For the 3rd time in six years the “experts” in science on the Kansas state Board of Education redefined science to fit their religious biases.
Imagine someone who is mathematically challenged decides that 4+4=4 looks “pretty” and gets a Board of Education to agree.
That’s what happen in Kansas on Tuesday.
The new standards includes statements like there is a lack of evidence or natural explanation for the genetic code, and claims that fossil records are inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
It also says some evolutionary explanations “are not based on direct observations… and often reflect… inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence,” and the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
Back in 1999, the Kansas Board removed Evolution from the state standards. The result, besides the national outcry, was that voters removed 3 of the supporters of ID. The Board then changed the standards back to be Evolution friendly.
In recent years the Board has become more conservative and 6 of the 8 Republicans voted to approve the change back to the Dark Ages while 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the changes.
Kansas school board redefines science
Evolution suffers Kansas setback
Meanwhile back in Dover, PA:
The just concluded Federal trial against the inclusion of Intelligent Design by the school board of the Dover Area District had some influence in all 8 incumbents losing their jobs in the elections Tuesday night. The losers also included Alan Bonsell who was at the center of the controversy.
A group of candidates, supported by the Dover CARES group, said that if intelligent design is referenced, it should be in an elective course, such as comparative religion.
Dover CARES sweeps school dir. seats
I wonder if the Kansas Board read newspapers? Of course they would need to get their heads out of their asses first.
I’ve tried to think of the ID/creationist push as a two-part problem. The first is a real ignorance about what science is, what a scientific theory is, and obvious religious biases. On this count, many actually equate faith in god with a “faith” in the Big Bang theory or evolutionary theory.
A more dangerous issue is the question of constitutionality. The intent of the Establishment Clause is a debate with at least some merit. There is hope among conservatives that the Supreme Court may begin backtracking on the separationist trend of the last 50 years.
Separationist trend? See there’s the rub. Many of us think that the First Amendment is pretty damn clear. It does not mean you cannot speak about ID, angels, deities, or prayer it means public resources will not be used to endorse and legitimize one particular religion over others. That would be state sponsored which is illegal because we ALL pay for these resources and they cannot be hijacked by the few with the means to do so.
I.D. is tricky because while it assumes a creation deity, it is technically ‘unspecified’ which distinguishes it from Creationism. Yet both are unconstitutional for public school because you cannot broach ID WITHOUT a “creator” or a “Designer”. hence, the return to their attempts to indoctrinate the children with religion.
Now standing on a corner talking about ID is permitted because it is ‘personal” expression. A teacher who talks about ID on their own time at a dinner party is exercising protected free speech..but in their capacity as paid employees of taxpayer supported public school, they need to be mindful of separation.