Well, Thank Goodness There Are No ATHEISTS in Kansas!

That people don’t care enough about elections or education.

How many people here could honestly name off the top of their heads the people on their local school board?

School board and Board of Ed elections have very low voter participation.

So the Religious Right get elected to these positions with the help of the fundies and bam they are in charge of educating the children. Only a bone headed move like the one in Kansas exposes them to the light of reason and the first oppurtunity they go the people of Kansas thew (most of) the bums out. If they had paid attention in the first place they wouldn’t have had this problem. Now I ask again…

How many people here could honestly name off the top of their heads the people on their local school board?

Satan do you know? Do you Eve?

Eve, you’re going to be surprised, but I’m going to disagree with your OP, in which you said:

Nowhere did she say anything about attacking atheists. She actually made quite a smart move. She pointed out that this was not a battle about religion, but about science. She did so by using her own Christianity.

One tactic often used by creationists is to claim that the other side is promoting atheism. By pointing out that she and the other Board members are Christians, she takes away this creationist argument. Her second part – about having no problem with teaching religion – could have just as easily been said by me.

Joe Nickell, an ultra-skepic and humanist/atheist, once told me that it’s better to have a priest on your side when discussing miracles (not creationism, but same idea) than to have another atheist. In the situation in question, I had been called by the Oprah show to come talk about miracles. I pointed them to Nickell instead, who has done a lot more work and written books on the subject. He was glad that a priest would be with him on the show because it’s easy to dismiss an atheist with these views; it’s not so easy to dismiss a religious person. The same holds true here.

One of our leading conservative Republican leaders came up with this little gem.

From: The Eagle Forum

Kansas Dumbs Down Science to Promote Evolution

Feb. 14, 2001

Liberals have long realized that, if they can win the battle over what is taught in schools, they will win elections. While they claim to believe in free speech, they often have little tolerance for alternate points of view in the schools.
In 1999, a popularly-elected Kansas Board of Education changed its science teaching standards to allow students to make factual scientific criticisms of evolution. This created a national uproar in intellectual circles and the media and, last November, the pro-evolution forces elected their allies to the state school board.

The new board is now planning on imposing stricter evolution requirements at its February meeting. The board has posted its new 2001 standards at http://www.ksde.org alongside the 1999 standards.

The 2001 standards contain provisions to prohibit scientific evaluation and debate about evolution. This means dumbing down science in order to promote evolution.

For example, the 1999 standards mandated that “no evidence or analysis of evidence that contradicts a current science theory should be censored.” The 2001 standards deleted this requirement.

The 2001 standards encourage teachers to evade tough questions from students about the validity of evolution theories. Instead of addressing the students’ questions, “the teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science.”

The 2001 standards remove an educational geology experiment and replace it with “Toilet Paper Earth History.” Students are instructed to “Plot the major events (last ice age, beginning of Paleozoic Era, etc.) of earth history on a roll of toilet paper. Each sheet of toilet paper = 100 million years.”

It gets worse. The 1999 standards taught the significance of an important scientific concept called “falsification,” which is crucial to understanding what science is all about. As recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1993 Daubert decision, an idea is in the realm of science if it has the potential of being “falsified” by an experiment.

For example, the idea that sunsets are beautiful is not scientific unless some procedure is contemplated to determine whether or not sunsets really are beautiful. On the other hand, a theory that the sun rises in the east is falsifiable because it could be disproved by the sun rising once in the west.

Evolution can encounter difficulties with the falsification test. Much of what is taught as evolution in the schools is not falsifiable at all and thus cannot truly be called science.

The 1999 Kansas standards stated: “Learn about falsification. Example: What would we accept as proof that the theory that all cars are black is wrong? . . . Answer: One car of any color but black and only one time. . . . No matter how much evidence seems to support a theory, it only takes one proof that it is false to show it to be false.”

The 2001 Kansas Board eliminates the falsification test and substitutes the following: “Share interpretations that differ from currently held explanations on topics such as global warming and dietary claims. Evaluate the validity of results and accuracy of stated conclusions.”

Repeated problems with the theory of evolution have required its advocates to redefine evolution to mean merely “change.” One biology textbook defines evolution as “the totality of all changes that have occurred in organisms from the beginnings of life on earth to the present day.”

Obviously, that definition is so vacuous that it is both meaningless and incapable of the falsification test. Another textbook definition of evolution uses fancier language but is similarly empty: “any genotypic and resulting phenotypic change in organisms from generation to generation.”

Once students accept such hollow definitions of evolution, it becomes easier to get them to accept more controversial notions. The hypothesis that all living organisms on earth are descended from one primordial ooze can become an exam question.

The 2001 standards pretentiously claim that evolution not only explains all life, it also explains all non-life. It defines biological evolution as “a scientific theory that accounts for present day similarity and diversity among living organisms and changes in non-living entities over time.”

If you are baffled as to why the liberals pursue the dogmatic teaching of evolution, a clue might be found in the recent election. Of the 13 states that allow dissent over evolution, George W. Bush won all but one and, of the 10 states that impose the strictest pro- evolution requirements, Gore won all but three.

States that have been imposing stricter pro-evolution requirements are quickly moving to the left politically. The traditionally conservative states of North Carolina, Indiana, Michigan and Missouri, which have been aggressively pushing evolution, recently elected liberal Senators.

The right to scientific dissent is closely related to the right to political dissent. When states abolish rights of students to criticize evolution, suppression of political dissent becomes easier.

Phyllis Schlafly column 2-14-01

Funny, I have no problem answering every question about “the validity of evolution theories” and I don’t have to resort to “Well, God must have done it then.”

As such, I would imagine that someone with a degree enabling them to teach science can give scientific answers to any of the so-called “discrepencies” in evolution.

Like, they’re not discrepencies, and here is the totally scientific reason your concern is not a threat to evolution: It’s either a lie, unintentionally or not, or a dream.

This guy twists facts as good as the creationists do. That is, not very well…

I don’t understand this. Does anyone know what earlier, more robust definition of evolution would have supposedly been more satisfying to Ms. Schlafly? (It’s almost shameful how much glee I’m deriving from calling Phyllis Schlafly “Ms.” Almost.) Is it, as I suspect, that Schlafly thought that the definition of evolution included a progression from lower to higher forms of life, and now the wishy-washy evolutionists have altered it in the face of the Creation Scientists’ unrelenting commitment to the scientific method?

“But Ms. Schlafly,” I protest, “There never was a hierarchical component to the theory of evolution. I would point to your own existence at this late date as falsification of that idea.”

(And that’s another damn thing. The Supreme Court established falsification as the standard for science? WTF? The Supreme Court establishes the definition of what science is now? What the hell article of the Constitution is that power established under? IIRC, the standard of “falsification” was first presented by Karl Popper, and is certainly not agreed upon universally.)