Intelligent Design Now Taught In Kansas, Bordering States Feeling Pretty Good About Themselves
Thursday, November 10th, 2005 by Mike Rundle
On Tuesday, the Board of Education in Kansas voted 6-4 in favor of discussing the “flaws” in evolutionary theory to students. This means that Intelligent Design, which is the theory that the universe is too complex and a higher power must have intervened in its creation, will be taught at the high school level right alongside major evolutionary theory.
Well now that we got the Church and State separation stuff packed directly into the sewer, what’s next? I personally think that the home economics teachers should start testing students on their favorite recipes for manna, and maybe math teachers can explain to their kids that if they pray hard enough, that integral in front of them will just figure itself out. All alternate theories (provable or not) must be taught now, so why stop with just Intelligent Design?
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster take root in Kansas and pummel the Board of Education ID advocates with its meatballs.
Reader Comments
40 Responses to “Intelligent Design Now Taught In Kansas, Bordering States Feeling Pretty Good About Themselves”
I wonder when those 6 are up for reelection…
November 10th, 2005 at 11:18 am
And this is related to BusinessLogs how?
November 10th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
Not related at all man. The great thing about a weblog is I can talk about whatever I want haha :)
November 10th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Okay, I’m a web nerd and therefore a standards-prone person, but it seems like there really need to be some agreed-upon standards. Of course, this is probably impossible, but without specific, defined standards, how can we seriously decide what is reasonable to teach and what should be excluded?
You pointed out that “All alternate theories (provable or not) must be taught now” which suggests that whether a theory is “provable” could be a standard… but in this case, that’s also impossible, because if it was provable, it wouldn’t be a theory (whether we’re talking the theory of evolution or ID). Thus far, no theory of the origins of the universe has ever been provable. (Which is, of course, the problem. If one could be conclusively proven, it would pretty much eliminate the question.)
So I guess I’m wondering what standard you would consider useful for determining teaching material (in science or any other area). I’ll tell you truthfully that I have no idea what would work, as there is very little firm ground to stand when discussing theories, but I’m curious if anyone else has some good ideas.
November 10th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
I think discussing flaws in any theory is important. Quantum and relative physics explain much but can’t seem to co-exist. However, science is science and faith is faith. It is one thing to discuss missing fossil records and another to argue that creation theory is science.
I am a Christian. I find evolution and interesting theory with some strong arguments. I do not consider evolution fact. I find it fascinating that realtivity explains and predicts so much but still call it theory. I accept creation on faith and do not call it fact. I find it a shame that our education system is confusing the two.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
This somehow means that we can’t discuss the theory of creation alongside the theory of evolution??
Hmmm…
November 10th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Two things to keep in mind:
ID-believers think that evolution is real - but that some things required God to magic them into happening. Which means that they think God was incompetent since he couldn’t do the whole thing with evolution - shouldn’t that be stupid design?
http://www.tanglebones.com/articles/2005/11/05/what-is-intelligent-design
The bible already has something to say about Math:
I Kings 7:23 (discussing the contents of Solomon’s Temple): “He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.”
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1%20kings%207:23&version=31;
So a quick Circumference equals Pi times Diameter gives a value of 3 for Pi. When can we start teaching that? It sure would have saved me a lot of time in high school.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
I’m not sure people had the measurement tools back then to work in hundredths of a cubit for an accurate measurement of pi :)
November 10th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Lumpy: Theory isn’t the opposite of fact. A theory is based on facts, because a theory is an explanation of how something happens. That means that a theory can’t be elevated to the station of a fact - all theories incorporate facts.
What other things do you consider “just a theory”? The gravitational theory? The heliocentric theory? =-)
A theory is something that is well established and accepted to be true. I think you’re confusing theory with hypothesis. Check out the wikipedia entry for a good definition of theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
November 10th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Mike: if it was 10 cubits across, wouldn’t it have been at least 31.4 cubits? Surely they could measure a cubit and a half? =-)
November 10th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Jemaleddin: I obviously cannot divide properly. Maybe they rounded to the next cubit or two :)
Great points on scientific theory though, thanks for the comments.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Sarah: scientific theories should be falsifiable and make testable claims. Intelligent design fulfills neither of these requirements. Provability is a bad criterion for a scientific theory because by definition no scientific claim is provable to the extent that all possibility for doubt is eliminated.
As far as the point regarding what standard is useful for determining teaching material (in science, at any rate), I’d say that firstly it depends on the level which is being taught. For high school, anything being taught in a science lesson should be a highly robust theory with a strong history of experimental success, or a disproven theory (since obviously it’s important to demonstrate how newer, better ideas supersede older ones). Good examples for the former category are special relativity (and classical mechanics generally), plate tectonics, and evolution. Examples of theories fitting the latter category might be the idea of the aether and the Ptolemaic model of the solar system.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
So, if a school district is going to be teaching the theory of evolution, wouldn’t it be wise to allow them to not only hear of other theories, but explore their “flaws” as well? I’d much rather have my child exposed to everything that people theorize than have one particular theory only pushed into their young, feeble minds.
I mean if we bring the discussion back into BL territory, would you really want your web design classes to only discuss the theory of CSS and hold back info on frames, tables and such? How can you possibly understand one method without having at least some insight to alternatives, whatever they are?
November 10th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Mark-
I’m not totally sure if your analogy works here. Frames and tables (for positioning) are outdated industry practices, while CSS is the accepted way to present visual style on the web. It’s not as though the theory of evolution is the “old way” of doing things, and ID is the new, trendy, and widely-accepted theory.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Ok, bad analogy. My point is that I’d much rather my children were told the whole story, and all the different approaches (theories, if you will) and put in a situation where eventually they themselves can make the personal choice as to where the “flaws” are.
This, to me, is what teaching is. Preparing folks to think for themselves — not cramming agendas down their throats.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Sorry for the double comment, but I need to add here —
Don’t be fooled into thinking there’s not agendas working in these type scenarios either.
Anytime one side of an argument is presented but not the other (regardless of what the topic is) an agenda is most likely being pushed.
Don’t do that to my kids, thank you.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Mark, so would teaching creationism in a public high school be okay as well? I’d like my kids (who aren’t born yet!) to learn about science in high school and not religion. Unless of course they were going to a religious high school, which they most certainly would not.
November 10th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
Mark: ID isn’t “another theory” that can be taught alongside evolution. The only way to consider it a scientific theory at all, according to the testimony of ID’s leading proponent Michael Behe, is to redefine “theory” to include Astrology. (?!)
Should we be teaching astrology in science class? (And if you say yes, I’ll probably start crying.)
Intelligent Design isn’t a theory at all: it just says, “These part of evolution look hard to explain. Instead of investigating them, let’s throw our hands in the air and say that God did it.” That’s laziness, not science.
To go back to your web design analogy, should a web design class teach the prayer method of css design? You know, where you just pray to your creator for answers to getting around IE margin bugs? Sure, a lot of us use it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s the kind of thing you teach in class. =-)
November 10th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
I want my kids (who actually do exist now) to be able to make up their own minds. I guess my big revolves around the weight of the word “taught.” To me, being “taught” means to be conditioned into a particular frame of mind.
In my perfect world, provable science is taught. Theories are discussed, flaws are explored across the table and respect for a young person’s heritage or upbringing is respected. Regardless if that heritage revolves around creationism, evolution, intelligent design or spaghetti monsters.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
There’s a place for ID in high school, but it’s not a science classroom. Least of all does it belong in a biology classroom.
It belongs in a philosophical theology class.
Jamming this kind of stuff in a biology classroom is absurd at best.
November 10th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
Eric: You’re making the assumption that God does not exist. Therefore you think it absurd that this is taught in the science. If God did exist, then it would make sense, because the world is part of God’s creation, and science is the investigation of that creation.
November 10th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
ID is a sophisticated rhetorical trick created to satisfy a certain portion of the population’s desire to remain ignorant of evolution. It doesn’t matter that ID doesn’t have any actual content, the whole point is just to get the idea of the supernatural out there even if it happens to be in a totally crippled and empty form.
What’s more interesting than the inclusion of ID in the Kansas case is that they are actually redefining science to do so: “In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.”
Essentially admitting — which the hardcore IDer’s would be careful not to do — that ID is an appeal to the supernatural and its inclusion into a science curriculum requires side-stepping fundamental scientific principles. Incredibly, this is America in 2005.
November 10th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
See, all you have to do is read R. Marie’s link to the MSNBC article to see this whole thing is nothing more than a political agenda being forced onto our kids.
With a nod to Eric (#20) -
There’s a place for [politics] in high school, but it’s not a science classroom. Least of all does it belong in a biology classroom.
It belongs in a [political science] class.
November 10th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
…and it’s a political agenda from both sides of the aisle — IDs trying to push in and evolutionists trying to keep them out.
It’s ridiculous.
November 10th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Henning: Science cannot test an omnipotent God for He is unpredictable and out of our rule set. Science is based on prediction and testability.
Putting an untestable phenomenon in a testable, rule based medium is folly, plain and simple.
Here’s a graphic demonstrating the difference between ID and evolution:
Here
ID does not stand on its own.
I am not making the assumption that God does not exist, just that I cannot expect to prove that he does or does not exist. When Napoleon asked LaPlace what role God had in his theory, LaPlace reportedly replied, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”
It’s simply out of bounds. You can argue it any way you want, but God is not scientific and cannot be tested.
November 10th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
ID is a joke. Get real, people.
November 10th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
The headline in my local newspaper when this happened was “Kansas Becomes Laughingstock of America.” So true.
November 11th, 2005 at 12:55 am
Hate to burst your bubble, Jemaleddin, but I don’t see any problem with that verse in Kings. Regardless of what you might think of Kent Hovind (a strong creationtist), he’s got a pretty good explaination.
The diameter of 10 cubits is from outer rim to outer rim, the way anyone would measure a circular object. The circumference of 30 cubits, however, was of the inner circle, after subtracting the thickness of the brass (two handbreadths—one for each side) from which the bowl was made. This would be the number needed to calculate the volume of water.
After all, don’t you think they might have noticed if it was 1.4 cubits longer then they measured it? If you’re able to excecute some of the stuff that this guy did, then I doubt that would slip past you.
November 11th, 2005 at 7:29 am
Is anyone aware that the Hebrew language doesn’t have decimal points within it? The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with parts in Aramaic.
In Hebrew you always round up or down to a whole number. You do no not express numbers in decimal points.
It would be beneficial to learn about what you are trying to call an error.
November 13th, 2005 at 11:57 am
Jemaleddin - concerning your statement:
ID-believers think that evolution is real - but that some things required God to magic them into happening. Which means that they think God was incompetent since he couldn’t do the whole thing with evolution - shouldn’t that be stupid design?
I think you are missing the point. Evolution does not discredit God’s competence, it enhances it. The ID theory pretty much accounts for why most of the universe is explainable. Without some sort of intervention, things go from order to chaos, and not vice versa.
R. Marie Cox - I like your assertion:
ID is a sophisticated rhetorical trick created to satisfy a certain portion of the population’s desire to remain ignorant of evolution.
But I believe the opposite to be true. By removing ID from being taught in the schools, it is satisfying a certain portion of the population’s desire to remain ignorant of God.
November 14th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
This comment, ganked from Jason Kottke’s post on the subject, pretty much sums up my feelings about this:
“There is no ‘honest debate’ on this issue, because there simply can be no debate on this issue. The two premises of the two sides of the issue are defined by completely different, incongruent disciplines. One is philosophical, the other is mystical. Any debate that takes place must be conducted within the confines of those disciplines.”
November 14th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
God stole my candy bar. I’m gonna go find him and kick his ass.
November 14th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
If I had no more information to go on than the authors of most of these posts, I might come to the same conclusion.
However…
There are two important points of which you seem to be unaware.
1. Some proponents of intelligent design are scientists who arrived at this *theory* based on what they saw in their research, and have no religious agenda whatsoever. One such is Michael Behe, who in his book *Darwin’s Black Box* states that he, personally, is not sure there is a God, just that the evidence he’s seen in his field of study (biomechanics) seems to indicate that evolution is an unlikely explanation. If you would like to be well-informed on this subject, I highly recommend this book.
2. The Kansas standards DO require the teaching of evolution, and they do NOT require the teaching of intelligent design; they only allow for it.
The following is quoted directly from the standards:
p. ii
Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory…
We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design… While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.
p. 71
STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE GRADES 8-12
LIFE SCIENCE – The student will develop an understanding of the cell, molecular basis of heredity, biological evolution, interdependence of organisms, matter, energy, and organization in living systems, and the behavior of organisms.
[end quote]
I did a search in the document and nowhere is there any requirement regarding the teaching of intelligent design.
November 14th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
Sorry, I just forgot to include that you can find a link to the actual science standards at:
http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us/Welcome.html
(Look under the “Hot Topics” subhead,in the right hand column.)
November 14th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
So…if some of you are happy to have this Christian teaching included in your kids schools, surely the other major religions should have an equal share of the curriculum?
November 25th, 2005 at 10:13 am
Stumbled across your blog here and saw this post. It’s scaring the crap outta me to read how some people are actually trying to argue either side of this issue… But here’s my 2 cents just the same:
For me it comes down to the Scientific Theory, in that it’s Science because you can test your theory. With Intelligent Design, how do you plan to go about testing that theory? Isn’t it suppposed to be about faith?
Get your worship time out of the Science class. American’s are dumb enough as it is, we don’t need to not teach our kids to think logically now…
And remember the only difference betweeen a religion and a cult is the size of it’s membership.
;)
November 30th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
I recall a rather famous cartoon, where a researcher has a page of math, followed by followed by more math. His co-workers observe it’s going to be hard to prove step two.
While the ID’ers claim they don’t know who the intelligence IS, that’s pretty transparent. If they want an “unknown outside influence” included, why aren’t they trying to FIND that influence? I mean, if we found Navaho pottery in ancient Egyptian ruins, wouldn’t we look for how it got there, instead of questioning the validity of archaeology?
December 1st, 2005 at 11:27 am
Re: Jana’s Comment:
“Some proponents of intelligent design are scientists who arrived at this *theory* based on what they saw in their research, and have no religious agenda whatsoever. One such is Michael Behe, who in his book *Darwin’s Black Box* states that he, personally, is not sure there is a God, just that the evidence he’s seen in his field of study (biomechanics) seems to indicate that evolution is an unlikely explanation.”
A primer on scientific method, From Wikipedia’s citation:
“The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be conceivable to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement not based upon the scientific method.”
As such, it is not the onus of scientists to ‘prove’ that something is true, but to disprove that which isn’t and create improved hypothesies which are then tested in an iterative fashion. You’ll also note that science is necessarily a process of decreasing granularity - a Theory does not have to explain the procedural minutia of a process in order to be valid - it is judged on the merits of its scope. In other words, science gets the big picture first, and the details later.
Michael Behe, as well as any other ID proponent of whom I am aware, has a) designed no experiments that disprove any of the several components of the evolutionary Theory as it is currently understood, nor b) proposed alternative testable hypothesies to explain evoloutionary Theory’s shortcomings (which would be premature in any event in light of the fact that they have not demonstrated any).
Rather, Behe’s assertion is that evolutionary Theory seems unlikely to him. This amounts to saying “I don’t personally understand and can’t imagine how evolutionary theory could produce results of observed complexity, therefore it must be intelligent design”. Behe might be a scientist in part of his life, but his is not being one as pertains to evolutionary Theory. If he were to proceed as a scientist, he would design an experient to demonstrate his point (this would likely require that he look outside the limits of HIS understanding into the fields of complexity theory, algorithmic modulation research, - who know where else?). If he is unable to do so, then he lacks requisite skill or imagination and does not earn the right to profer new hypothesis, much less wild speculation.
In a nutshell - the principles of the scientific method dictate that evolutionary Theory has withstood thousands of reproducible experiments desinged to disprove it and has thereby won the right to call itself a Theory. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has disproven nothing, suggested no testable hypothesies, has gathered no physical evidence or quantifiable observation, and has made no published or even discernable contribution to current understanding. In other words, ID isn’t a Theory. Its not really even a theory by casual usage. Its a guess, or an opinion. As such, it falls outside the domain of scientific discourse and therefore has no place being mentioned in a course designed to instruct Theory.
On a personal note, I must say I agree with the statement made by Kyle Posey: “Evolution does not discredit God’s competence, it enhances it.” What does discredit God’s competence, however, is the presumption that God’s efforts on human imagination are so limited as to require that the rest of God’s works be dismisable as miraculous. Some of us find increased wonder at God’s majesty with every new layer and nuanced understanding of the natural world - in the elegant and subtle process of evolution, for example. And we talk about that. But we do it in Philosophy class.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
I am new in the forum but already excited of it.
It contains a lot of things, really usefull for all of us. But a lot of my time I spend on Online Pokerand dont know how to stop it…My wife very angry.. :(
April 19th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Hello,
I don’t think the creationists are so stupid as that is presented most of the time by fighting scientists. They have really something to say. Here are few links
- Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life Implies Design
http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/chap16/cambrian-explosion.php
- The Hare Krishna Views On Science
http://www.freewebtown.com/bhaktivedanta108
- Science Against Evolution
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/
Nitai
PS: Interestingly I know some scientists who are neutral to such fights between scientists and creationists. They just take a neutral position saying people should have a right to believe whatever they want. Why should schools brainwash the religious minded or the atheists?
June 25th, 2006 at 4:18 am
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated because spam's not tolerated.
