![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearBad News: Kansas State BOE has voted to include "Intelligent Design" in the curriculum. This time, this one actually has the support of the DI (Dover didn't) and is the fight the DI would have preferred to have had Dover not gone first.
Good News: Dover repeated Kansas's 2000 vote after 1999's removal of Evolution from the Kansas education standards -- all eight members of the Dover school board have been voted out. Granted, they were sitting in a trial the last 5 weeks rather than campaigning, but it goes to show that you reap what you sow. The trial is costing the county tons of money (even with the Thomas More center working pro bono) and has made the small town a laughing stock in the nation. Religious ferver notwithstanding, the people of that town didn't expect to vote themselves into social martyrdom 4 years ago.
Interestingly, given that the town is rather overwhelmingly Republican, the CARES campaigners that ran against the current board on a Democratic slate are actually mostly Republicans. Also, CARES doesn't intend to remove ID entirely, but will move it to the creation stories section of an elective comparative religion class (where it belongs, though I doubt they'll teach the fact that ID really makes for bad theology even more so than bad science...). Interestingly enough #2, voter turnout in Dover was only 35%, which for a decision of that magnitude is really rather pathetic (though better than the county Dover is in, where it only reached 20%).
Indifferent News: It does make an appeal of the case (given the high probability of a win for the plaintiffs) less likely, meaning Kansas rather than Dover will be the case to go to federal courts and finally nail ID as a form of religion that shouldn't be "taught" (again, what's there to teach?) in public schools. The new school board will take over on December 5th; the judgement may not be rendered until the end of the year. What isn't known is whether or not the new school board will withdraw the case prior to judgement. Unlikely, but possible, and if they do so, its sets no precedent (even if it wouldn't be totally applicable given the different districts) for the inevitable Kansas case.
Update: oh, and the Kansas standards actually both redefine "science" to remove skepticism (having the effect of therefore removing any teaching of recognizing pseudoscience when its presented), and actually includes requiring the teaching of a flat out lie: the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology. This is absolutely false in every letter -- had some fossil evidence or molecular evidence discredited common descent (common descent is something even the majority of ID supporters say they "believe" is true) those scientists would be on the gravy train for life and more famous than Darwin himself. Every fossil, every aspect of genetics and DNA and organic chemistry continues to support common descent.
Teaching children lies in public schools is not something we as a country should pay for, or tolerate.
Good News: Dover repeated Kansas's 2000 vote after 1999's removal of Evolution from the Kansas education standards -- all eight members of the Dover school board have been voted out. Granted, they were sitting in a trial the last 5 weeks rather than campaigning, but it goes to show that you reap what you sow. The trial is costing the county tons of money (even with the Thomas More center working pro bono) and has made the small town a laughing stock in the nation. Religious ferver notwithstanding, the people of that town didn't expect to vote themselves into social martyrdom 4 years ago.
Interestingly, given that the town is rather overwhelmingly Republican, the CARES campaigners that ran against the current board on a Democratic slate are actually mostly Republicans. Also, CARES doesn't intend to remove ID entirely, but will move it to the creation stories section of an elective comparative religion class (where it belongs, though I doubt they'll teach the fact that ID really makes for bad theology even more so than bad science...). Interestingly enough #2, voter turnout in Dover was only 35%, which for a decision of that magnitude is really rather pathetic (though better than the county Dover is in, where it only reached 20%).
Indifferent News: It does make an appeal of the case (given the high probability of a win for the plaintiffs) less likely, meaning Kansas rather than Dover will be the case to go to federal courts and finally nail ID as a form of religion that shouldn't be "taught" (again, what's there to teach?) in public schools. The new school board will take over on December 5th; the judgement may not be rendered until the end of the year. What isn't known is whether or not the new school board will withdraw the case prior to judgement. Unlikely, but possible, and if they do so, its sets no precedent (even if it wouldn't be totally applicable given the different districts) for the inevitable Kansas case.
Update: oh, and the Kansas standards actually both redefine "science" to remove skepticism (having the effect of therefore removing any teaching of recognizing pseudoscience when its presented), and actually includes requiring the teaching of a flat out lie: the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology. This is absolutely false in every letter -- had some fossil evidence or molecular evidence discredited common descent (common descent is something even the majority of ID supporters say they "believe" is true) those scientists would be on the gravy train for life and more famous than Darwin himself. Every fossil, every aspect of genetics and DNA and organic chemistry continues to support common descent.
Teaching children lies in public schools is not something we as a country should pay for, or tolerate.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: totally irrelevant...
Date: 2005-11-09 07:23 pm (UTC)Re: totally irrelevant...
Date: 2005-11-09 07:39 pm (UTC)It doesn't even matter if they believe it to be true.
Again, I was very specific on two elements of modern Evolutionary theory, neither of which have any claim to be true in ANY article published in any peer-reviewed journal, much less legitimate textbook: that either the fossil record or modern genetics provides proof that common descent may not have happened. There are no articles or publications ANYWHERE that support a claim against common descent using those two fields.
This is deliberate. They are lying and they know it.
And as I said, evidence against common descent isn't even a standard ID claim (neither Behe, Dembski, nor Johnson have said their "work" contradicts common descent). It is one solely of those who believe in special creation for humans independent of the apes. It more than any other is a specific religious tenant that will destroy their movement in the courts.
Re: totally irrelevant...
Date: 2005-11-09 09:41 pm (UTC)Re: totally irrelevant...
Date: 2005-11-09 10:24 pm (UTC)the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
lie #1: "natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life" is not part of "basic Darwinian theory". It is abiogenesis and has never been part of Darwin's theory (he speculated on it in later works, but affirmed that he lacked the ability to study to confirm it). No high school curriculum has ever added "natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life" to standard biology texts, so adding its disproof was unnecessary to start with.
lie #2: "all life had a common origin" (taking a literal meaning for "all life") is not part of "basic Darwinian theory". Darwin's theory is that of common descent: All existing life can be traced, through evolutionary processes, to a common ancestor. Ancestor and Origin have different meanings in science, and any science "standards" document should be aware of that.
lie #3: "natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life" has "been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology". The fossil evidence can not, in any way, say anything about chemical processes creating the building blocks of life. The evidence for abiogenesis is there, but it is not in "fossils" in the same sense that the evidence for dinosaurs is in "fossils". The research on this involves molecular biology and geological knowledge on an major scale. This is an extremely active field today and as such is far too incomplete a body of knowledge (with plenty of contradicting theories), but no study at all has shown that anything *other* than natural chemical processes could have started abiogenesis. The evidence to study is there, but it is not in the form of "fossils".
lie #4: "all life had a common origin" has "been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology". If by "all life" they mean that phrase literally, then no scientific document has ever even asserted that the statement was true. There is plenty of speculation that abiogenesis may have occurred multiple times before one version of "life" finally "stuck". Little evidence, but plenty of speculation, and the search for evidence for or against goes on.
If by "all life", they mean "all life existing today and/or has been seen in the fossil record" (i.e., common descent), then that is still a lie. No scientific study has ever shown any support that an organism today did not evolve from the same common ancestor (that we did), neither through fossils or molecular biology. This is the lie I had specifically been correcting.
In the end, they have introduced lines that seem to specifically target abiogenesis, misassociating it with "basic Darwinian theory" (which is what students are supposed to learn), and then are using that to create uncertainty and doubt in the whole of Darwin and the modern synthesis when the claims have nothing to do with it (nor would they ever have been introduced to a high school biology class even without this lie added on).