Kansas Gets Its Thumbs Back

From Reuters:

The Kansas Board of Education on Tuesday threw out science standards deemed hostile to evolution, undoing the work of Christian conservatives in the ongoing battle over what to teach U.S. public school students about the origins of life.

The board in the central U.S. state voted 6-4 to replace them with teaching standards that mirror the mainstream in science education and eliminate criticisms of evolutionary theory.

It’s about damned time.  I wrote an article for Homomojo a couple of years ago when the Kansas board went, um, overboard in mandating the teaching of intelligent design in schools. 

The Reuters article goes on to demonstrate exactly the type of thinking evolution proponents are up against:

The Kansas board was criticized by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a group that promotes the concept of “intelligent design,” in which an intelligent force — which some proponents would say is God — is said to be probably responsible for some aspects of nature.

“You have a board in Kansas that is so extreme,” said John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, adding that evolution supporters were “anti-religious.”

The institute says Darwin’s theories about the survival of the fittest have led some scientists to embrace eugenics and practices such as forced sterilization.


3 thoughts on “Kansas Gets Its Thumbs Back

  1. Meh, this is virtually meaningless. The Kansas board flip-flops on this more than a fish gasping on a beach, trying desperately to evolve lungs in two seconds.

    The problem here is the same one it’s been all along: misdirection. Places like the Discovery Institute try and say schools are anti-religious or hostile to competing scientific theories when they don’t include “intelligent design” teaching in their science curriculum. However, what they overlook is the crux of the argument, not that “intelligent design” shouldn’t be addressed, just that it shouldn’t be addressed in a science class as it is patently not science. There is no scientific method, no experimentally determined evidence to support its claims.

    Certainly if theories emerge that compete with Evolution and can be experimentally modeled and verified they should be taught to children in science class. Otherwise, they belong in philosophy or religion classes, not attacking the backbone of most modern biological scientific education without basis.

  2. Otherwise, they belong in philosophy or religion classes, not attacking the backbone of most modern biological scientific education without basis.

    And that, my friend, is the crux of it. They want it presented as a scientific theory and not a philosophy. Why the difference is so hard to understand, I couldn’t tell ya.

  3. Pingback: University Update

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s