Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:551b3198ee2q16el26j7hbtib7uop82khs@4ax.com:

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
By JOHN HANNA
The Associated Press

TOPEKA - Many scientists, science teachers and even some State

of Education members are disturbed by the board's hashing out how
evolution is taught in Kansas schools.

Science, they argue, isn't a democracy, and the debate over

should occur on university campuses and in scholarly journals, with
the outcome determining what children hear in classrooms.

But determining education policy is the State Board of Education's
job, settled through political debates and, ultimately, elections.

many Kansans want to weigh in on evolution - no matter how

feel about it.

That means politics will shape how evolution is taught as the board
considers changes in the state's science standards this year - and
beyond. Scientists who see evolution's validity as well-established
are likely to be frustrated well into the future.

Yes, politics will. And, as politicians of little or no character

to pander to the superstitions of the ignorant, they will, in their

need for more and more "votes" seek to destroy the constitution that
gives them the reason for being politicians at all.

The USA should take note of the fact that the Soviet Union had a very
good constitution. On paper. The trouble is, it was interpreted

out of existence by courts that were compliant with the ruling

party and was, therefore, generally ignored by the government it

Until Gorbachev started taking it seriously, that is.

People tend to get the kind of government they desire. The trouble

getting what you desire, though, is that it may well be the opposite

what you need.

The creationists have been frustrated in their claim to be doing

Rightly so, since they have NEVER been doing science. They are doing

always have been doing apologetics for a particular religious view.

they to state that openly, they would not be able to make a case for
having their nonsense taught in school science courses.

So essentially what we have here is a group of liars, interested in
fooling ignorant people into believing that their religious

science. They are not really able to convince any real scientists of
this, so they seek to force their will upon the scientific community

political fiat and by brainwashing the younger members of society

they cannot tell an apologetic from science. Moreover, the

who pander to this abomination (and it IS an abomination in God's

according to the rules the promoters CLAIM to follow) are

weakness, either in mind or in character, depending on how cynical or
sincere their support of the liars is!

Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
news:551b3198ee2q16el26j7hbtib7uop82khs@4ax.com:

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
By JOHN HANNA
The Associated Press

TOPEKA - Many scientists, science teachers and even some State Board
of Education members are disturbed by the board's hashing out how
evolution is taught in Kansas schools.

Science, they argue, isn't a democracy, and the debate over evolution
should occur on university campuses and in scholarly journals, with
the outcome determining what children hear in classrooms.

But determining education policy is the State Board of Education's
job, settled through political debates and, ultimately, elections. And
many Kansans want to weigh in on evolution - no matter how scientists
feel about it.

That means politics will shape how evolution is taught as the board
considers changes in the state's science standards this year - and
beyond. Scientists who see evolution's validity as well-established
are likely to be frustrated well into the future.

Yes, politics will. And, as politicians of little or no character seek
to pander to the superstitions of the ignorant, they will, in their rabid
need for more and more "votes" seek to destroy the constitution that
gives them the reason for being politicians at all.

The USA should take note of the fact that the Soviet Union had a very
good constitution. On paper. The trouble is, it was interpreted right
out of existence by courts that were compliant with the ruling political
party and was, therefore, generally ignored by the government it defined.
Until Gorbachev started taking it seriously, that is.

People tend to get the kind of government they desire. The trouble with
getting what you desire, though, is that it may well be the opposite of
what you need.

The creationists have been frustrated in their claim to be doing science.
Rightly so, since they have NEVER been doing science. They are doing and
always have been doing apologetics for a particular religious view. Were
they to state that openly, they would not be able to make a case for
having their nonsense taught in school science courses.

So essentially what we have here is a group of liars, interested in
fooling ignorant people into believing that their religious apologetic is
science. They are not really able to convince any real scientists of
this, so they seek to force their will upon the scientific community by
political fiat and by brainwashing the younger members of society until
they cannot tell an apologetic from science. Moreover, the politicians
who pander to this abomination (and it IS an abomination in God's sight,
according to the rules the promoters CLAIM to follow) are demonstrating
weakness, either in mind or in character, depending on how cynical or
sincere their support of the liars is!

They should, however, be mindful of what happened to that ancient
politician, Nebuchadnezzar, when he set up an abomination in the public
place and demanded that the people worship it!

Whether you're an atheist, a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a
Buddhist, or whatever, it's still a matter of intellectual honesty.

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------
By JOHN HANNA
The Associated Press

TOPEKA - Many scientists, science teachers and even some State Board
of Education members are disturbed by the board's hashing out how
evolution is taught in Kansas schools.

Science, they argue, isn't a democracy, and the debate over evolution
should occur on university campuses and in scholarly journals, with
the outcome determining what children hear in classrooms.

But determining education policy is the State Board of Education's
job, settled through political debates and, ultimately, elections. And
many Kansans want to weigh in on evolution - no matter how scientists
feel about it.

That means politics will shape how evolution is taught as the board
considers changes in the state's science standards this year - and
beyond. Scientists who see evolution's validity as well-established
are likely to be frustrated well into the future.

This is precisely why the scientists need to work in concert with
experienced political action groups to counter the prevailing trend of
school boards weakening the teaching of evolution.

Now matter how sound the logic, the data and the theory, evolution is
not going to win the "Hearts and Minds" in America until a solid package
of propaganda is presented that will fight creationist and ID'ers on
their turf. They have been able to successfully create the impression,
despite evidence to the contrary, that scientists are dogmatic adherents
to an atheist humanist philosophy that precludes God.

Debates with the likes of Gish aren't going to be won with facts that
counter his *****, and for the general public who aren't scientists,
debates apparently mean something in the context of forming public
education policy.

For example, scientists argue that if the evolution disclaimer stickers
should be placed in biology textbooks, then they should also be placed
in geology, physics, archaeology and astronomy textbooks because all
physical and social sciences deal with the word "Theory" in a different
manner than the colloquial. This argument, while factual, is a
non-starter because ID really only attacks the biological theory of
evolution, and in the public eye that is the only place where this is an
issue.

If I had the money, I would start a think tank that would use the
resources of NCSE, the Brookings Institute, Sojourners, etc. to come up
with a solid, singular public presentation to defend the role of science
in answering the questions with which science deals. I would want the
think tank to create templates that local concerned citizens could use
to counter the false claims of creationism and ID, with Talk.Origins as
a resource, but not the entire template.

We need to start using the tactics of the creationists in order to
protect science education. Machiavelli may be distasteful to some, but
the battle has been joined and we have to fight it on a level that the
public can relate to in order to save science from being diluted by crap.

Now matter how sound the logic, the data and the theory, evolution is
not going to win the "Hearts and Minds" in America until a solid
package of propaganda is presented that will fight creationist
and ID'ers on their turf.

They have been able to successfully create the impression,
despite evidence to the contrary, that scientists are dogmatic
adherents to an atheist humanist philosophy that precludes God.

This is precisely why the scientists need to work in concert with
experienced political action groups

resources of NCSE, the Brookings Institute, Sojourners, etc. to come up