Kansas: Mississippi For the 21st Century

[Michael Fanelli]

Reported on CNN this morning. Yes, I don't celebrate Christmas so I have time to veg out in front of TV news!

It appears that Kansas is working hard to become the 21st century version of Mississippi in the 60s and 70s.

First, they legally redefine science, "expanding beyond the limitations" of the scientific method. This was done to allow the inclusion of Creationism, oops, sorry, Intelligent Design and the supernatural into the science classroom.

Now, Kansas legislators are contemplating a measure that would require a state registry of teenagers who decide to have sex. I can't fathom the justification of big government intruding into personal lives to this extent, but hey! I'm intelligent!

What's next, a revival of legislating the value of PI to be exactly 3? Perhaps the burning of witches or satanists, the public lynching of homosexuals, who knows? In the 21st century, Kansas has taken over first place in the USA as the bastion of ignorance and absurdity.

[jar_e]

Though quite absurd in regards to PI, I still am on the pro-creationism side of the debate of whether or not it should be in schools. Both the big-bang and intelligent design are theories, neither proven, neither disproven. Both require faith of some sort, and both require near impossible things to happen. Would it be a slippery slope to include other religions? Probably, but I think it's absurd to have one THEORY (not a factual piece of history) and not give the other options.

[SmartWombat]

Freedom of speech, fine.
But the legislature, wow.
I suppose people get the government they deserve.
They must be total incomptents to vote people like this into power.

Are they trying to legislate virginity?
I hope that kind of thing never makes it over this side of the pond.
Next you'll have "faith-based schools" including Scientologists and Moonies.

[Frank Tuesday]

Though quite absurd in regards to PI, I still am on the pro-creationism side of the debate of whether or not it should be in schools. Both the big-bang and intelligent design are theories, neither proven, neither disproven. Both require faith of some sort, and both require near impossible things to happen. Would it be a slippery slope to include other religions? Probably, but I think it's absurd to have one THEORY (not a factual piece of history) and not give the other options.

They are not both theories.

the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Intelligent design cannot be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. In fact, it doesn't even qualify as a hypotheisis.

hy·poth·e·sis Audio pronunciation of "hypothesis" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

There is no science behind intelligent design because it can not be tested in any way. Intelligent design cannot stand up to the process of scientific method because it is a belief system. Taken from wikipedia:

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. Under the working assumption of methodological materialism, observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. 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 outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. It should also be noted that a hypothesis cannot be proven, rather, the data from a given experiment designed to test a hypothesis can either support or disprove that hypothesis.

Once a hypothesis is repeatedly verified through experiment, it is considered to be a theory and new predictions are based upon it. Any erroneous predictions, internal inconsistencies or lacunae, or unexplained phenomena, initiate the generation and consideration of corrections or alternative hypotheses, which are themselves tested, and so on. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can be tested in this way.

If you wish to explain how intelligent design can stand up to the rigors of the scientific method, please do. If you can't, please do not have the audacity to call it a theory or science because it is nothing of the sort.

I have no problem with you believing in intelligent design, creationism, the absolute truth of the bible, the Qur'an, the book of morman, the flying spagetti monster or whatever you choose to believe in. I have a problem with calling it science. There is no science behind it and as such it has no place being taught in science class.

The big bang has stood up to the rigors of scientific method. Does that make it absolute truth? No, but it is currently the best explanation avaliable.

Frank

[another view]

When I first heard about teaching "intelligent design" in schools, I didn't know what the problem was. It's another idea and we can't prove evolution to be an absolute fact, so why not present all the information and let the students think about the issues. I guess I'm a little too idealistic sometimes...

The deal is that "intelligent design" isn't a scientific theory and therefore shouldn't be taught in science classes (agreeing with Frank). Students have a right to hear about it, just not in science classes.

I suppose people get the government they deserve

So true...

[masdog]

Well, there are a bunch of crazies in this country. I have a hard time fathoming why Kansas would start to take this route, but then I consider myself a rationalist.

I fear that this is the model of government that the Religious Right of the United States would like to see in every state. This model pays lip-service to the Bill of Rights while mandating religious values onto everyone by acts of law. This will lead to an uninformed and repressed society that will quickly push this country into the backwater of the world.

But then I also have issues with the fundamentalist Christianity in the United States. I have never talked to a group of individuals who were so hypocritical about their religion. On one hand, they claimed that they followed the preachings of Christ, and on the other, they try to impose their beliefs onto everyone they possibly can. It seems like some of Christ's teachings are discarded when fundamentalists run up against things that they don't like or make them uncomfortable.

Some of this seems to be going too far. A registry of teenagers who have sex? Most teenagers will never admit to that, especially to their parents or the government. I'm not sure what the legislature intends to accomplish by passing this law, but its a very bad idea.

[masdog]

Frank, excellent reply.

[masdog]

Though quite absurd in regards to PI, I still am on the pro-creationism side of the debate of whether or not it should be in schools. Both the big-bang and intelligent design are theories, neither proven, neither disproven. Both require faith of some sort, and both require near impossible things to happen. Would it be a slippery slope to include other religions? Probably, but I think it's absurd to have one THEORY (not a factual piece of history) and not give the other options.

Wow...

First, there are several mistakes in your argument. The Big Bang and Evolution are two seperate theories. Supporters of creationism often lump both of these together under the name of Evolution, but they involve two separate areas of science (cosmology is part of physics and Evolution part of biology).

As Frank said in another post, Creationism and Intelligent Design are not theories. They don't even have any sembelence of science. The various forms of Creationism don't even pose a valid, testable question. If anything, they are the furthest things from science possible.

Most arguments in favor of Creationism don't even provide evidence of what they are trying to argue. Instead, they use junk science and bad logic to make an attempt at disproving science, leaving some form of Creationism as the only possibility.

Because of that, they have no place in a science class. If Creationism is to be taught in schools, it belongs in a Comparative Religions class.

Evolution isn't something that is to be taken entirely on faith. There is proof of evolution, and there are both repeatable experiments and observations of Evolution occuring. Yes, there are holes in the theory, BUT as time goes on, these holes are filled with new information.

Its like a puzzle. The pieces (evidence) are mostly there, we just have to find them and put them together. With the help of modern genetics and paleontology, the picture is really starting to come together.

[JSPhoto]

And meanwhile, while the legislators are deciding what to teach kids, and to track kids sex lives people in Kansas and every other state are going hungary, without medical aid (or insurance), oh, and lets not forget the homeless, or a mired of other REAL problems that NEED attention.
Here in Indiana a new stadium for the Colts and Convention Center for the city of Indianapolis take presidence over food stamps and medicaid for the poor, elderly and disabled....Oh, and lets not forget the $300 they spent on each and every BMV office for a freaking christmas tree and ornaments that say "BMV" on them. The govenor and his crony buddy at the BMV that decided this ought to be fired and jailed! How many poor who could have been saved died because the state wasted that money instead of using it for those in NEED.

And, when enough people get fed up you will see action taken, unfortunately it will be through riots, maybe civil war, instead of at the voting booth.

OK, I'm off my soapbox now....just a bit angry at the way things are being done in this country....hmmm, wonder if the US Intelligence Agency has visited my high school sports website recently...oh, wait, thats national security....

JS

[Michael Fanelli]

Though quite absurd in regards to PI, I still am on the pro-creationism side of the debate of whether or not it should be in schools. Both the big-bang and intelligent design are theories, neither proven, neither disproven. Both require faith of some sort, and both require near impossible things to happen. Would it be a slippery slope to include other religions? Probably, but I think it's absurd to have one THEORY (not a factual piece of history) and not give the other options.

OK, science is a hot button for me so here it goes...

Its not a question as to whether it should be taught in schools or not. It is NOT science, it does NOT follow the scientific method, it does NOT belong in the science classroom. Stick it into a an optional religious philosophy class or, better yet, teach it in the churches where it belongs. Lets not to forget the hundreds of other theories about the creation of the universe. My favorite is the Hindu version.

It has been a long time since you've taken a science class! Words in science have to have precise meanings, not the wishy-washy fun meanings of common speech. Science chose to use words already known and then precisely define them. Words such as "force", "work", "power" and, as most people forget, "theory." The scientific definition of "theory" is a lot different than the vernacular that people, including all ID people, use. This is why Kansas chose to redine "science" for the state. That is an act just as silly as declaring PI to be exactly 3.

Science is a lot more rigorous than every field other than mathematics. This allows science to march on regardless of what fallable scientists choose to believe. The scientific method broke down the static earth theory (popular when I was young), Hoyle's steady-state theory, the all pervading "ether" and other well loved theories. No theory, no matter how elegant or beautiful, can be kept around if the scientific method grinds it down. That is because theories in science are always being tested, scientists are always following up on a theories predictions with experiments. Just this year, another prediction of General Relativity, one requiring cutting edge technology just perfected, was tested and proven to be true (the dragging of spacetime behind moving objects).

Each scientific theory contains the seeds of its own destruction all along the "outer edges." Each new theory contains elements for that which is rendered obsolete. A bridge builder would not use relativity to design a bridge even if it would eventually yield the same answers. A cosmologist would never try to use Newtonian mechanic to describe the creation of black holes.

FWIW, there is evidence for the big bang, the most famous being the accidental discovery of the cosmic background radiation the theory predicted. On the other hand, the now popular String Theory is not science as you can not use the scientific method on it. One day, maybe. Not today.

Religion attempts to replace the unknown with faith, things untestable and not subject to critical argument. We know that the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and civilizations earlier and newer have all done this. Today is no different. It takes a massive anount of hubrus to assume "If I don't understand something, it must be the work of The Gods." Science sees the unknown as a great challenge to overcome, religion sees the unknown as sacred and untouchable. Each works in its own way, but neither can be mixed with good results.

[opus]

A registry of kids who have sex will turn out to be a registry of kids who are CAUGHT having sex, or maybe even just a registry of pregnant girls or kids with STIs.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

On the other issue: I grew up being taught creation at home and evolution & big bang theory at school. I didn't have too much trouble deciding which one I wanted to believe in. Home and family took first place. So I just went along with science class, filling in the "right" answers on the test while in my mind realizing what I really believed. It wasn't a problem. My friends did the same thing. We didn't try to mandate the whole school be taught what we were being taught at home. We realized we were in the jurisdiction of the state, not the confines of our church.