home

Science v. Politics in Kansas

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:22:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The teaching of science in Kansas is no longer dictated by science. Responding to demands that science classes reflect religious belief in addition to conclusions drawn from scientific evidence, the Kansas Board of Education voted to require science teachers to tell high school students "that aspects of widely accepted evolutionary theory are controversial." That the controversy was created by religious groups, not from any debate raging within the scientific community, doesn't seem to matter. The first fact that teachers impart to students in compliance with the directive should be this: the "controvery" is grounded in politics, not science.

Some Board members were realistic about the image the Board created of Kansas:

"This is a sad day, not only for Kansas kids, but for Kansas," said Janet Waugh, who voted against the new standards. "We're becoming a laughingstock, not only of the nation, but of the world."

After the Board pandered to religious groups in 1999, voters elected candidates who promised to be rational. Mainstream voters were less vigilant four years later, when religious conservatives again seized control of the Board. Control may shift back to a rational view of education after next year's elections.

< Italian Documentary Claims U.S. Used Chemicals as Weapon in Iraq | Chalabi Returns: No Welcome Arms Here >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Science v. Politics in Kansas | 41 comments (41 topical)
    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    Gee, Toto, I guess we're not in Dover, Pennsylvania, anymore!

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    It's really simple -- so simple a child could understand it. And children are childs, so ID is talking to children at their own level. What's wrong with that? Why do you liberals hate children? If there is an Intelligent Design -- and who says there isn't? Just a bunch of malcontent scientists -- then there must be an Intelligent Designer. And if there is an Intelligent Designer, and we know that from our Bibles, then we know who he is. It's obvious -- God, Our God. We're under that God, so it's good to know that He's well designed, or else He might fall on us. You scientists would like that, wouldn't you? Stop telling children they aren't Intelligent. Stop talking over their heads, and calling that 'teaching.' Children should learn to mind, not have minds to learn. Like the apple in the Garden of Eden, complete with dinosaurs, don't bite the dinosaur. They're a bit like chicken, only tougher. Ask any child -- they know.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    FWIW, there's been some great blogging and column writing by Mike Argento from the above-mentioned Dover Panda Trial, which recently concluded.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Re the Dover school board election--The pro-evolution slate were all Democrats and the pro-ID incumbents were all Republicans (big surprise). So was this an anti-ID vote or was it part of a general pattern of disillusionment with the GOP? It is a shame about Kansas, though. They willingly become a third-world state and will eventually expect the rest of the country (i.e., the blue states) to bail them out.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    If it's any consolation, I teach at a Christian college in Kansas. Recently the entire science faculty agreed that we will continue to teach science (evolution) and leave religion to the other guys. Pray for our jobs....

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    I wonder how many Kansas parents are planning to move out of state or send their kids to private school (or home school) in order to provide them with a decent science curriculum. And how many Kansas high school biology teachers will simply refuse to teach the new curriculum--or quit? How will this play out when these Kansas kids start applying to college science programs?

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    If it's any consolation, I teach at a Christian college in Kansas. Recently the entire science faculty agreed that we will continue to teach science (evolution) and leave religion to the other guys. Yay Ytterby's college!!

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#9)
    by Punchy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Moll-- To assuage fears, from what I hear many teachers here in KS (Lawrence, specifically) are going to ignore the new directives. The students are bright enough to realize it's all politics. However, I'm not so sure the tact taken in the western part of KS, where all the conservatives are fire-breathing and God-fearing...

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Apparently to prove that the theory of evolution is all just so much blather, Kansas has now decided to become a state-wide laboratory to test the theory. The inevitable results will chagrin Kansas' citizens when they find that they have replaced Alabama and Mississippi at the bottom of the heap. If Kansas REALLY wanted to toss the theory of evolution out the window, they could start by refusing to treat any bacterial infections with anything other than first-generation pharmaceuticals (penicillin, say). Since ID does NOT allow for mutations within a species, thereby creating a slightly DIFFERENT species, why not put their money where their mouths are!? It would certainly help to skim off the scum from the low end of the gene pool, one might say. Adapt or die.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    IF YOU WANT TO THINK A JEWISH GOD MADE THE EARTH IN 7 DAYS OK, JUST DON'T CUT MY OLD HEAD OFF. Death to the enemies of light! see: B-5

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    So does it also mean they teach evolution in sunday school? I thought not.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    In 10th grade I was suspended for telling my biology teacher, whom happened to be a pastor at a local Church of Christ, that it washis duty that he present equaltime to both creationism(which is what ID is under the facade of pseudo-science) and evolution. I mentioned this because during a five day period he showed us a video tape of a revival discussing the devil and evolution, a Carmen concert video, a day of relating scripture to how wrong the theory of evolution is, a free day to get caught up on homework outside of class, and a video about Dinosaurs. That's it. Fairly good representation of evolution vs. creationism, wouldn't you say? Well for bringing up this I got to go to in school suspension for 3 days because I presumed to tell a teacher his job. It didn't matter that he was interjecting his own religious beliefs into a discussion about science (evolution) vs. mythology (creationism). So for all of you IDers out there, your beliefs deserve to be heard in the proper venue, which is in a comparative religion class and not in a class that demands empiricism and datum to back up a hypothesis. Science and religion need not be mutually exclusive of one another, but one is based on facts and the other beliefs, which aren't one and the same.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    I say let the astrologers get equal time. Hey, why not? Science has a whole new meaning in Kansas!

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    Punchy-- Yay Lawrence! But it's what I'd expect. The beauty of science is that, you beat out all the conjecture, all the abstracts, all the BS, the bad reasoning, the stuff that, on inspection, didn't work and eventually you come up with a truth--actually, an endless number of truths--as solid as the chair you're probably sitting in as you read this. The truths might be PV = nRT or why flowers turn to the sun, but they all connect, reinforce each other, work the way they're supposed to. It's a vision of order in the universe, vastly different from what's offered by religion. Most science teachers get this. They probably got into teaching because they like science. Have science degrees, in fact. Appreciate the difference between science and some fairytale, however well-financed. So it's not hard to imagine that, when science itself is under attack, they'd stand up and say "I'm not teaching this crap."

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    Yeah, like we needed another reason to laugh at Kansas!

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    et al - Can anyone show me proof of a new species created through evolution? You see, that's the problem. No one can. Which means that evolution is a popular theory. And telling me that it is supported by high school science treachers is funny. I mean, really, Can ID show anything? No. It is a theory. A belief. So perhaps both should be taught in compartive religion class and the science class left to what can be proven.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    Actually, I can. The feedback received by you while you post here has altered or rather, evolved your posting style over a period of time. Thus, I declare you are now a unique species to TL- Trollus Jimus ;)

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    BTW- Find me a substantial number of Doctoral level Molecular Biologists that endorse ID, and I might accept your whimsy about High School Science Teachers.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    adept - And thank you for the primeval muck… As I said. Both are theories. You are as closed mind as the ID people. BTW - To be sure I penetrate your closed mind. I said BOTH were theories. Now show me a new species that has evolved.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    Leave it to some people to not get a joke. Now he'll probably whine something about me being "hateful" or some tired old canard. Yeesh.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    Incidentally, ID depends on a "supernatural" cause, and hence, is outside the realm of Science. Evolution, while a theory, does not, and is within the realm of science. I acept Science as it is defined, not as I wish it to be, like some people.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    errr. "accept Science"

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    Jim: "Now show me a new species that has evolved." Don't look in the mirror, Jim. How did those fruit fly genes get into your cells? Did God put cockroach genes into your nuclei as a joke? Make sure you don't develop compound eyes all of a sudden. Crick and Watson blew the doors off of God's Control Room.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#25)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    Even if evolution isn't proven, it's the basis of modern biology and medicine. If these are religious rather than scientific subjects, we've arrived at strange definitions for "science" and "religion". Which doesn't prove we're wrong, but should make us scratch our heads very deeply.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    And then look at what is under our fingernails. :-) Actually, it's a good point Jim makes. We don't have very many transitional proofs of evolution, though there are some. Because of the obvious limits of time, they are new microbial species that have been observed evolving in laboratory conditions. But the problem will not long be unsolved, now that knowledge of the genome is increasing exponentially. We won't have transitional proofs even then -- what we will have is just as good logically, and better scientifically. The term 'speciation' is really from the last century, anyhow. Reproductive ability is a crude measure of the knowledge we are tapping into. A deep understanding of genetics is what ID followers want to PREVENT. Fear the apple; fear the gene that makes the apple red. Science unseats God -- and that can't be allowed. Nevermind that many religions and spiritual paths don't set God up to be knocked down. What I want to know is when Jim is going to read the Gospels and understand that making war on innocent people, and profiting handsomely from it, is a sin.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#27)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    Can anyone show me proof of a new species created through evolution?
    Jim, someone could hit you over the head with mutated bacteria and you would deny their fundamental genetic change. You can force a change in genetic make-up of bacteria by exposing them to radiation... and not the kind you are thinking of. Simple UV. Now, I know there is no convincing you of the fact that species undergo changes due to environmental pressure, some to the point of extinction, and some to the point of evolving beyond what they were. Now, I need you to point out that invisible man who scattered the stars...

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Jim, You're watching the evolution of new and more deadly strains of avian flu every day, and we're all waiting for it to evolve into a human form. Not to mention Sars, AIDS, Ebola...the microscopic world is much busier than the macroscopic. And evolution is occurring every day.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Yes, Dadler, but Jim believes that such genetic change is mutation, not evolution. Since gene-splicing was developed, we can produce clones who are (thus) mutated into 'new species' that would never exist through natural selection. It's a Noah's Ark conundrum. If you ask Jim, he'll tell you that dinosaurs were on the Ark. I kid you not.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    The theory of evolution is a theory developed by application of standard accepted scientific method and qualifies as a theory because it is testable by repeatable experiment. So called "intelligent design" is not a theory. It is untestable by experiment. Scientific theories, through experiment, can be disproved, but cannot be proved. "intelligent design" is bunk. It does not even remotely qualify for equal consideration as a scientific theory, because it simply is not a scientific theory. "intelligent design" cannot be either disproved, or proved. Anyone who claims that it is a "theory" deserving of consideration equal to that given to the theory of evolution is either uneducated, misinformed, or just plain lying.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#32)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    It amazes me how zealous folks get about science where religious conviction is involved. Maybe if more of you were actually involved in the day-to-day workings of science you’d be a bit more skeptical, a bit less passionate. So they want to stress that evolution is a theory; well it is. Really, what difference does it make? Do any of you actually use it? I was never taught biology in high school, let alone Darwinism. I majored in biology for a couple of years; don’t remember evolution being discussed once. You know, now that I think back, after second or third grade I can’t remember learning a single thing of consequence in school. Maybe when they start in on math I’ll get concerned; but out of curiosity, hands up whose used the laws of cosines lately, or integrated anything? But this isn’t about what’s good for kids, it’s about whose paradigm is the official paradigm.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    Posted by pigwiggle: "It amazes me how zealous folks get about science where religious conviction is involved." Maybe that's because you never compared medievalism with the Scientific Revolution. Turn in your cellphone and park your car. We'll supply you with a donkey to ride, and a paper cone (for your head) so you can preach to the masses. "Maybe if more of you were actually involved in the day-to-day workings of science" Quite clearly we are ALL involved in the day-to-day workings of science. Ahem, your message was typed on one. "So they want to stress that evolution is a theory; well it is. Really, what difference does it make? Do any of you actually use it?" I would like to see you understand genetics without the theory of evolution, aka the theory of genetics. "I was never taught biology in high school, let alone Darwinism. I majored in biology for a couple of years; don’t remember evolution being discussed once." Wow, your education STUNK. "out of curiosity, hands up whose used the laws of cosines lately, or integrated anything?" One of my best friends plots satellite curves for NASA. Here's a hint: he doesn't use a tape measure.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    Paul in LA, Yeah, I know Jim well. All evolution is some form of mutation, that's obvious. And, on a side not, I actually went to the largest Christian high school in the nation, with a biology text published by Bob Jones University Press that claimed "dinosaurs, probably small ones, were actually aboard Noah's Ark."

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    But this isn’t about what’s good for kids, it’s about whose paradigm is the official paradigm.
    No, it's about the separation between religion and science, IOW church and state. ID does not incorporate any science. The TOE does. It can be observed, it is testable, it is scaleable, it is repeatable. Have you looked on the ID site? None of those thing are true. ID is the Barbie version of science "math is hard". In science, a 'theory' is not a hypothesis, it is an established explanation of why things work. A 'law' is an explanation of how things work. E.g. We have a law of gravity (e.g. on earth things fall at 32 feet per second, per second), but no agreed upon theories. In evolution we have a theory, tested, observed, repeated. In the TOE we have laws of natural selection, laws of recombination, laws of DNA iteration, laws of RNA persistence ... etc. The difference between TOE and ID is that the TOE is observed and repeatable, ID requires faith. pw, obviously you didn't learn much after 3rd grade.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    Maybe when they start in on math I’ll get concerned
    I've thought that numerology has at least as much place in mathematics as intelligent design does in biology. At least with numerology in mathematics no one can make that "it isn't science" argument. Would reincarnation best fit in a physics class - the energy of the soul, the law of karma and all that?

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#38)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    Sailor-
    “No, it's about the separation between religion and science, IOW church and state.”
    More specifically it’s about some folks critical of a theory, but you miss my point. Folks somehow think the scientific method is sacrosanct truth. It is, in fact, just a way of understanding the world, and it’s flawed. I’m sure you like it more than your typical religion for it’s expedience. Me too, I like that I can solve complicated problems using it. That hardly makes it any more valid than someone’s faith. And by far my biggest difficulty; your affinity for the scientific method hardly justifies taking folks’ money ostensibly to educate their children and then dictating their education according to your worldview.
    “pw, obviously you didn't learn much after 3rd grade.”
    I have given this quite a bit of thought. I’m a theoretician, so I have many occasions to wonder about science, empirical truth, and reality. In my estimation, there is no deeper meaning to theory, there is no deep reality, and belief is reality. Allen-
    “Would reincarnation best fit in a physics class - the energy of the soul, the law of karma and all that?”
    I don’t care what kind of crazy $hit you teach your kids. I’d just rather not pay for it, karma or kinematics. PinLA-
    “Quite clearly we are ALL involved in the day-to-day workings of science. Ahem, your message was typed on one.”
    I drive a car; doesn’t make me a mechanic.
    “Wow, your education STUNK.”
    Yah, my public education stunk. The one I provide myself is excellent.
    “One of my best friends plots satellite curves for NASA. Here's a hint: he doesn't use a tape measure.”
    You know someone who uses math; so it’s important you learned some math?

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#39)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    pigwiggle: PinLA is upholding the value of education, he believes in public education. Just because you don't share the second conviction doesn't give you license to ignore or attenuate his passion for the first. And if you could show me a single example in all of history of a nation A)without public education that B)Has a decent standard of living among its general citizenry--if you could point to something like that, then I'd love to see it. A side note: the tack you're taking here reminds me a little of a costume party me and some friends had about a year ago. It was a rock star theme (Me and a buddy went as Wham--don't ask, we were drunk). Perhaps the best costume, other than my wife's dead-on Cindy Lauper impression, was donned by the hostess, who did one hell of an Ozzie. She wore a tee-shirt bearing the words "Math is Hard." I know that you know mathematics is an extremely important subject for developing thought, regardless of whether or not you end up working for NASA at some point. Honing mathematics, trig, calculus and the rest intimately relates to honing logic and, for that matter, one's aetshetics. This happens in the public education system, at least the one I went through. And perhaps the Greeks were onto something in upholding math and music at the tippy top of their curricula. All this is coming from a literary critic and teacher, mind you, who as a high school student struggled mightily with math and science. But I don't begrudge a single moment of the training--at a public scool, no less!--indeed, I am grateful for it. You pick strange enemies, I think. Ashcroft and Bush and Tipper Gore and Janet Reno and the rest may annoy you but not so much, it would seem, as the public schools, which turn you into Roger Rabbit after a shot of liquor. All this does is make Kansas a laughingstock, and it hurts the kids there.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#40)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    Speaking of laughingstocks and "Intelligent Design", check out this recent quote from Pat "Zarquawi" Robertson: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city." Thank you, Pat. Your quote speaks quite well to the essence of this whole silly "debate" over "ID". No wonder the Kansas Board couldn't get any Scientists to attend the show. Next thing you know they'll invite NASA officials to debate a 700 Club Watcher as to whether the Earth does, in fact, revolve about the sun.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    "I drive a car; doesn’t make me a mechanic." You drive a car; doesn't make GOD a mechanic. "Yah, my public education stunk. The one I provide myself is excellent." So your complaint is that they didn't teach you about evolution and you've gotten along just fine. You're an anti-intellectual. “You know someone who uses math; so it’s important you learned some math?" He went to school in the pro-science schools in Los Angeles, and now has a high-paying job for JPL, which is cutting-edge space exploration science. The math I learned was an important exercise of abstract reasoning skills. Spatial approximation is a direct result of learning to conceive large numbers, as is an appreciation of history, medicine, and any high-tech industry in California. Unlike the Chinese, the Kansans don't do science. They can't use math to design their farms or understand what the county agronomist is telling them. That's really going to be GREAT for their economy. Maybe they can all play the banjo, wear some overalls, and vote for Bush's cloned infant child.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    Sorry, "Spatial approximation (and other math-related skills) is a direct result of learning to conceive large numbers, as is VITAL TO an appreciation of history, medicine, and any high-tech industry in California.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    Oh, hey, glanton, sorry to step on your points. It is really rather amazing, the conceit that pigwiggle, who claims to work in science, exerts to convince people that science is bunk. That's like the people who work in government who want to convince people that crumbs off the table are all they have a right to expect. No, no, no stemcell research to cure arthritis so your parents don't die screaming or from big doses of steroids. No stemcell research to restore broken spinal cords in the Cheney Wars. God wouldn't want that -- that's why he didn't invent the electron microscope, and doesn't want you to study genetics. It's like looking in God's Underpants, and only We get to do that. Do as you're told! Cower before God, you peasants.

    Re: Science v. Politics in Kansas (none / 0) (#44)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    “So your complaint is that they didn't teach you about evolution and you've gotten along just fine. You're an anti-intellectual.”
    That’s my point (not a complaint), but it hardly makes me anti-intellectual. I notice you’ve gotten along fine absent an understanding of quantum electrodynamics; if you don’t feel guilty or handicapped by your ignorance of the subject are you anti-intellectual?
    “The math I learned was an important exercise of abstract reasoning skills.”
    I don’t know if this is true, or if there are better ways to teach abstract reasoning. It’s not the point; we are arguing about some high school teachers clarifying for their students that evolution is a theory and not fact. An argument that seems trivial considering the last time most of these students will ‘use’ the theory is on a high school exam.
    “It is really rather amazing, the conceit that pigwiggle, who claims to work in science, exerts to convince people that science is bunk.”
    I’m not trying to convince anyone science is bunk. I just want to convince folks that it is a worldview like any other, and irrespective of it’s utility it isn’t more or less legitimate. That is, legitimate in the sense of using force to impose one over another. And believe it or not Paul, I am a research scientist; more specifically a theoretical physical chemist. I’m good at it and I love what I do. Like your friend I used math every day, in fact, I liked math enough to make it one of my undergraduate majors. So, I have more than a passing familiarity with these things, and I also have a great fondness for them. But in no way do I feel justified in forcing them on others. Talk about conceit; you want the government, through all their power and force, to extort money from hard working folks and use it to push your worldview. Why do you feel justified, if not obligated? The utility of science. Pretty lame excuse.
    “Do as you're told! Cower before God, you peasants.”
    This is your reaction to some folks wanting a bit of their worldview reflected in their child’s education, the education they paid for? Unapologetic hypocrisy. “Do as you're told! Cower before [Paul’s paradigm], you peasants.”

    Science v. Politics in Kansas | 41 comments (41 topical)