This can’t be entirely accurate. Perhaps it may be true for basic science courses, but my daughter graduated last year from a Texas high school, and one of her courses was AP Biology. I was very interested in what her textbook had to say about evolution, and was pleasantly surprised to find an entire chapter devoted to it. Likewise, evolution was a unifying theme throughout the book.
Her teacher, on the other hand, was not as impressive. She took a half-hearted approach to the subject of evolution, and even went so far as to pass out a newspaper article (?!) condemning evolution, with the announcement that they would discuss it the following Monday. I wrote a scathing review of the article and had my daughter give it to the teacher.
Every Kansan I know is just as confused and disappointed and in wonderment as to how and why exactly the Board came to to it’s evolution decision. I know a lot of people here in Kansas, and know of nobody who understands this.
However…I wish the comments in the OP had referred more to the Kansas Board joining the 20th Century, as opposed to “Kansas” joining the 20th Century.
At the rock shop in Nederland, CO last summer, I found a Darwin fish for my car (the one holding a wrench). I’d been thinking of getting them, and there they were, just in a basket at the checkout! Cool, I’d just grab one while I was there.
They asked me if I was from Kansas, and I asked why. “They’re free if you’re from Kansas”… I pointed to my father in law and said “he’s from Kansas!” (he really is, I wasn’t lying) and so we got it free!
So you’re saying that the folks on the School Board were just appointed to the Board? I was under the impression they were voted in by the people of Kansas.
If that is the case, then the board that they voted in does reflect on the people of Kansas. Why shouldn’t it?
So, if a kid who had gone to school in one of those school districts that had decided to drop evolution, etc. decided to go to college somewhere other than a fundamentalist-Christian college, wouldn’t they have been at quite a disadvantage?
I don’t know how these things are taught in Kansas, but at my university, everyone was required to take a biology class, and, at least in the biology class I took, they assumed you knew the basics of evolution, and creationism was not even brought up (maybe it was covered in the Middle Eastern Mythology department or something :).) Can you imagine the freshman from Kansas in that class? Or in a geology class, where the world is assumed to be billions of years old instead of thousands? Or an astronomy class? Did the Kansas school board even think about the disadvantage Kansas students might be at if they decided to get out of their backwards little towns and go to college, especially out-of-state? Or did they think that this was much less important than appeasing a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who aren’t going to listen to anything that doesn’t groove with their point of view anyway?
It’s sad that many Americans believe that it is impossible for a person to do anything good if that person doesn’t happen to believe that there is a god peeking over his shoulder checking up on him.
Ha! We tried that one on in Indiana in 1897. I’m currently behind a drive to change our state motto to “We’re not as backward as Kansas!!” but I don’t have high hopes, as I’m not sure it’s strictly true.
The only solution I can see is for we non-believers to pool our money and buy us some Republicans of our own.
The new(?) angle? Creative design. Even if evolution really happened, the statistical probabilities without God’s help would be impossible. OK it’s not traditional creationism, but something that would be PC enough to include in science classes.
Actually, it’s the Kansas Board of Education, not the “School Board”. The members are elected to it. Three Board members were ousted in the recent elections (reputedly) as a result of the Evolution decision last year.
For a little “truth” on the matter, according to this:
(emphasis added)
also:
(emphasis added)
By that same token, are you saying that anything that our President should do should also be taken to reflect on everyone in the US who either voted for him or did not vote for him? Is that not an overgeneralized and prejudicial thing to say?
Thank you for that clarification. I was under the impression I could speak colloquially here and that everyone would know the exact meaning of who was responsible. Thanks for clearing this up to anyone here who didn’t think I meant “The Kansas Board of Education” when in a thread about Kansas I mentioned the shortened “school board.”
**
As I suspected, thank you for confirming it.
**
Good! Great, even! When the members did something (or maybe other things in addition or instead to this vote, who am I to read the minds of Kansas residents here) that the voters did not like, they voted them out.
This does not change the fact that they voted them in previously, does it?
**
Thanks for the link.
None of the article really changes the fact that the Board… Sorry, I mean the Kansas Board of Education voted the way they did, does it?
I don’t recall quibbling what exactly was voted on, nor do I recall making any statements as to how many of the school districts individually went along with what the Board… Oops! I mean with what the Kansas Board of Education did decide.
We finally get past the semantics and arguing with things I never even voiced an opinion on with the following statement:
Yes, and no in order.
I lived in North Carolina. Jesse Helms represented my state. This bothered me to no end, and I did my part towards preventing that from happening when I voted there, but regardless, the only thing I can say about Helms is “I didn’t vote for him,” because he is still a representative of North Carolina (says so right on his nameplate) whether I personally like it or not.
The President… Oh, sorry. I mean The President of these United States Of America (wouldn’t want anyone to think I was talking about some other President) represents all of America. For better or for worse, this is true.
We voted him in. Maybe not me, or you (or Florida for that matter), but as the President of this country, he represents America and therefore Americans.
I commend Kansas for voting out the people who made them look bad.
But I assert that the only reason they were able to do this in the first place was because they were voted in in the first place.
And if Kansas doesn’t want to draw the ridicule of educated people the world over (many in Kansas hiding their heads in shame, I will assume), they’ll do a better job of whom they elect to represent them and their views in the future.
Seems to me that the Governor of the state in question is also on my side here, wouldn’t you say?
So, thanks for the cite which only strengthened my point.
I could start a real-live “Great Debate” on whether the leaders we elect to represent us actually do represent us, and if you continue to prevent evidence FOR my side, I’ll do it! Between you and I, we’ll win that debate, I just know it!
He gets this way from time to time. Maybe it’s some kind of cyclical thing involving recurring stressors in his life, but I’m not terribly interested in (or qualified to be) analyzing it.
Never fear, he’ll be back to recognizing who the good guys are soon enough…
What’s what all about? I just debated my point. Maybe not the best form in The Pit, and instead I could have simply called you names (like a dick or something), but instead I tried to actually make my point as clearly as I could. The second post was a bit of overkill, but frankly, I hadn’t noticed it when I posted first and it did show evidence for my POV, and the irony that it was in the cite that you brought up was too much for me to take.
What I don’t understand is why is it surprising that we might disagree about something and that maybe I might try and talk it out instead of, oh I don’t know, call you a name or something? I didn’t want to offend you, and re-reading over what I said, the first post wouldn’t have been out of place in GD, and the second one was a bit of tongue-in-cheek silliness, but I certainly meant no offense by it.
I interpreted her quote differently than that. I thought it was meant as a message to the fundamentalists, essentially saying, “We believe in God. We also believe in evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive beliefs. We know you probably think that only atheists believe in evolution, but that is not true. We have no problem with you teaching your children about Christianity if you wish to do so, but it belongs in religion class, not science. Creationism is not a science. Evolution is.”
At least that’s how I took it - as an assurance to fundamentalists that Christians can believe in evolution too, and a suggestion perhaps they should give it a try. I’m sure that many fundamentalists, like this Abrams guy she was responding to, were making a big deal about the “evil atheists” that had taken over the school board and wanted to take God out of the schools.
Protesilaus—maybe you’re right and I was being too sensitive. “Atheist” is almost always used as a term of derision, so one does get a bit touchy . . . Seems to me the Kansas Board of Education could USE a few outspoken atheists!
[Why is everyone dogpiling Satan? I didn’t see anything remotely off-base about his posts!]
I’m reminded of the recent Harry Potter fiasco in Vaughan (a city near Toronto) where a PUBLIC school board banned the use of Potter books in class because some parents complained about how it promoted “witchcraft.” (I always find it humourous that people would complain about the promotion of something that does not exist. You can read Potter books from now until hell freezes over and you still will not be able to cast spells.)
Anyway, was this because many Vaughan parents were iron-skulled censors? Not at all; only TWO parents complained. But the complainers are invariably the squeakiest wheels, and the trustees on a school board will typically do anything to avoid a controversy; presented with a shrieking harpy of a parent, they’ll roll over like a servile dog, and the only way to get them to change their mind is to have rational parents to shriek just as loud. Fortunately, a fight was organized, and the THOUSANDS of parents who appreciated Potter books had their voices heard.
The pro-science parents could outnumber the pro-creationist parents by a 1000-1 ratio, but if it’s the creationists who get to the school boards first and scream the loudest, they can have things changed before the pro-science parents even have a chance to say anything. I bet you could significantly influence matters of curriculum like evolution or Harry Potter on a municipal or district level with no more than three or four parents, if they were hysterical and loud enough. I bet you could change a whole state with twenty or less.
