Kansas

[plonq]

I was going to slam Kansas for their recent "advances" for the cause of science and critical thinking, but if these polls are to be believed, they speak for the majority of the nation.  It's not religion that bothers me, it's that far too many people think that it exonerates them from any need for critical thinking.

"I let the preacher do my thinking for me."

Bah.  Couple that with the fact that we're probably going to have a Christmas federal election (December 26th has been tossed out as the probable date) and my cynicism meter didn't just max out, it hit the stop and the needle is bending dangerously.  Bleah.  Bleah.

Comments

[dronon.livejournal.com]

In other good news, the people of Dover have not elected the same people to their school board this around around. And the good guys will probably win the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case. (More at Panda's Thumb.)

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I'm not one to tell people what to believe (though I my try and convince them to believe otherwise if I think that they are wrong - "Yes, electricity CAN hurt you if you stick your tongue in a light socket...").

If people want to believe that some big, invisible guy in the sky created everything and is going to toss everybody that they don't like into a lake of eternal fire, that's fine by me. They can believe what they want if it brings them peace and comfort.

I take exception when people try to push their dogma in place of truth, though. Just because one believes in the adult version of Santa Claus doesn't make it so. I'd sooner trust my life to a bridge built by people who believe in the laws of physics and structural integrity, than one built by people who believe that angels keep it aloft. Until one can use scientific method to to make a compelling argument for ID, it has no place being taught alongside real science.

[kamiten.livejournal.com]

Personally I think that this is a bad poll. The big warning flag that comes up is that all the questions contain the word "God," biasing the individual who answers the question into considering it from their religious standpoint rather than their personal one.

[mwalimu.livejournal.com]

If God can make the rules (the laws of nature and physics) then he can craft them in such a manner as to cause life as we know it to develop and evolve. And any sufficiently subtle divine intervention is indistinguishable from explainable scientific phenomena. Even if the origins of life and the human race can be explained by science to the last detail, that still doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

that still doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

This is true, but there is a verifiable evidence that he was. In fact there is just as much physical evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster was involved in creation.

The thing is that a hypothesis, with no means to test, measure or verify it does not belong in science class. It does not mean that it is not true. The opponents of putting ID in schools are not claiming that it is false, only that it is not science and therefore does not belong in science classes.

I don't think that anybody would have a problem with ID (or Creationism - let's call it what it is) if it was taught in a philosophy, or social studies class, but (repeating myself for emphasis) it is not a science.

What Kansas is doing is tacitly acknowledging that by redefining what they consider the word "science" to mean.

[farlo.livejournal.com]

What Kansas is doing is tacitly acknowledging that by redefining what they consider the word "science" to mean.

That is not totally correct, actually. I reviewed their education standards. They are EXPLICITLY redefining science to permit Creationist dogma, without having to use the words "God" or "Bible". The Scientific Method is NOT being taught in Kansas anymore. Instead, "Inquiry Science" is being taught instead. Yes, not only is the theory of Evolution being challenged, the fundamentals of Science as a discipline are at stake. Look forward to a generation of Kansas citizens who have will NOT be positively contributing to the body of scientific discipline because they never learned the basics. Their ideas will be rubbish, or contain critical errors that actual scientists would have avoided. Sure, Kansas will continue to produce chemists, doctors and biologists. However, those people will be inferior scientists because their educational development will have included fairy tales. Basically, Kansas is reverting to pre-industrial modes of thought.

Sickening.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

They are EXPLICITLY redefining science to permit Creationist dogma, without having to use the words "God" or "Bible".

This is one of the things that bothers me too. A lie of intentional omission is still a lie. The people who are trying to get the Christian creationist story taught in schools as "science" are using all manner of lies and subterfuge to avoid actually calling it what it is - even going so far as to hide behind pseudo-scientific names like "Discovery Institute". In essence they are trying to spread their religion via a web of lies and deceit.

I don't think Jesus would approve - though at this point I don't think he really enters into the equation anyway. The people behind this are Christians in name only.

[mwalimu.livejournal.com]

Okay some clarification here. I didn't say that God WAS involved, only that you could never prove that he wasn't. You could likewise never prove that he was. That is a question of faith, one that is better addressed by people of faith, not a question of science. So I think I'm agreeing with what you said.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I think you are agreeing with that I said too. Having settled that to both our satisfacions, I believe we are both entitled to a nice cold beer. Any God who would invent fermentation is OK in my book.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

A person's say-so on what is or isn't taught in school should be weighted by the marks they got. :-P If they didn't care enough to study what was taught, why should anyone care what they think should be taught?

[orleans.livejournal.com]

Ooooooh, if any party forces an election for Dec 26, they are going to pay so hard it wouldn't even be funny. :O

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I know. It's such a stupid and short-sighted announcement by the New Democrats, I can't imagine what they are thinking. I almost wonder if the Liberals haven't been purposely egging them on a bit to try and get them to snap and force an early election. The timing is almost too perfect - and it's jut the kind of Machiavellian machinations of which the Libs are capable.

Erm.

[marmelmm.livejournal.com]

Federal election on 12/26? Howcome?

Re: Erm.

[plonq.livejournal.com]

We have a minority government up here at the moment, and the party holding the balance of power has announced that they are not going to back the government on the next budget vote. In that case they won't have enough votes to sustain the vote, and (by parliamentary tradition) will dissolve the government and call a general election.

The current timing of this move would put the general election on Christmas, and since the polls won't open on Christmas Day, they'll open the polls on the first day after. I imagine the government is practically giddy at this announcement on a couple of counts.

Firstly, because they've already promised to hold a spring election if the government isn't toppled before then so if the opposition forces their hand early, they can point the finger and say, "It wasn't our fault that they couldn't wait three months." Secondly because the voters are likely to crucify the opposition parties at the polls if they force a Christmas election. Finally, holding the election late this year would let them do it prior to the release of the second half of a potentially damaging corruption report that is due out early in the new year.

Re: Erm.

[mwalimu.livejournal.com]

Is this why Canadians call the day after Christmas "boxing day"?