Kansas BoE still hates Evolution

[Wicked Pilot]

As if it couldn't get worse...

KANSAS CITY, KS-As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

I dress my links, bitch!

[LapsedPacifist]

Well obviously there's no way that a pound of feathers should be as heavy as a pound of lead. Surely some aspects of gravity are irreducibly complex. A sure sign of a creator.

LP

[DPDarkPrimus]

Come on WP, how gullible do you think we are?

[Darth Wong]

Well obviously there's no way that a pound of feathers should be as heavy as a pound of lead. Surely some aspects of gravity are irreducibly complex. A sure sign of a creator.

LP

Especially when a woman can weigh the same as a duck, as once demonstrated for King Arthur. That's definitely the Creator at work.

[Magnetic]

Yeah, that's a good one, Wicked Pilot. Pretty funny! Sad if it were actually true, though.

[Wicked Pilot]

Come on WP, how gullible do you think we are?

One of these Onion articles had me until almost the very end. I don't remember who posted it, or the topic (it might have been about Catholics and sex), but I wasn't the only one.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Come on WP, how gullible do you think we are?

One of these Onion articles had me until almost the very end. I don't remember who posted it, or the topic (it might have been about Catholics and sex), but I wasn't the only one.

Yes, some of them are expertly written, but "intelligent falling" is the running gag of many a political satire.

[Zero]

Actually, if you believe that God is an omnipotent being who created the universe in its entirety, shouldn't it follow that all physical laws in said universe are directly caused by God?

[SirNitram]

Actually, if you believe that God is an omnipotent being who created the universe in its entirety, shouldn't it follow that all physical laws in said universe are directly caused by God?

Any such creator would have laid down the laws, like, say, a computer programmer setting down a physics engine. This does not equal 'God Did It' being a rational outcome, for wouldn't it be logical to try and find out the mechanisms the Creator put in place?

[Zero]

Any such creator would have laid down the laws, like, say, a computer programmer setting down a physics engine. This does not equal 'God Did It' being a rational outcome, for wouldn't it be logical to try and find out the mechanisms the Creator put in place?

Even if you assumed that such mechanisms didn't exist (or if you did, as well), discovering what paterns that creator put in place really ought to come before studying any old book anyways, if you believed in such a creature. After all, what's the sense in believing in God if your primary motive is to ignore his work in favor of words written by people a long time ago? Fundies aparently don't think so...

But nobody ever said that fundies were smart, and if they did, they were probably a fundie.

What really pisses me off is that nobody understands that if you accept belief in a God that you didn't imagine, you must also accept that any claims you make about that God, and beliefs you hold may be wrong.

[kheegster]

As if it couldn't get worse...

KANSAS CITY, KS-As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
*snip*

I dress my links, bitch!

The article was being circulated around at the observatory yesterday, and quite a number of senior researchers fell for it hook, line and sinker. It wasn't until I group-emailed them with The Onion's link that they realised it was a parody.

[Darth Wong]

As if it couldn't get worse...

KANSAS CITY, KS-As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
*snip*

I dress my links, bitch!

The article was being circulated around at the observatory yesterday, and quite a number of senior researchers fell for it hook, line and sinker. It wasn't until I group-emailed them with The Onion's link that they realised it was a parody.

It's not that surprising. When you look at some of the incredibly ridiculous things creationists say (eg- "humans and dinosaurs coexisted" or "the surface of the planet was much smoother before the Flood, and the tectonic plates shifted during the Flood in order to make the mountains and deep sea trenches"), you can't immediately dismiss anything attributed to a creationist no matter how fucking stupid it is. Hell, their Inerrant Holy Book has talking animals in it. The only thing stopping Christian fundamentalism from being classified as a mental disease is their sheer numbers.

[Civil War Man]

Sometimes I feel as though we need to apply a Lewis Black solution to this problem.

For those unaware, Lewis Black's strategy to win the War on Terrorism is to elect a president that's dead. Since a lot of terrorists are crazy, the only way to beat them is to act crazier, and we do that by electing Ronald Reagan in 2008. Every year we prop him up in front of Congress and the representatives and senators sit there and occasionally give him a standing ovation.

So in order to beat the fundies, we have to start topping the fundies in terms of craziness. How about we claim that if ID is taught in science classes, Charles Darwin will rise from the dead and steal one of the helices from our DNA?

[kheegster]

Sometimes I feel as though we need to apply a Lewis Black solution to this problem.

For those unaware, Lewis Black's strategy to win the War on Terrorism is to elect a president that's dead. Since a lot of terrorists are crazy, the only way to beat them is to act crazier, and we do that by electing Ronald Reagan in 2008. Every year we prop him up in front of Congress and the representatives and senators sit there and occasionally give him a standing ovation.

So in order to beat the fundies, we have to start topping the fundies in terms of craziness. How about we claim that if ID is taught in science classes, Charles Darwin will rise from the dead and steal one of the helices from our DNA?

We already do something like that in University College London. The 19th century Utilitarian philosopher was one of the main proponents of the founding of UCL, and he requested in his will that his body be embalmed after his death, and displayed in the main foyer of UCL (and it still is).

Rumour has it that during university council meetings his body is wheeled out and his attendance is recorded as 'present but non-voting'.

[boc120]

Is there any particular reason that you all are so worried about a competing viewpoint being taught in schools? If your evolution theories are as airtight as you seem to believe, then as long as both are taught equally, you shouldn't have to worry about anyone making the "wrong choice" of God having created the world in 6 days.

[Keevan_Colton]

Is there any particular reason that you all are so worried about a competing viewpoint being taught in schools? If your evolution theories are as airtight as you seem to believe, then as long as both are taught equally, you shouldn't have to worry about anyone making the "wrong choice" of God having created the world in 6 days.

You'll be an arsehole then.

Perhaps the idea of lending official credence and finance to bullshit is what offends so?
Perhaps it's because too many people will be unable to actually understand why fairy tales in scientific language are NOT scientific?
Perhaps the offence is due to a continued attempt to turn the US into a theocratic shithole?
Perhaps it's just being sick of fucking morons calling the shots?

I expect to see you shortly in the HoS, if this is all you have to contribute I can assure you your stay will be very short.

[Ghost Rider]

Is there any particular reason that you all are so worried about a competing viewpoint being taught in schools? If your evolution theories are as airtight as you seem to believe, then as long as both are taught equally, you shouldn't have to worry about anyone making the "wrong choice" of God having created the world in 6 days.

No sweat, we'll teach idiots that the world is flat and the Sun revolves around the moon.

When something is flat out wrong, it doesn't deserve time to expouse it's stupidity in our already taxed education, nor does it deserve our MONEY to pay for this stupidity.

[boc120]

If tolerance is as high on the list of your priorities as I have seen claimed, then I don't see why a the first responses to a moderately worded post are met with such profanity and intolerance. But back to the topic at hand.
The biology teacher at our school, without any forcing from any school board, has always made it his policy to not treat the idea of evolution as a sure thing. He regards it as his duty to show all sides in a fair light and then let the students draw their own conclusions. If the BOE in Kansas is trying to get fair representation for creationism, then both sides may be heard and then the students there can make their own conclusions as well. If only one idea is taught, such as evolution, then doesn't evolution become a sort of dogma if competing viewpoints are not allowed?

[Surlethe]

Is there any particular reason that you all are so worried about a competing viewpoint being taught in schools? If your evolution theories are as airtight as you seem to believe, then as long as both are taught equally, you shouldn't have to worry about anyone making the "wrong choice" of God having created the world in 6 days.

Three reasons:

1. Scientific theories and bullshit do not belong side-by-side.
2. Science classrooms should concern themselves with science, not bullshit
3. Bullshit wrapped up in a neat package and delivered in a science classroom is still bullshit

Been nice knowing you, troll. Now go fuck yourself.

[Surlethe]

If tolerance is as high on the list of your priorities as I have seen claimed, then I don't see why a the first responses to a moderately worded post are met with such profanity and intolerance. But back to the topic at hand.

That right there is ban material, fucktard. Look right up at the top of your screen:

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people

In case you haven't noticed, you qualify under the latter.

The biology teacher at our school, without any forcing from any school board, has always made it his policy to not treat the idea of evolution as a sure thing.

He's a moron, and you're an ignorant high shool student. What a surprise.

He regards it as his duty to show all sides in a fair light and then let the students draw their own conclusions.

Does he demonstrate creationism as the rotting, festering pile of asshair-strewn shit it is? If not, then he's not presenting it in a fair light. Furthermore, asshole, you seem to fail to recognize teaching cretinism will detract from time spent teaching real science.

If the BOE in Kansas is trying to get fair representation for creationism, then both sides may be heard and then the students there can make their own conclusions as well. If only one idea is taught, such as evolution, then doesn't evolution become a sort of dogma if competing viewpoints are not allowed?

NO, you dipshit troll, there is no competition between creationism and evolution. The matter was settled over a century ago in educated circles.

[boc120]

See? There you go again with the profanity. Can you formulate a decent response without stooping to the level of bad language and name calling?

The BOE in Kansas are elected representatives of the people of the area that they serve. If the people don't like the policies that they are pursuing, they will not re-elect them when their terms run out. If the majority of people choose to elect people who have a creationist viewpoint, then that is their choice and there is no reason to berate them. That is the will of the people in that area at this time.

[Justforfun000]

If tolerance is as high on the list of your priorities as I have seen claimed, then I don't see why a the first responses to a moderately worded post are met with such profanity and intolerance.

A few reasons. This board prizes straight talk, and the owner of it believes profanity is perfectly acceptable because they are just words. I believe he put it something like: Fuckity fuck fuck fuck. See? Did the sky fall in?

Flaming is tolerated if the person is espousing a "stupid" idea, and you can flame right back and defend it if you can, and people will concede and apologize if you can support your side better.

It's just one of the natures of this board. Political correctness is not practiced here.

The biology teacher at our school, without any forcing from any school board, has always made it his policy to not treat the idea of evolution as a sure thing.

But is IS a sure thing. It's as sure as any theory become fact in the entire Scientific world. The problem always arises from people who do not understand that the definition of the word "theory" is NOT the same as common English use. Assumption or hypothesis is more accurate for the common vernacular. Scientific theories are borne out by evidence and testability and if they survive all peer review challenges, and tests of time, then they eventually become fact. Evolution is so well supported in its major entirety, that only very very small gaps of knowledge are open to question. That's the truth, and only people with enough education understand this. Unfotunately, good education is not being proffered in many places in the States, and this foolishness of introducing other wild claims of reality is proof of that.

He regards it as his duty to show all sides in a fair light and then let the students draw their own conclusions.

But there IS no other sides that have any validity to them. That's the point. Based on this reasoning, ALL religions, even pagan views, could be introduced as being on an equal footing. Hell I could bring in a view of the Marvel universe as being equally valid. Science is based on what is REAL. If you cannot support it by objective evidence, then it isn't science. Do you understand?

If the BOE in Kansas is trying to get fair representation for creationism, then both sides may be heard and then the students there can make their own conclusions as well.

The students aren't QUALIFIED to make conclusions. Scientists are specialists, and they are all UNANIMOUS (except for charlatans posing as Christian Scientists, an oxymoron if I've ever heard of one) about the theory of Evolution being the only objectively verified, testable and workable reality based on what we OBSERVE. People don't pick theories out of the air in science and declare them FACT. They have to PROVE them.

Would you think it would make sense to have a teacher give equal credence to a belief that the heart is actually a bag of spiritual energy that Yoda created in every human that glows every time you kiss someone compared to the current model of science explaining it as a muscle involved in the circulatory system?

It is absolutely no different then the idea of Creation being put side by side evolution.The only difference is the sheer number of people who choose to BELIEVE that this fable of Adam and Eve was the true beginning of the Earth and that it's only 6000 years old or so.

If only one idea is taught, such as evolution, then doesn't evolution become a sort of dogma if competing viewpoints are not allowed?

No, because dogma only applies to religious belief and unsupported evidence. The word has no meaning for evidence based science.

Observe:

Definitions of dogma on the Web:

a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Basic beliefs and truths contained in the Bible and the Holy Tradition of the Church as defined by the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers of the Church. Dogma is studied by the field ofdogmatic theology.
essenes.net/odict.htm

In the accepted Christian meaning...a religious truth established by Divine Revelation and defined by the Church. *
www.stsams.org/dictionary.html

A blind belief in things often without a material base.
www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/glossary/d.asp

[Surlethe]

See? There you go again with the profanity. Can you formulate a decent response without stooping to the level of bad language and name calling?

[rul=http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=68349]Fuck off.[/url]

The BOE in Kansas are elected representatives of the people of the area that they serve. If the people don't like the policies that they are pursuing, they will not re-elect them when their terms run out. If the majority of people choose to elect people who have a creationist viewpoint, then that is their choice and there is no reason to berate them. That is the will of the people in that area at this time.

argumentum ad populum. Thank you, moron, for completely missing the thrust of my argument; maybe you can grasp this: just because people want something doesn't make that something good. In this case, teaching evolution side-by-side with bullshit pseudoscientific theories is absofuckinglutely atrocious, for reasons listed above. 9/11 was popular in Palestine; does that make it good? Now crawl back to whatever cave you came out from, asshat.

[Wicked Pilot]

When there is legitimate controversy it is important to teach both sides of the issue. Evolution vs creationism is not a legitimate controversy, that is why it should not be taught. There are legitimate gaps in our understanding of evolution, but teaching those would go beyond the scope of high school biology. If a student wants to go that far in depth there is a place for them known as college.

[Justforfun000]

If the majority of people choose to elect people who have a creationist viewpoint, then that is their choice and there is no reason to berate them. That is the will of the people in that area at this time.

That is not a valid reason for ANY public decision. First off, I caution to remind you that you are in a SECULAR government, NOT a theocracy. However Dubya Bush is doing everything he can to change that.

By that reasoning, Slavery was morally ok because the majority of the south wanted it. You cannot make laws based on that reasoning, and it's also consequently, a fallacy:

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fine one, and in general the terms can be used interchangeably in debate rounds. (I've found that ad populum has better rhetorical effect.)

Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. For an example, see above. This fallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum, which you should see for more details.