high priority on good education, and the schools here were among the best in the nation (with school taxes as required). But in most of the state, those with the huge (entire counties!) landholdings simply refused to pay any taxes — and they control the legislature. So these people passed a law that takes the property taxes away from those who pay them, to fund the schools in these tax-free counties. In response, the locals here stopped approving school tax increases, and starting voting for lower taxes. Why should we subsidize the freeloaders? So our school system is now seriously underfunded while the wealthier citizens send their children to private schools or move to Tennessee. And the legislature STILL won’t equalize tax rates (not even within a decimal order of magnitude, a proposal voted down every year!).

Given this deadlock, it’s not surprising that the governor attempts to govern by constitutional amendment, which is really direct public approval or disapproval of proposed programs. Of course, the public doesn’t get to say what gets put on the ballot. The Alabama public seems to have two general mottoes: “We don’t much care what government does so long as we don’t have to pay for it” and (of course) “Thank God for Mississippi” (which prevents Alabama from coming in last in most quality of living measures).

At some point, checks and balances require good faith, and I’m not talking about faith in Jeezus.

Comment #29190

Posted by scotty on May 9, 2005 02:22 PM (e) (s)

Yes - my jaw dropped a bit at Bryson’s remark.  My first thought was “What two “theories?”  Then I realized that she probably meant two kinds of bonds, and that she was equating that to teaching evolution and ID as two “theories.”

Mind boggling.

Considering you cast yourself as a defender of science, your ingnorance is mind boggling. If you knew much science, you would know that there are different theories of bonding. Most likely, she is speaking of valence bond theory versus molecular orbital theory.

Same goes for Great White Wonder!

Comment #29191

Posted by scotty on May 9, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)

I see now that someone else already addressed your ignorant comments. (Although they put the usual Darwinist spin on it.)

Comment #29192

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 9, 2005 02:35 PM (e) (s)

I’m confused.  When I learned chemistry in high school, we were taught that molecular orbitals explained valence bonds.  I don’t see how this qualifies are two competing “theories.”

I am also wondering how it is possible to put a “Darwinist” spin on chemistry.

Comment #29194

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 02:42 PM (e) (s)

Isn’t a scotty a type of terrier?

I know it’s some little dog that barks constantly.

Comment #29199

Posted by Henry J on May 9, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)

Re “  …a billboard on I-70 saying “Put God back into classrooms where He belongs!”

Does He? Heck, I thought He would have aced His courses first time around, what, being omniscient and all.”

ROFL

Comment #29200

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 9, 2005 03:29 PM (e) (s)

scotty

Considering you cast yourself as a defender of science, your ingnorance is mind boggling. If you knew much science, you would know that there are different theories of bonding. Most likely, she is speaking of valence bond theory versus molecular orbital theory.

Most likely she is just reciting some bogus talking point that some creationist peddler scripted for her recitation.

Maybe she was thinking of Kekule structures versus Lewis structures.  The point is that Nancy Bryson is full of garbage and her “argument” is bizarrely wrong — but as propoganda, it undoubtedly suffices for the most dense and unquestioning rubes.

Other thoughtful arguments along the same lines as Bryson’s:

Softball and baseball have different rules, so why not teach creationism?

A vest has no sleeves, so why not teach creationism?

No one ever choked to death on a communion wafer, so why not teach creationism?

etc.

Comment #29202

Posted by Mark D on May 9, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

Charlie wrote:

I do know that. So what?
There are a number of people with whom I agree on almost every issue except evolution.

So, you apparently don’t get that Mencken is mocking people like you.

Comment #29204

Posted by steve on May 9, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)

There are a number of people with whom I agree on almost every issue except evolution.

charlie, do you think the medical community is telling the truth about cholesterol, blood pressure, and heart disease?

Comment #29205

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 03:48 PM (e) (s)

“No one ever choked to death on a communion wafer, so why not teach creationism?”

perhaps not, but they came close…

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/04/03/greedy_communists_for_mi…

“…Nor did Kilmeade bother to mention that serving Terri Schiavo a communion wafer could have killed her because she could not swallow.”

;)

Comment #29207

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 03:57 PM (e) (s)

…and my favorite response to the original post i linked to:

“God forgive me, ellen — but if “Jesus” had made it through the police line with his Communion kit and Terri had choked to death on the Host, I think even the Pope would have done a spit-take.

Sooner or later, one of these Christiopaths is going to do something so iconically stupid and deranged that not even Bill Bennett will be able to explain it away as the work of a crazy fringe cult.”

too true.

:)

Comment #29213

Posted by steve on May 9, 2005 04:31 PM (e) (s)

FYI, NBC news in 1 hr will be talking about Kansas and the kangaroo court.

Comment #29220

Posted by Steve Reuland on May 9, 2005 05:27 PM (e) (s)

Andrea Bottaro wrote:

I thought one of the funniest moments was Wells stating - twice, and very carefully - that he is supported by grant from the DI for which “no goods or services are required” (I wish all my grants were like that!). 

Wells is probably just going on record to protect himself from an IRS audit.  Grants and scholarships are tax exempt only if you’re not required to do anything in exchange for receiving them.  Wells’ language sounds like it came straight out of the 1040 instruction manual.

(I’m just joking, but if this turned out to be the case, I’d only be slightly surprised.)

Comment #29223

Posted by Steve Reuland on May 9, 2005 05:49 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

So to generalize: consolidating political power in fewer hands is NOT a cure for abuse of that power, and often makes it worse. Alabama pundits give Judge Roy Moore an excellent probability of being elected governor. You want HIM appointing the school board? Really?

Let me point out that the entire Roy Moore problem was created by the fact that Supreme Court justices are elected by popular vote in Alabama.  Moore used a smaller 10 Commandments controvesy of his own creation while he was serving on a lower court to gain widespread noteriety, and then used that noteriety to get elected Chief Justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court.  Were the justices appointed rather than elected, Moore almost ceratinly wouldn’t have gotten the nod.  Governors have little to gain by appointing people like Moore who make waves with self-serving and unconstitutional publicity stunts.  Moore is a good example of what happens when politics, rather than merit, is the sole determinant of who gets to serve.

Comment #29227

Posted by HPLC_Sean on May 9, 2005 06:09 PM (e) (s)

Reed A. Cartwright said:

When I learned chemistry in high school, we were taught that molecular orbitals explained valence bonds.  I don’t see how this qualifies are two competing “theories.”

This is actually correct. The two theories do not compete. Rather, they are analogous to applying Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics in different situations.
The VSEPR (valence shell electron pair repulsion) model helps to predict the geometries of molecules formed from non-metals. For example, it explains the polar structure of water, and the tetrahedral structure of methane. The VSEPR model introduced notions of steric hinderance and explains why a cis isomer is less stable than its trans counterpart.
The Molecular Orbitals Model (MOs) is simply the quantum mechanical treatment of atoms using the electron probability distributions and bonding/antibonding orbital classes. The MOs model is a more rigorous mathematical treatment of bonding principles and the VSEPR model is the everyday working model.
MOs does explain VSEPR.

Comment #29231

Posted by Frank J on May 9, 2005 06:22 PM (e) (s)

Reed A. Cartwright wrote:

I am also wondering how it is possible to put a “Darwinist” spin on chemistry.

See comment 29149.

Seriously, “Intelligent Electrons” aside, one thing I do notice is that chemistry books do list obsolete models of the atom before delving into the current concepts. I don’t want to second guess the developers of biology curricula, but it would seem equally instructive to teach the obsolete models (young earth, old earth with no common descent, Lamarckian evolution, etc.) first, with some “critical analysis” of why they all fail. No need to mention a designer, let alone name one. Anti-evolutionists who whine about the lack of “alternatives” and lack of “critical analysis of evolution” (but curiously not about the lack of critical analysis of alternatives), would have nothing to complain about. Except of course the lack of what they really want - a useless god-of-the-gaps approach, a false dichotomy and other misrepresentations of evolution.

Comment #29232

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 06:30 PM (e) (s)

Steve Reuland,

You’re right in one way, and wrong in another. It’s true Moore was elected. It’s not true that electing our officials is the cause of our problems, which would simply go away if we appointed all our officials. Ultimately, you run into a very ancient question: who guards the guardians?

If you sincerely believe creationists feel they would have nothing to gain by appointing other creationists, then I really don’t know what to tell you. Should we disallow the people from electing our officials? Should we return to the days when only white men who owned property were accorded the vote, and even THEN only to elect a slate of pre-selected electors, who would in turn appoint responsible officials? And who gets to select the slate of electors?

The only way to prevent the public from electing fools is to eliminate elections. Is this really what you wish? If we keep elections to only a bare minimum (those who in turn appoint everyone else), then you had better NEVER elect a fool, because the knock off effects may be irrecoverable!

Sigh. Teaching politics to a scientist is like teaching science to a creationist. Both audiences feel they already know all they need to, thank you.

Comment #29235

Posted by BobKing on May 9, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)

There is only one theory of the chemical bond and that is quantum mechanics. Valence Bond Theory and Molecular Orbital Theory are simply different approximations to the same exact theory. Technically each uses a different set of basis functions and truncates an expansion in terms of these different basis sets. If one includes all (an infinite number) of basis functions then the two approximations are equivalent.

The basic problem with Bryson’s comments is that she doesn’t understand what a theory is and how the word is used in science in different “everyday” ways. Sure chemists say VB or MO “theory” but they are using theory to mean “approximation” or “approach.” Similarly quantum chemists talk about “different levels of theory.”

VSEPR is basically an even more simplified approach that explains geometry in terms of the localization of electrons, e.g., in hybrid orbitals. Again it’s just another approximation to quantum mechanics.

Hey, if she’s confused just get her to ask Fritz Schaeffer what he thinks!

Comment #29237

Posted by Bob King on May 9, 2005 06:47 PM (e) (s)

There is only one theory of the chemical bond and that is quantum mechanics. Everything else is simply one approximation or another to quantum theory. Valence Bond Theory and Molecular Orbital Theory are simply different approximations to the same exact theory. Technically each uses a different set of basis functions and truncates an expansion in terms of these different basis sets. If one includes all (an infinite number) of basis functions then the two approximations are equivalent.

The basic problem with Bryson’s comments is that she doesn’t understand what a theory is and how the word is used in science in different “everyday” ways. Sure chemists say VB or MO “theory” but they are using theory to mean “approximation” or “approach.” Similarly quantum chemists talk about “different levels of theory.”

VSEPR is basically an even more simplified approach that explains geometry in terms of the localization of electrons, e.g., in hybrid orbitals. Again it’s just another approximation to quantum mechanics.

Hey, if she’s confused just get her to ask Fritz Schaeffer what he thinks!

Comment #29239

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 9, 2005 06:52 PM (e) (s)

This looks to me like a typical journalistic exercise in presenting both sides “objectively” - here’s what side A says, here’s what side B says, here is the issue. You get to cheer for the side of your choice.

You need to look at the editorials.  Like this one from the Washington Post:

Kansas Evolves Back

Sunday, May 8, 2005; Page B06

NEARLY FIVE YEARS into the 21st century, the Kansas State Board of
Education has begun an earnest discussion of whether schools in that
state should teach science that was obsolete by the end of the 19th
century. The board is holding hearings into proposed changes to its
model science standards, changes intended to cast doubt on
conventional evolutionary biology and inject into classrooms the
notion of “intelligent design” — the idea that the complexity of
life can be explained only by some conscious creator’s having
designed it.

Intelligent design is not your parents’ creationism. It’s a slick set
of talking points that are not based on biblical inerrancy but
framed, rather, in the language of science: molecular biology, the
structure of DNA and holes in the fossil record. Moreover, the
ostensible justification for the changes is a seductive one.
Proponents say they mean merely to ensure that schoolchildren are
given a full sense of the scientific controversy over evolution so
that they can make up their own minds. Who can object to that?

But there is no serious scientific controversy over whether Darwinian
evolution takes place. Intelligent design is not science. Whatever
its rhetoric, the public questioning of evolution is fundamentally
religious, not scientific, in nature. That is not to say that wonder
is illegitimate; it is a perfectly reasonable response to the beauty
and enormity of the universe to believe that it could not have
happened without a divine hand. But the proper place to discuss such
belief is not the public schools. Biology classes need to be taught
with sensitivity to the religious sensibilities of students but not
by casting doubt on evolution.

This is not the first time the Kansas school board has taken on this
issue. In 1999, it voted to strike references to evolution from
statewide science standards, only to restore evolution’s place after
subsequent elections defeated anti-evolutionist members. Now, a
majority once again favors changes, so it seems likely that sometime
this summer, the official guidance from the state will shift. The
model standards are not binding on local school districts, but the
shift would be damaging nonetheless.

Evolution is a reality, no matter how much people may object to it.
And denying or downplaying its importance to any serious examination
of the biological sciences ill serves students who may wish to know
how bacteria become resistant to drugs, how birds and dinosaurs are
related, or why dolphins and sharks share certain morphological
traits. How people reconcile their religious convictions with
scientific reality is a matter for places of worship, not for science
classrooms — or state boards that set standards.

Comment #29241

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 9, 2005 06:56 PM (e) (s)

Although I am retired, so maybe that doesn’t count. I have a BA degree in Biology from NYU and a MS in Biology from Hofstra University. I taught science for 33 years in one of the best school districts in the country in New York.
Maybe I could answer your question better if you explained to me what you mean by “evolution”.

Nobody cares what you think, Charlie.  <shrug>

Comment #29244

Posted by RBH on May 9, 2005 07:20 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote

It’s not true that electing our officials is the cause of our problems, which would simply go away if we appointed all our officials.

Apropos of that, the 8 governor-appointed members of the Ohio State Board of Education voted as a block to adopt the ID Creationist model lesson plan.  It was rejected by a substantial majority of the elected members of the Board, but the appointed members’ block vote was sufficient to adopt it.  Appointment is no guarantee of good sense or good science.

RBH

Comment #29247

Posted by RBH on May 9, 2005 07:23 PM (e) (s)

Sorry — I over-stated it.  7 of the 8 voted as a block for it; the 8th was absent from that meeting.

RBH

Comment #29251

Posted by Flint on May 9, 2005 07:34 PM (e) (s)

RBH:

A good supporting observation. Elected bodies generally have majorities like the 6-4 majority in Kansas. Appointed boards tend to be unanimous because admit it or not, there is a litmus test to being appointed, and that test is the preferences of whoever does the appointing. Appointment tends to make government more focused and directional, whether or not you as an individual approve of that direction. If you like it, appointment looks like the way to go. If you don’t, you may have no recourse at all. As I wrote above, you see the same face everywhere you turn.

Personally, I tend to fear appointment for exactly the reason you mention. With elections, you win some and you lose some. With appointment, it’s double or nothing.

Comment #29252

Posted by Steve Reuland on May 9, 2005 07:38 PM (e) (s)

Frank J wrote:

I don’t want to second guess the developers of biology curricula, but it would seem equally instructive to teach the obsolete models (young earth, old earth with no common descent, Lamarckian evolution, etc.) first, with some “critical analysis” of why they all fail.

This was exactly how evolution was introduced in my high school biology text, minus the discussion of the young-Earth view.  The common creationist refrain that students are not allowed to hear about “alternatives” isn’t true in my experience.  Creationism gets introduced exactly how it should, as something that was once widely held but was superceded by evolution.  Then you get on with the real science.

Comment #29255

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on May 9, 2005 07:41 PM (e) (s)

Steve Reuland:
Wells is probably just going on record to protect himself from an IRS audit.  Grants and scholarships are tax exempt only if you’re not required to do anything in exchange for receiving them.  Wells’ language sounds like it came straight out of the 1040 instruction manual.

(I’m just joking, but if this turned out to be the case, I’d only be slightly surprised.)

Uhm… I thought the recipient of a scholarship/grant was tax exempt only if (or to the amount that) the support was used to pay tuition and educational material toward an official degree. 

But you are right, it sounds suspiciously legalistic.  I wonder what’s behind it…  perhaps the DI wants no legal resonsibility for Wells’ continuous nutty accusations of fraud and conspiracy, in case he finally crosses the line and gets sued by someone.  A hit-man with plausible deniability.

Comment #29258

Posted by Steve Reuland on May 9, 2005 08:05 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

You’re right in one way, and wrong in another. It’s true Moore was elected. It’s not true that electing our officials is the cause of our problems, which would simply go away if we appointed all our officials.

I didn’t suggest that we appoint all of our officials.  I don’t know where you get this strawman, but it makes most of your comments moot.

I do think that since the days of Jacksonian populism, we have had too many positions put up for popular vote, some of which should have remained by appointment.  Judgeships are one type of position; school boards may be another. 

Ultimately, you run into a very ancient question: who guards the guardians?

Me.

If you sincerely believe creationists feel they would have nothing to gain by appointing other creationists, then I really don’t know what to tell you.

It’s not that creationists wouldn’t appoint creationists, it’s that the governor (or whomever) would have to take the heat for the ensuing controversy, rather than have it diffused among a bunch of school board members that no one has heard of.  Nearly everyone knows who their governor is.  But not one citizen in fifty could name every school board member, let alone know how they voted on that creationism thing that made headlines some months ago.  When it comes election time, the governor will have to publically account for his or her stance, whereas school boards members will continue to be largely ignored.  Why do you think that the creationists run “stealth” candidates for school boards?  When was the last time you heard of a “stealth” candidate for governor?  There’s no such thing.  If the creationists want to take over the governor’s mansion, they at least have to do it out in the open. 

The only way to prevent the public from electing fools is to eliminate elections. Is this really what you wish?

Where do you get this nonsense?  Of course this isn’t what I wish, and nothing I said even remotely implied as much.  You are invoking the slipery-slope fallacy.  Having too many races on the ballot does not mean that we should chuck the entire ballot.  At most, I simply think we should strive for better balance.  When people don’t even know who is running for a race or why they should care (I don’t even know what the hell a Comptroler General does, but I have to vote for one every four years) then maybe we have too many positions up for popular election.

Comment #29259

Posted by Kay on May 9, 2005 08:05 PM (e) (s)

(quote)

Kay,

Creationism should not be taught in a science classroom any more than witchcraft or any other pseudoscience.

I’m not sure what “teaching equally” means.  To teach creationism - approx. 1 minute?  “God created everything and has all of the answers.”

I would just like to have evolution TAUGHT, forget about “equally”!

( / quote)

That’s my point actually… let’s say that the Evil Orthodox Cabal Of Scientists (tm) (c) (r) (ketchup) endorses teaching creationism in public schools, and then put together a teaching module that goes around “…so Noah put a bunch of animals in a big wooden box, and for some crazy reason they managed to not eat each other, not smoke each other out due to the smell of their poo, and so on”.

If this is done properly you’d have a lot of kids asking a lot of questions at sunday school the next week. :) I know I did, a few years ago. (They tried to kick me out, to which I said to the youth pastor that if he touched me I wasn’t responsible for the safety of his ribs)

Comment #29261

Posted by Steve Reuland on May 9, 2005 08:19 PM (e) (s)

Andrea Bottaro wrote:

Uhm… I thought the recipient of a scholarship/grant was tax exempt only if (or to the amount that) the support was used to pay tuition and educational material toward an official degree.

Wells isn’t in a degree-granting program.  So the rules may be different.

The tax code is actually pretty ambiguous on this sort of thing.  At my school, we’ve had a tax expert tell us that since our relationship with the grad school is not an employer/employee relationship, then our stipends aren’t taxable.  (And the defintion of “employer/employee relationship” is precisely what Wells was disavowing, to the letter.)  But we’ve had other experts tell us the exact opposite.  I agree that a straight-forward reading of the 1040 instructions implies that stipends towards a degree-granting program are taxable, so I pay taxes.  But I know other students who don’t.

When I was involved with student government, we tried our best to get the college to come up with an offical position on our tax liability.  They refused.  They have no idea if we’re liable or not, and they’re