Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Kansas School Board More Religious Than Vatican

When a senior Vatican priest says "Oh, c'mon now, you're taking the Bible just a little too seriously," you know you're not in Kansas anymore.

Even the Catholic World News confirms the widespread reports that "Vatican Astronomer Rips Intelligent Design Theory."

Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) - The director of the Vatican Observatory has lashed out at proponents of the theory of Intelligent Design, the Italian news service ANSA reports.

"Intelligent design isn't science, even if it pretends to be," said Father George Coyne. He said that if the theory is introduced in schools, it should be taught in religion classes, not science classes.

So now that that Kansas School Board has crippled their science curriculum, they're moving on to other critical subjects. According to The Kansas City Star, the Board intends to restrict sex education classes to students whose parents specifically demand them, in writing (eventually resulting in, I fear, more Kansans). As for literature, the Board's Chairman Steve Abrams has been aggressively advocating the banishment of "pornography" in schools, such as the novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. [Insert your own quip here regarding Abrams and the Cuckoo's Nest.]


  1. Just thought I'd let you know that we have decided to offer everyone in Kansas a 20% discount on our game BONE WARS since it is intended to teach principles of scientific discovery (as well as be a fun game about ruthless paleontology, history, and generally messing with your opponents). Now we're thinking about a game more specifically about evolution . . . www.zygotegames.com.

  2. As a Kansas high schooler, I see what others, particularly Californians, may not (Kansas has only voted for a democrat once since 1940). If evolution is a science, so is creation, but personally I'd say they're both religions, neither of which should be taught in schools. Too bad a few Kansans out there are intimidated by people like you.

  3. "If evolution is science, so is creation" - would you care to explain that equivalence Dale?

    And I wonder what the comment "Kansas has only voted for a democrat once since 1940" has to do with this subject?

    Sigh - I guess this is the result of a Kansas high school education :-)

  4. Anonymous3:39 PM

    So maybe you can't go as far as to realize Californians are liberals (hence they haven't voted for a democrat since 1940), therefore they are more apt to be one-sided.

    Who has the right to determine what is or isn't defined as science or religion? I can tell you that it's just as likely (if not much more so) that Someone always existed rather than something. Why are people such as yourself so eager to jump to the conclusion that "science" involves only things that make people the superior beings?

    What is it to you anyway, that Kansas has morals? Sorry, but your one-sidedness makes me want to puke. Who has the time for this? :-)

  5. "anonymous" [chicken!] asks, "Who has the right to determine what is or isn't defined as science or religion?"
    The answer is: "Anybody!"
    Define it any way you want, and then, more importantly, send your children to any school you want that teaches to your definition.
    Unfortunately, your state government has decided that it can tell you which school to send your children to, and worse, that all of those schools will teach the same things, regardless of what the local school clientele desires.
    The evolution/creation struggle is a non-issue - or would be if we practiced separation of education and state.

  6. Dale from Kansas is incorrect--we have plenty of Democrats in office in Kansas, including our governor who is one of the top 5 in the nation.

    I live in Kansas too (by chance, not by birth) and I'm keeping track of this issue. The theory of "intelligent design" is a theory created only to give validity to certain religious beliefs and that's the bottom line.

  7. Science - systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.

    Okay now that we actually HAVE a definition, I believe we can clearly state evolution, however much it may or may not be flawed meets the criteria of a scientific theory and can therefore be taught as science. Creationism as religious dogma however does not meet this criteria.

    Just to make it totally fair though, how about this. We allow the teaching of creationism in public schools only if churches will also allow the teaching of evolution in church...after all if they have equal weight in all regards...

  8. The CA high school I attended did not teach evolution as a theory, it was taught as a fact. It is not a fact.

    Regardless of this overzealous scientific community, the average rational person can clearly see that Christianity is not a scientific theory and should therefore not be included in such a class.

    However, there are over 2 billion Americans who subscribe to Christianity. It's neglect (in a sociology or other related class) would be a failure to any educational system. We are wasting time in our schools by ignoring reality. It is an everyday truth that we are all from different backgrounds. ALL backgrounds (and faiths) should be discussed, so that an understanding of this large number of Americans can be reached.

    Finally, we do not live in a socialist country and therefore it is frightening to even suggest that religion should be dictated by the government. The constitution continues to allow us the liberty of freedom of religion. Regardless of what you may believe, students are allowed to talk about their faith, bring Bibles to school, and otherwise object in science class. These discussions by our students should be encouraged. Educators should be focusing on creating critical thinking skills, which they often neglect.

  9. Anonymous9:32 PM


    Science is not a democracy. You can't teach what people "subscribe" to. You teach the facts. You are entitled to an opinion, but you are not entitled to the facts.

    Intelligent design has no facts. It is simply an argument put forth by religious fundamentalists. If you want intelligent design in a classroom, it belongs in a philosophy or religious one. There is no basis in science, so why should it be put in a science classroom?

  10. If you want to know about the scientific method, just read its Wikipedia article.

  11. Anonymous2:48 PM

    "If Science is a religion then bald is a hair color"
    you people are the most retarded beings on the face of earth

  12. Anonymous8:47 PM


    That is exatly what I said. I never said religion should be taught in a science classroom. I DID say it should be taught in philosophy or religion class. Please read what I wrote again.

    Additionally, evolution is NOT a fact. Hopefully we have all learned the scientific method in a lacking educational system. For something to be a fact, it has to be OBSERVABLE. Until you can time lapse million of years, you can't really OBSERVE evolution. I am not confirming or disputing evolution. I am simply stating that it goes against scientific reason to call it a fact. Just as it goes against scientific reason to offer religious discussions in science.

    Again, anonymous, are you disputing what I wrote? I never claimed Science was a democracy. I did mention that a good educational system should allow for periods of open debate. (Of course, this is much better for educated students and might be placed at the end of a course).


  13. Hi Deborah,

    "Additionally, evolution is NOT a fact. Hopefully we have all learned the scientific method in a lacking educational system. For something to be a fact, it has to be OBSERVABLE."

    The classic Drosophilia experiments. Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis.

    These are DIRECTLY OBSERVED cases of evolution.

    I'm sure you can come up with a few more if you search around on the internet.