Welcome to Kansas, Where the "Separation" in Separation of Church and State Is Meaningless

Intelligent Design is now taught in Kansas high schools, right alongside evolutionary theory. This means that high school kids from that state will now go off to college and ask questions in college biology classrooms like "the Universe is too complex, fuck evolution it was GOD!!!!!!!" and "why aren't you teaching Intelligent Design theories here?" to which the professor and all other students will react by throwing ninja stars at their pupils and laughing heartily once they bleed to death.

Okay, maybe a bit dramatic, but you get the point. Damn. Sucks to be living in Kansas. Sorry Jeff!

For another post on this subject check out Business Logs.

Comments

[Honus]

Mike, Mike, MIKE.

...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.

Do you honestly believe a state that teaches ID as a viable alternative to evolution will actually be on a level to teach calculus?

[Nicole]

This is where I get really sick of kneejerk "If they believe ID, they must be stupid" reactions. I'm not saying I believe ID over evolution (who said they are mutually exclusive?), but broad, sweeping generalizations about people who believe evolution is not, in fact, infallible are uncalled for.

Also, the decision doesn't mandate that ID be taught. While major evolutionary concepts must still be taught, it allows teachers to be more open about the challenges of the evolutionary theory.

While I can't say whether I agree or disagree with this decision (I really haven't decided), I'm *very* averse to casting generalizations regarding this debate. That's the easy way out. Also, parents are ultimately consumers -- if they don't like how a biology teacher conveys information in this area, they can pick a different teacher or school.

[James M Coats]

Very nicely said Nicole.

[Jeff Croft]

Mike...

No offense, but you're sort of showing very little actual understanding of the issues at hand, here. To start, you say that "Intelligent Design is now being taught in Kansas high schools," which couldn't be farther from the truth -- hell, the standards that were passed this week don't even go into effect until 2007, and we all know they'll have been overturned by then, anyway. You also say that "it sucks to be living in Kansas." While I admit that this episode is sort of embarrassing, I certainly don't think it sucks to be living here, or else I wouldn't be. There are a lot of great things about this state. Have you ever even been here? :)

As you probably know, I'm an agnostic liberal who has lived basically my entire life in Kansas. I strongly believe in the scientific process and the theory of evolution.

With that full disclosure out of the way: I'm not proud of what my state has done here, but I also fully enjoy living in Kansas, and find most people I come across here to be bright, rational, and yes, even have all of their teeth.

Here's what you may not know about this state: Eastern Kansas (where I live) is fairly urban and suburban. We've got Kansas City, Olathe, Overland Park, Topeka, Lawrence, Wichita, and a few others. All of the significant cities in this state on on it's Eastern third. This is generally considered the more liberal part of the state. It's also thought to be the more educated part of the state, simply because the school systems, especially in the KC area, have won countless awards. In the western two thirds, you've got farms. Lots of them. Rural America. Hicks, if you prefer to use a derogatory term. Lots of them.

Those of us in Eastern Kansas spend much of our lives trying to make people understand that the simple fact that we are from Kansas does not mean we're farmers and hicks. I, for example, have spent almost my entire life (until the past year) in fairly large cities -- in Kansas. Yes, we've got decent sized cities here. We're not all hicks, people. I've never spent a day on a farm. I've never milked a cow. I've never worn overalls (unless my mother dressed me in them as a child). I'm a city boy through and through, and there are LOTS of us here in Kansas.

If you look at the votes in this week's decision, you'll find a clear separation between the two sides of the state. All four "enlightened" votes are from Eastern Kansas (KC, Wichita, Topeka, and Shawnee). Five of the six "ignorant" votes are from the more rural parts of the State (Clay Center, Hutchinson, St. Francis, Arkansas City, and Thayer). The lone exception, sadly, is the vote from my hometown, Olathe, a Kansas City suburb that voted "ignorant."

But, by and large, you can see that the vote is a perfect example of the way this state is laid out. There are smart and educated people here -- we're just outnumbered. This state really is like a tale of two cities. There aren't a lot of extreme liberals here, but the vast majority of Eastern Kansans are upper-middle class folks who are educated, moderate, tolerant, and rational. I don't know too many Western Kansans, so I hesitate to call them ignorant, but there's no doubt their values are different than mine -- and I think it's unfortunate there are more of them than there are of me.

My point is all this is to let you all know that there ARE Kansans who are embarrassed by this whole ordeal. And we don't take very lightly to the toothless hick jokes being bandied around, either. I've got no problem with people putting down the school board itself for making a stupid decision -- but when they start tossing names at ALL of the state's residents, they're just being offensive, and frankly, making themselves look just as ignorant and intolerant as the hick stereotype they're playing off of.

Anyway, the point is: this vote is not very representative of the opinion of many Kansans. It's unfortunate that we have to have this debate at all, because it's fucking stupid -- but in the end it really won't hurt much, because most everyone seems convinced that these school board members will be bounced long before the standards go into effect and a new set of standards will be introduced.

[Mike]

I've stopped through Kansas City only briefly in my travels but it was definitely nice. I didn't meant to knock your state Jeff.

Nicole, I too believe that there are two sides to an issue, but I just don't see any proof that ID is real, and to me, some kind of scientific backing or proof would be necessary for a competent rebuttal against evolutionary theory.

I also hope that parents have the opportunity to pick and choose their teachers and schools, but most often in the poorest regions of America, that's just not the case at all. If a single mother is struggling to make ends meet, and doesn't believe that her son should be taught about ID, how does she have the means to send her child to a parochial or private school? No Child Left Behind wasn't funded enough to provide that kind of choice for everybody :)

[Jeff Croft]

Mike-

I didn't really feel like YOU mocked my state -- I just choose to use your comments to vent my annoyances at those who are. :)

Personally, my biggest problem with this whole thing is that ID is NOT science. If you want to teach ID, or Creationism in schools, then lobby for an ID class. Don't squeeze it into my science class when it actually has nothing to do with science at all. Of course, we all know the reason why they don't lobby for an ID class: it'd never pass, because it's absurd.

The whole basis of ID -- the concept that this world is so complex that it can only possibly be explained by a higher power -- flies in the fact of the scientific process. At what point in an experiment is it okay for me to just give up and say, "sorry, this has gotten to complex. I'll have to chalk this one up to a higher power." As I said in comments on my own site yesterday: can I use this one my boss? If I write a script and it throws errors and he asks me why, is it okay to respond with, "well, I was troubleshooting it for a while, but it turns out that it's so complex only God could be responsible."

ID may or may not have merit, but either way, it's NOT science.

[Sage]

Sorry, an oldie, but it’s most appropriate now:

WWFSMD?

[Nicole]

If a single mother is struggling to make ends meet, and doesn't believe that her son should be taught about ID, how does she have the means to send her child to a parochial or private school?

Decisions about what is actually taught in the classroom are left up to each of the 300 local districts in Kansas, meaning each community has autonomy over what is taught. There would still be choice among public schools.

Also, does it matter if your child is exposed to ID? A parent can talk to their child at home. Education doesn't stop at the front door, and it shouldn't.

[Nicole]

Of course, I realize by my own statement that the opposite could hold as well -- ID can be taught at home by parents who care to have their children exposed to it.

My main point is that I hate when arguments are boiled down to "If you believe X, then you must be stupid/ignorant." It's just not that easy. And, regardless of where you fall on the issue, condemning an entire state as ignorant because of the votes of 6 members of a school board is not justified, as Jeff has pointed out.

[Steven Hambleton]

I would like you to embrace His Noodly Appendage...

http://venganza.org/

[Robert]

Is it the teaching of ID or the questioning of the Evolutionary Theory that bothers people so much?

If you believe the Evolutionary Theory is so strong and call it a fact, as many schools these days teach it as, then there really shouldn't be any worry about putting it under the microscope in science classes.

[Annie S]

Wow. You mean students would have to THINK about origins and not just assume some theory that says billions and billions (they keep adding time... Science must change to fix the misconceptions it has first populated...) of years ago some proteins clumped together and formed a single cohesive unit of immense complexity... by chance??? That despite all the best efforts and all of modern science can do, we still can't prove macro-evolution or the primordial swamp theory? So that leaves us with a theory (ID) that might have to go up against the faulty but still taught reasoning? That students will have to decide that "somehow DNA came into existence by survival and reproduction of the fittest" instead of understanding that the chances of dna popping into existence is something like a number (1 x 10) to the 150th power. And number theorists have figured anything over the 17th power (1 x 10 to the 17th power) is impossible, but it's not possible that this was started by something greater than us? ... That we're not just a random collection of energy waiting to move to the next stage of evolution??? Evolution is faith. You say you don't have faith? That you don't believe in Intelligent Design? Funny, you do believe in something. Something more impossible than Intelligent Design. 70% of current University Professors believe in Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design suggests that maybe, just maybe, this is it and this one counts and if we screw it up, then maybe we do have to "pay the piper"? Darn.

Not to mention the fact that this is not being taught as defacto truth but only as an alternative theory, like evolution is a theory??? You mean the faith that is evolution may not be the only faith in town...

Darn. Might have to look into that Intelligent Design. I sure care if what I do matters. And not just for me...

Most important, it's good that there is more than one theory, because without opposing views, how do we get Intelligent Thought (something sorely lacking in America).

[Mike Rundle]

"70% of current University Professors believe in Intelligent Design."

Annie, where's your source? That sounds pretty hard to believe when newspapers across America made fun of Kansas after the ruling.

[ucantblamem]

Well, I'm not living in America... But, I do know one thing well - In any courtroom, BOTH sides should always have the opportunity to state their case. It's up to the judge (you) to make a verdict.

The other thing I would like to say is that you can't listen to evolutionists opinions on intelligent design, because it's biased in ONE direction and vice-versa. Go directly to the source of each arguement and then you can make a clear decision.

A lot of people claim to have heard both sides of the story, but I often wonder how honest people are with themselves...

Enjoy! ;-)

[Orangelo]

I hate all this "teach the controversy" crap, because in the mainstream scientific community there is no controversy. Intelligent Design is NOT SCIENCE. How hard is that to understand? There's no experimentation. It's not falsifiable. THERE'S NOTHING SCIENTIFIC THERE. It doesn't matter if it's an "alternative theory" (I can pull alternative theories outta my wazoo 'til the cows come home), it's not a scientific theory, and it's not based on robust evidence and experimentation and therefore it shouldn't be taught in a science class.

[Nicole]

Orangelo, I believe that's the single strongest argument against allowing ID in the science classroom. While ID is an alternative theory, and despite where one stands on the issue, it isn't based on science. I think this is where scientists have the biggest problem with allowing ID in the classroom -- does doing so create a watering down of the perception of scientific method? Does it open the way for other non-scientific theories to be taught in the science classroom?

[Mike Rundle]

I tell ya guys, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the King!

Good stuff Nicole, thanks for the comments.

[Rounin]

Intelligent Design is a misplaced effort to impart the religious "why" upon the science of "how".

Ultimately, neither are mutually exclusive, just individually focused.

[adam]

I'd like to thank a few of you for your ID - Intelligent Decision to open your minds and realize that perhaps living in a vacuum absent of open thought, absent of conflicting opinions, absent of the acknowledgement that not all can be explained by the current "theories" being taught is the true ignorance.

Rather than claiming that all from Kansas should be embarrassed, or that those who passed the laws are ignorant, remember that ignorance is defined as "the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." So please, continue to blame those who understand that the THEORY of evolution does not explain everything, who are only trying to stimulate students to search for answers, to challenge the theories, and to THINK rather than accept. Yes, it may be a stretch, but I do believe students in this country can still be stimulated to think. And even if Intelligent Design has no backing, or if some of the advocates of ID unfortunately have underlying religious motivations, the end result is nonetheless beneficial for young students who may never get another chance in their classes to experience true learning, something far different from anything that can be lectured or written on a chalkboard; the experience of gathering information and making their own educated decisions.

['ju:femaiz]

Heya mike and thank you for bringing up this topic.

It's seen recent 'debate' in Australia. I think one of the reasons that so many people are looking to it is that the science of today in micro and macro biology is so beyond them that it's easier to believe some "simple solution", a coverall based without evidence.

I'm note sure how to quote, but I've put on my own site a link to an article written by the Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University (and before all/any the evangelicals out there claim that catholics are not christians, shut up and read the damn article first).

http://euphemize.net/wordpress/archives/2005/11/18/rebuttle-of-intelligent-design/

His final three paragraphs were as follows:

The philosophical issue is whether statistical causes are real causes or simply a cover for unknown causes. Even some religious believers want to cling to the type of scientific determinism which has dominated our culture since the initial discoveries of Newton.

Nonetheless, we human beings can use statistical causation – chance – to produce determinate outcomes. What the promoters of intelligent design argue is that God is not intelligent enough to produce determinate outcomes using statistical causation.

Do they think that God is not intelligent enough to use statistical causation? If we allow that God is more intelligent than us, then the whole basis of intelligent design is undermined. It is an unnecessary hypothesis which should be consigned to the dustbin of scientific and theological history.

Onto what others have said - 70% of US Professors believing in ID over Evolution? Perhaps we should have a source for this (number one) and a statement as to what defines a "Professor" in the States.

Also, find me peer reviewed articles on ID that have been published in respected science magazines as a start for the "evidence" for ID - without the young earth revisionists who should really convert to the Jewish faith if so bound up in Old Testament readings.

[James D.]

OK, guess I have to throw my two cents worth in here! I'm not from Kansas, I'm from Alabama, but where I'm from is really not too important. What is important here is some one in your school boards are actually being open minded! Fact is, Evolution, which is taught as science, has no more scientific "proof" than ID does, it is a theory, just like ID! So, if you teach one theory, I firmly believe that you should also teach the other theory as well. Oh, and to call some one who believes in ID "Ignorant", well I believe in the ID Theory. Educated? ASE certified auto tech, Pro auto tech certified, ACDelco Master Mechanic. I have a career diploma in PC Repair, and currently working on Small Business Management. I think I might be considered to be educated, in other words.... come on people, open up your minds!

['ju:femaiz]

James D - if you believe that they are both "theories" that's fine, but they are not both "scientific theories". NOR is it wise to simply say "it's just a theory", since many other scientific theories are simply that - theories that fit the evidence.

ID has a key problem in that it doesn't face the problem scientifically. It is a scapegoat methodology, since it cannot escape the infinite problem that comes from "who designed the designer?". For those of you who say that the designer is god, that is entering religion directly into what they/you claim is a "scientific theory", yet the existence of a god of any description cannot be scientifically tested - it is a matter of faith.

Whilst I am sure you have been educated in your own opinion, I wonder what amount of education you have in scientific philosophy or religious theology, or possibly both? How many articles on ID have appeared in scientific journals with scientific evidence? Perhaps it's time you go and undertake a degree in micro/macro biology (possibly a PhD could be a good idea) to understand where science comes from before saying that ID is a "scientific theory" when it is *not*.

[Daniel]

If you consider the context of the terms “theory” and “fact”, as used by evolutionary biologists, and the scientific community at large, you'll see that it is a much stronger statement to identify the collection of observations and the algorithm of their identification and modeling as a theory than as a fact. It is quite difficult, in fact, to achieve a theory (no pun intended, as it's pretty lame).

There is no specific proscription against a creator in the theory of natural selection. I haven't seen anything in any of the presentations of evolutionary theory or natural selection that even bothers commenting on the issue of a creator. I imagine that that is the result of a lack of evidence about a creator, either for or against.

And that is really at the core of this debate. Science—true science—doesn't concern itself with proving or disproving the existence of a creator any more than it concerns itself with proving or disproving…well, there's really no analogue, no other topic so at once momentous and void of evidential volume, so I can't make my analogy. I think that says it all. Natural selection and ID are not competing theories because they don't intend to answer the same question.

The FSM site has it right: if you're going to redefine what qualifies as a theory, and suggest alternate theories under this new definition, you're going to have to make a good case as to why this one theory is substantial enough to teach and another isn't. As the definition of “theory” becomes more arbitrary, so will this decision, and then you're left with a strong likelihood of undermining science education as a whole.

Natural selection is a theory which has modest origins and which, thanks to the efforts of hundreds or thousands of participants in its ongoing research, has been developed to more completely bridge sometimes surprisingly disparate pieces of evidence into a whole which provides the most reasonable explanation. From its beginnings, it, like other theories, has been tested and contested, and has, through that foundry of scrutiny, been forged into something just that much stronger. It is not complete, but it stands as the best answer to the nature of available evidence among all alternatives. That's the key: it attempts, and succeeds to varying degrees, to explain observed phenomena, and nothing more. Whatever bias any individual scientist brought to her or his lab, the community of scientists working toward understanding and codifying the way in which the world has come to be do not have as a starting point the answer they want to find.

Conversely, it appears that ID advocates have presumed, as their initial condition, a designer of all things, and simply hope to collect enough facts which support this initial condition. This is the most significant point of differentiation between these “theories”, and so fundamental that I agree that they don't belong in the same class.

There is every indication that the universe is more complex than we can currently fathom. All around us are examples of an elegant chaos, so elegant that it's hard to conceive of a time in human history when some of us weren't investigating to the limits of their capacity exactly how all that stuff works. We go about it with different means, of course: where I see nonlinear dynamical processes, which have some kind of eerie pattern predictable to a low enough threshold of accuracy, you might see the hand of Allah. Again, each hopes to answer different questions, and are not, in fact, mutually exclusive in large part. This is why many of the scientists of our history have also believed in God or some other supreme conscious power. That should be the hint: if you can believe equally in the truth of two different ideas, they're probably not competing ideas. As such, they're not competing theories, and, therefore, shouldn't be taught as such.

I wouldn't be too terribly opposed to a philosophy class in schools, which could address the philosophy of science alongside the philosophy of religious belief. However, (a) there are probably three times as many churches within a 5-mile radius of a public school as there are schools, and (b) there doesn't really seem to be too much of a funding problem for religious indoctrination, but there is a pronounced funding problem for public education. So, for now, in the absence of a philosophy class in our school system, I say that you teach science in a science class, and then, if you're so inclined, go to church to learn about these competing “theories”.

[Donnie]

As is probably mentioned somewhere in the previous responses, there is really a misconception of the Evolution THEORY. Science and Evolution are not the same thing. Science is simply observing the physics of that which occurs around us based on environmental laws. Evolution is one of man's ways to try and interpret science into something more meaningful. Evolution then, is not science.

We don't need to be all upset that Intelligent Design can now be taught. It is simply another way to interpret what science tells us. Varying ideas is what America is all about, is it not? You don't have to agree with it, but you don't have to act childish about it either.

['ju:femaiz]

I think most people wouldn't have a problem with it if it was backed by scientific methodologies... Unfortunately, it is not.