Mr. Fusion says:

The worst aspect will be when the policy gets challenged in court. Money much better spent in the classrooms will be diverted to defend an outlandish idea.

The State School Board is elected. The last time they tried to impose their ideology on students, they were soundly tossed out the next election.

I’m waiting for the neo-cons to defend this one.

Ascii King says:

Once again the ‘scientists’ have let me down with their narrow view of the definition of science. Evolution, Big Bang & Intelligent Design are all theories. Why would someone who calls themself a free thinker be willing to teach the theory of evolution and the big bang but not be willing to teach a theory that a lot of people in the world believe? Sure it may not be right, but until you have disproven it, shouldn’t it be considered?

I expect religious fanatics to accept or deny theories based on faith. I expect the open-minded science community not to dismiss an idea because it is religiously based. It is negligent not to teach this theory.

J. Cottrell says:

Thank you Steve, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Ryan says:

This whole thing just makes me sad to be a Biology major at Kansas State University.

Rick says:

The last issue of Biohawk – the University of Kansas magazine for biological science graduates – took a firm position against teaching creationism. The obvious reason – in a science, you don’t teach what people believe, you teach what is objective tests show is repeatable and best fits the known facts.

If you inject God into the equation, how do you quantify Him (or Her, or It, or Them)? An example of this is the “proofs” that prayer speeds healing of sick people. How do you quantify a prayer? Does one person’s prayer carry more weight than another’s? Is it sheer quantity? Does is matter if the sick person is the same religion – or even religious at all? Can you increase the effect if you fast, or burn incense, or pray at church?

One of the key differences between science and religion is that religion depends on faith, and faith is by definition, an acceptance of a thing without questioning it. If performed properly, science is built on observations, and these observations are independent of the religious state or the politics of the observer, and are always questioned until proven or disproven.

One item not addressed in Biohawk, by the way, was how the department was meeting its mission of spreading knowledge to the citizens of the state that support it. It was fine to object to the teaching of creationism per se, but there was no indication that the department was doing anything to educate the people of Kansas on exactly what the theory of evolution means. It doesn’t mean that man descended from apes. It doesn’t mean “survival of the fittest,” because it is nearly impossible to define what the “fittest” might be.

Wikipedia has a good – though necessarily basic – explanation of evolutionary theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution It is clearly identified as a theory. The wikipedia article on creationism is, correctly, labeled as a belief. Theory or belief. Mind or emotion. The universe, frankly, doesn’t care at all about the evolution vs. creationism controversy. It also doesn’t seem to care much about our beliefs, no matter how heartfelt they may be.

Pat says:

Jim W.

Both Behe and Brown have been shown to be wrong and are totally discredited. I am unaware of Strobel.

The scientific community that supports Unintelligent Design is small. Recently they compiled a list of just over 500 Scientists supporting it. Many of the names were unknown to anyone in the Scientific community or had degrees in other disciplines. The Scientific community said fine. They then compiled a list of over 500 Scientists with the first name Dennis that were entirely teaching at College level and higher.

“Free Thinkers” will generally receive an idea and contemplate it. But after it has been refuted or shown to be false then they don’t keep reviewing it. It is more a case that these Creationists insist that we follow their fundamentalist teachings. They have no evidence other then that old “trust us, God talks to us and so we know best”. Even the Vatican has denounced Creationists and Unintelligent Design.

I have come to the conclusion that if you toss a ball up in the air, it will fall back to earth. This is proof positive that God doesn’t want to play catch.

Andrew says:

From reading alot of the blog topics Dvorak has posted, i began to wonder if he himself is religious, because it seems like he has no love for organized religion. (I am personally LDS)

chucky cheese says:

I say let’s go ahead and put Intelligent Design in the science textbooks – and in the next chapter put the theory that intelligent beings from outer space put humans here. Plenty of people believe that theory too.