BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: michaelr
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:59 PM

One day a giant arse will appear on the horizon and bury the world in shit.

(The Gospel of Martin)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 02:03 PM

"If I remember correctly you did not like the expression 'fundamentalists'. That's why I use 'literalists' for those reading the old stories verbatim."

Thanks. I appreciate the consideration.

JH

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 01:20 PM

The demand is, again, that the sciences not be claiming the unscientific notion that science has disproven a creation. (John Hardly)

Show me who says that. It would be nonsense. A creation is always reconcilable with science. Deistic creation before the Big Bang would be no problem at all. But some particular creation stories just do not fit the known facts.

Scientific theories by their very nature do not make any supernatural assumptions. If someone would make the supernatural assumption, for instance, that god created the world say 4000 years ago including all the much older looking bones to test our faith, a scientist could say nothing against such a notion. Such a notion could not be disproved by any findings. Such a notion would be unscientific which is BTW not the same as 'wrong'.

I personally like Gould's idea of the nonoverlapping magisteria for science and religion. Science has nothing to say at all in my eyes about ethics and personal choices and personal faiths. Scientists as persons can have an opinion there but they should not argue from science about such questions. They usually don't for they know when it is better to shut up.

On the other hand I expect religions to shut up about questions of science. Sometimes it takes some religions a bit longer to realise that what once may have been a question of faith now has crossed over to the other field. That causes some friction as we see in the ID debate in the USA.

If I remember correctly you did not like the expression 'fundamentalists'. That's why I use 'literalists' for those reading the old stories verbatim. But there are differences between 'literalists' I admit. The flat Earth literalists I see find no support at Mudcat. Or am I wrong? The Bible says that God once showed all kingdoms of the earth to a prophet from a high mountain. The flat Earth literalists deduce from that that a belief in a flat Earth is necessary for a good Christian.

Well, I have not yet heard of attempts in Kansas or elsewhere to add 'it's just a theory' to the geography books. That's too weird even for USA Christians.

BTW, it is for me quite the opposite of comforting to think of Christians as uneducated. If I would have reasons to believe that I would be worried a lot.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 09:22 AM

BTW,

quantum theory doesn't adequately answer the questions of physics. You were awfully sarcastic about the religious just because you thought they might have (ignorantly) argued the case of QP's inadequacies...

...are you now going to spend some of that vitreol on the scientists who are now in fact bringing that to our attention?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: John Hardly
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 08:36 AM

"Why is there no Christian literalists demand for equal time in physics teaching for pointing out that quantum theory is only a theory after all? For they find nothing in the Bible which they can bend into an alternative account of very small particles. But they think they can find alternative theories in biology by a literal reading."

There are and there aren't.

First, because I went to a college that espoused a theology that accepts verbal plenary inspiration, I know several PHDs in physics. I know it's comforting to think of Christians as uneducated and backwards, but it is my experience that they are no moreso than the general population.

In fact, because of this interesting phenomenon of Christians in HUGE numbers giving up the fight to try to have their beliefs treated respectfully in the public schools, and moving onto home schools, it may be argued that the "Christian literalists", as you call them, are outstripping the general population in education. I know three families locally of these religious hayseeds whose children are attending or have graduated from the colleges of their choice (even two of them at Ivy League schools). Two of the kids entered highschool in their final years for athletic reasons and ended up a valedictorian and a salutatorian.

Anyway, within the confines of their church gathering, those interested in physics do often talk unscientifically about specualtions as to how the unanswerable questions of physics (string theory, etc) might tie into their understanding of the Bible. Do they confuse their speculation as science? I don't think so. Do they take comfort in the speculation? Maybe.

If physics teachers were claiming, with the same boldness that biology teachers have been teaching, that science disproves a creation, then perhaps the teaching of physics would be more of a hot-button.

"ID is just an alternative name for "creation science" to avoid the implications of the judge Overington (and similar) decision(s). It is a (to the outsider) ridiculous attempts to force one particular reading of one particular book upon science. ID 'scientists' start with the wished for result and then work backwards in a parody of science. They are not taken serious outside of a small group."

Take comfort in that if you wish, but it's not true. Several of those who are opening the ID can of worms are not religious (like Behe).

And ID is substantively different from creationism. Creationism can definitely find a haven in ID's potential, but ID makes no presupposition as to the nature of the "designer" --only that certain aspects of the universe make better sense in the probablility of a designer model.

"If all creation myths of all religions (and all different readings within one religion) would get equal time there would be no serious biology teaching at all. But the US Christian literalists are not for equal time for all different creation myths. They want the children to hear one (and only one) of these many myths on an eaul footing with a scientific approach"

That's not true either. In Kansas there is no demand for creation of any kind to be taught. The demand is, again, that the sciences not be claiming the unscientific notion that science has disproven a creation.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:41 AM

"eaul" should read 'equal'

W.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 06:41 AM

Why is there no Christian literalists demand for equal time in physics teaching for pointing out that quantum theory is only a theory after all? For they find nothing in the Bible which they can bend into an alternative account of very small particles. But they think they can find alternative theories in biology by a literal reading.

ID is just an alternative name for "creation science" to avoid the implications of the judge Overington (and similar) decision(s). It is a (to the outsider) ridiculous attempts to force one particular reading of one particular book upon science. ID 'scientists' start with the wished for result and then work backwards in a parody of science. They are not taken serious outside of a small group.

If all creation myths of all religions (and all different readings within one religion) would get equal time there would be no serious biology teaching at all. But the US Christian literalists are not for equal time for all different creation myths. They want the children to hear one (and only one) of these many myths on an eaul footing with a scientific approach.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: heric
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 05:21 PM

Interestingly, the "Origin of Life" is not an official part of the current Kansas curriculum.

This is an excerpt from a document entitled "SUMMARY OF KEY PROPOSALS TO CHANGE STANDARDS SUBMITTED BY EIGHT MEMBERS OF THE SCIENCE WRITING COMMITTEE" found at http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Summary%20of%20Key%20Proposals.pdf


TOPIC 3: The Origin of Life

CURRENT STANDARDS: [Topic is not included.]
ADDED IN PROPOSED STANDARDS: "Students will be able to explain proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations."

So, there is apparently a sub rosa teaching, or an atheistic indoctrination by innuendo, and the proponents of the changes seek to bring it out in the open, shedding light. Fair enough, but the crux of the problem will be centered on the term "scientific criticisms." School kids will have to get to the heart of the most contentious and central questions on earth. Scientifically.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 05:13 PM

you did actually acknowledge my assertion that the notion of creation is, indeed, being taught as "unscientific"

I should, perhaps, make this my last post on the subject because, after all, I'm in the UK, so what people in Kansas do is not really my responsibility (*grin*).

I do accept that there is careless talk and that it is probably very widespread. People everywhere, in schools, on the Mudcat and in general conversation, do not usually monitor what they say with legal precision. So, yes, I'm sure many teachers respond to various statements by saying something like "Science doesn't go along with that" without making clear whether science contradicts it, does not support it or merely does not require it. I know I've made that sort of error many times on less emotive subjects than this one.

But there is a very precise reason why I would say creationism is unscientific, which is that it does not contain a test whereby it would declare itself invalid. Darwin's Origin of Species, for example, contains many sentences of the form "if such and such is found, then this theory will be disproved." (I don't have a copy to hand, so I'm afraid you'll either have to trust me or look them up yourself)

If there is such a test for ID, I'd be glad to hear it, but as I say, as a UK-dweller, I feel I've said my bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 04:52 PM

...and it is in those journals that issues like "irreducable complexity" are starting to be published and discussed. And discussed by non-religious people who are interested in ID.

And, though I've appreciated this gentlemanly discussion, it has not escaped me that you did actually acknowledge my assertion that the notion of creation is, indeed, being taught as "unscientific" (true) and "fact" (unproven).

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 04:44 PM

Well, since we seem to be moving together, I'm afraid its time to push us apart a little. It is quite true that science has not proven creation is impossible, but it has shown the requirement of a creator is not necessary, at least as far as evolution is concerned. (Yes, there are unexplained areas still, but there are unexplained areas of every significant topic in science and outside it; knowledge is like that) I do not support teaching ANYTHING in school that is supported by only a tiny percentage of the specialists in that subject. I am sure, for example, there are historians who can and do argue cogently that getting rid of slavery was a bad thing, or that America should never have split from Britain. Should these alternatives views be taught in schools, because "Getting rid of Slavery was a good idea" is only "only a theory"?

I also don't buy the idea that this is a scientific argument, rather than a religious one. For one thing, there far too much historical evidence of attempts to set the agenda based on religious views in the past. For another, scientific battles are fought out in journals and conferences, not schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 04:17 PM

Yes, DMcG, but it IS taught as such. It IS being taught as those here on the mudcat believe -- that science has disproven the possibility of creation.

Those taxpayers who do not believe this to be so (and logic, science, is on THEIR side) are simply demanding that this kind of presuppositional "science" be augmented with the true logic (your logic 101) that it is NOT a given that creation is not possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 03:46 PM

But as to the simple question being fought out – science has not disproven a creation or intelligent design –though, in our schools it is teaching this as a fait accompli.

Thanks for your comments. The above sentence of yours is, I agree, a key point. I believe most science teachers follow my framework (i.e. Evolution does not require a designer) rather than yours (Evolution denies a designer), but I expect we have both heard the arguments so often there is little chance of progress.   As to your first sentence ("Science has not concluded [X] is not the same thing as science having disproved [X]") - this is part of Science 101 and Logic 101 and as such I don't think it is necessary to repeat it constantly thoughout all teaching.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: heric
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 03:40 PM

But John, if it is the simple question of whether science has disproven creation or intelligent design --and of course it hasn't-- Then that's a one-liner. How can that one-liner become the subject of "equal time" with all of biology? (And, I assume, astronomy. Geology? Soil science? Entomology? Physics and so forth.)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 03:06 PM

"I'm not so sure. Would you be happy with a version of 'intelligent designer' with lots of designers, for example?"

This isn't what is being argued.

Science is right when it claims:

1. Science has not concluded a "first cause" , a "creator" or a "creation".

2. It is not the job of science to find a "creator" unless it is the natural deduction taken from scientific method and discovery.

3. Science cannot act from prepositional philosophy. It works from working theory until such time as that theory yields to a better understanding.

The step too far in "science" – the issue that is attempting to be addressed is:

1. Just because science has not concluded a creation is not the same thing as science having disproved a creation. It's well worth the arguing over specific "creation" models that do not stand up to science, and it is worth considering within the confines of religion and philosophy that science may be drawing wrong conclusions.   But as to the simple question being fought out – science has not disproven a creation or intelligent design –though, in our schools it is teaching this as a fait accompli.

2. Those who claim to represent "science" are themselves claiming an exclusivity that ignores that there are scientists on both sides of this argument.

3. Those arguing for the presentation of Intelligent design are not arguing from a religious POV. For example, Michael Behe is a scientist. He is not religious.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 02:05 PM

An appropriate spot for a good quote from naturalist Sir David Attenborough:

"I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like the programs a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature, to which I reply and say, "Well, it's funny that the people, when they say that this is evidence of the almighty, always quote beautiful things, they always quote orchids and hummingbirds and butterflies and roses." But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball, turning him blind before he's five years old, and I reply and say, "Well presumably the god you speak about created the worm as well," and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful god with that action, and therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of this thing."

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: heric
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:54 PM

The after the fact fix, btw, promotes sickle cell anemia and other blood diseases. Was that part of the intelligent designer's design, or a screw-up? I don't know. I wouldn't know how to answer that without consulting a spiritual leader.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: heric
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:43 PM

I agree with JH that evolution does not negate any important aspect of Christian theology. But my understanding of what is happening is that they want to promote a certain intellectual laziness, fueled by false logic. Where there are flaws (or, perhaps more frequently, unanswered phenomena) in evolutionary theory, the default becomes "intelligent design."

Someone pointed out a interesting one to me recently. If African populations gradually inherited distinctive erythrocyte structures, as is believed, which prompted malaria resistance in a malaria-rich environment, and you want to provide equal time to "intelligent design," Then one would need to ask: Did the intelligent designer forget, or not know about, malaria, in the first instance, and then do an after-the fact fix? Pretty hard to study that without dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: DMcG
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:39 PM

the only fundamentalists who are stomping their feet, insisting on their way or the highway are those fundamentalist, old-school evolutionists who insist that evolution precludes a cause or intelligent design.

I'm not so sure. Would you be happy with a version of of 'intelligent designer' with lots of designers, for example? Of do you insist that there is One True Designer? And I am sure that the majority of people teaching evolution make it clear that a designer is unnecessary for evolution. That does not, in itself, preclude such a designer.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:31 PM

That's not what's being asked of the Kansas schools.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:28 PM

Myth over science? If you're going to teach according to apochryphal stories then, surely, you would need to teach every version given by every religion. Where could that end?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:22 PM

but that's not what's happening in Kansas. In fact, the only fundamentalists who are stomping their feet, insisting on their way or the highway are those fundamentalist, old-school evlolutionists who insist that evolution precludes a cause or intelligent desing.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: jacqui.c
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:17 PM

The threat comes from religious fundamentalists of all colours who insist that theirs is the only truth and who would like to ensure that everybody else falls in with their point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: John Hardly
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:00 PM

Really?

The suggestion that evolution does not disprove religion threatens you?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 12:57 PM

I lived in Wichita (admittedly not rural) from the 3rd grade until I was 38 years old....you don't see all this conservative, anti-evolution stuff everyday, but BOY! say the wrong thing in the wrong place, or deal with a school board, and it soon becomes apparent what is under the surface. It is perfectly possible to lead a pretty liberal lifestyle there (in Wichita), as long as you are not advertising it..(I could tell stories!)

The thing is, Wichita is sort of an island where you can find people of ALL types...including the most conservative....and THEY have the last word on many matters.

Somehow this anti-evolution thing has taken on a life of its own in Kansas....they have the bit in their teeth, and will not back down.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: GUEST,Sorch
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 12:40 PM

I am so glad I don't live in Kansas anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 08:48 AM

In a free country we have to give enough room for others to be free.
Arlo Guthrie

I guess that includes freedom from all things real great or small.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: Tracey Dragonsfriend
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 08:05 AM

No, no... we were all sneezed from the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure! Everybody knows that, and fears the day of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief.

Or was it the Mutant Star Goat...

Subject: RE: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: Kaleea
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 02:39 AM

One of the reasons which I am leaving Kansas (it ain't OZ, baby--they'd burn Glinda at the stake!) is because the people are predominately "Christians" who cannot conceive of allowing anyone to enjoy freedom of religion, unless of course anyone's religion is awfully close to theirs. I wish that the stupid people would actually pass a law that the "Christian" theory of nonevolution be taught, because then the schools would be obliged to allow everyone else teach their religious theories.
   Same with prayer in the schools. I think it would be hilarious to go to a football game and have a Native American or perhaps a Buddhist give the prayer before the game. Besides, anyone who doesn't think there is prayer in the schools has obviously never seen the kids standing outside the math class before a big test.

Subject: BS: Open Letter to Kansas School Board
From: heric
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 01:58 AM

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design to be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don't understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don't.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

Email me: [e-mail]

(view charts and images at http://www.venganza.org/)