Vocaboly.com

[Harvey Van Sickle]

In the interests of balance, I offer this news story as a
counterpoint to the "Kansas" thread.

All the members of a school board in Pennsylvania who were
promoting "equal time for intelligent design" have been kicked out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1638584,00.html

--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van

[the Omrud]

Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> spake thusly:

[Guest]

KANS-ass! The world's laughingstock!

I knew those dimwits would do something like this! God-damned
religious freaks. They're as bad as those ridiculous muslims. As a
matter of fact, while you kansass-ers are at it, why not incorporate
into your fundamentalist "beliefs" 72 virgins as a reward for
martyrdom! Just as silly as intelluhgint design, or jezuz risin' from
th' dead! Yuk-yuk ...

As for pennsylvania, any school board that would even entertain ID as a
idea much less a course of study is to castigated and berated as
backward-looking and benighted! Ther should resign in shame. Better
still, tar & feather 'em and ride 'em outta town on rails!
================="Kansas Education Board First to Back 'Intelligent Design' "
Schools to Teach Doubts About Evolutionary Theory

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 9, 2005; A01


TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 -- The Kansas Board of Education voted Tuesday
that students will be expected to study doubts about modern Darwinian
theory, a move that defied the nation's scientific establishment even
as it gave voice to religious conservatives and others who question the
theory of evolution.

By a 6 to 4 vote that supporters cheered as a victory for free speech
and opponents denounced as shabby politics and worse science, the board
said high school students should be told that aspects of widely
accepted evolutionary theory are controversial. Among other points, the
standards allege a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the
genetic code."

The bitterly fought effort pushes Kansas to the forefront of a war over
evolution being waged in courts in Pennsylvania and Georgia and
statehouses nationwide. President Bush stated his own position last
summer, buoying social conservatives when he said "both sides" should
be taught.

"This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that
we can do. This absolutely teaches more about science," said Steve E.
Abrams, the Kansas board chairman who shepherded the conservative
Republican majority that overruled a 26-member science committee and
turned aside the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science
Teachers Association.

Opposing board members accused Abrams and his colleagues of hiding
behind a fiction of scientific inquiry to inject religion into science
classrooms. They said the decision would be bad for education, bad for
business and bad for the state's wounded reputation.

"This is a sad day, not only for Kansas kids, but for Kansas," said
Janet Waugh, who voted against the new standards. "We're becoming a
laughingstock, not only of the nation, but of the world."

The Board of Education does not mandate what will be taught to public
school students, a decision left to local school boards. But by
determining what students are expected to know for state assessment
tests, the board standards typically influence what students learn.

Analysts said Kansas delivered a deeper and more detailed challenge to
the teaching of evolution than other states. While a lawsuit is
possible before the standards take effect, one organization created to
oppose changes to science teaching said politics may be the swifter
route. Four of the six board members voting yes will face reelection
next year and three already have drawn opposition.

Eight school board members in Dover, Pa., who backed "intelligent
design" were ousted by voters Tuesday, the Associated Press reported.
But a spokesman for the Democratic slate that won said it would be
guided by a judge's decision in a court challenge to the curriculum.

"If this issue can be resolved by voting these people out in the next
elections, the standards will never get in place enough to make a court
case worthwhile. They'll be lame ducks," said Jack Krebs, vice
president of Kansas Citizens for Science.

That is what happened in 1999, when the board sought to undermine the
teaching of Darwinian theory. Moderates took control of the board in
2000, only to see it regain a conservative Republican majority in 2004.
Krebs also said he believes opponents could win a court case by showing
that the Kansas board is violating the Constitution by imposing
religion in another guise.

Members of the Kansas majority insisted that science motivated them,
although several have made clear their position that life's development
is too complex to be explained by natural evolution unguided by a
higher power. That view describes many adherents of intelligent design,
a critique of evolutionary theory that has gained particular support
from the religious right -- and ridicule from the vast majority of
trained scientists.

Asked about intelligent design last summer, Bush said, "Both sides
ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the
debate is about."

Prominent scientists and scientific organizations dismiss the call from
intelligent design proponents to "teach the controversy." The
scientific mainstream says there is no significant controversy, that
evidence from fields ranging from paleontology to molecular biology
shows all life on Earth originated from a single simple life-form.

Intelligent design "does not provide any natural explanation that can
be tested," said Francisco J. Ayala, an expert in evolutionary genetics
and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. He said the Kansas standards "are an insult to science, an
insult to education and an insult to the American Constitution."

The Kansas board argued about which side was more truthful.

Member Kenneth Willard accused the scientific establishment of having
"blind faith in evolution." He told his colleagues during a 45-minute
debate that the anti-evolution view is more intellectually honest.

"What we're dealing with here," Willard said in an argument that
infuriates mainstream scientists, "is a high degree of fear of change."

Two Republicans and two Democrats opposed the move. Sue Gamble said the
board, by dropping a phrase that defined science as "a search for
natural explanations of observable phenomena," was opening the door to
supernatural explanations. Waugh said she believes in the biblical
version of creation, but does not believe it should be taught in
science class. And Carol Rupe mentioned the "hundreds and hundreds of
scientists from around the world" who wrote to protest the board's
impending move.

"I wish you were not changing science to have it fit into your faith,"
she said. "It's a lousy time for us to be lowering science standards in
Kansas."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Guest]

KANS-ass! The world's laughingstock!

I knew those dimwits would do something like this! God-damned
religious freaks. They're as bad as those ridiculous muslims. As a
matter of fact, while you kansass-ers are at it, why not incorporate
into your fundamentalist "beliefs" 72 virgins as a reward for
martyrdom! Just as silly as intelluhgint design, or jezuz risin' from
th' dead! Yuk-yuk ...
================="Kansas Education Board First to Back 'Intelligent Design' "
Schools to Teach Doubts About Evolutionary Theory

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 9, 2005; A01


TOPEKA, Kan., Nov. 8 -- The Kansas Board of Education voted Tuesday
that students will be expected to study doubts about modern Darwinian
theory, a move that defied the nation's scientific establishment even
as it gave voice to religious conservatives and others who question the
theory of evolution.

By a 6 to 4 vote that supporters cheered as a victory for free speech
and opponents denounced as shabby politics and worse science, the board
said high school students should be told that aspects of widely
accepted evolutionary theory are controversial. Among other points, the
standards allege a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the
genetic code."

The bitterly fought effort pushes Kansas to the forefront of a war over
evolution being waged in courts in Pennsylvania and Georgia and
statehouses nationwide. President Bush stated his own position last
summer, buoying social conservatives when he said "both sides" should
be taught.

"This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that
we can do. This absolutely teaches more about science," said Steve E.
Abrams, the Kansas board chairman who shepherded the conservative
Republican majority that overruled a 26-member science committee and
turned aside the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science
Teachers Association.

Opposing board members accused Abrams and his colleagues of hiding
behind a fiction of scientific inquiry to inject religion into science
classrooms. They said the decision would be bad for education, bad for
business and bad for the state's wounded reputation.

"This is a sad day, not only for Kansas kids, but for Kansas," said
Janet Waugh, who voted against the new standards. "We're becoming a
laughingstock, not only of the nation, but of the world."

The Board of Education does not mandate what will be taught to public
school students, a decision left to local school boards. But by
determining what students are expected to know for state assessment
tests, the board standards typically influence what students learn.

Analysts said Kansas delivered a deeper and more detailed challenge to
the teaching of evolution than other states. While a lawsuit is
possible before the standards take effect, one organization created to
oppose changes to science teaching said politics may be the swifter
route. Four of the six board members voting yes will face reelection
next year and three already have drawn opposition.

Eight school board members in Dover, Pa., who backed "intelligent
design" were ousted by voters Tuesday, the Associated Press reported.
But a spokesman for the Democratic slate that won said it would be
guided by a judge's decision in a court challenge to the curriculum.

"If this issue can be resolved by voting these people out in the next
elections, the standards will never get in place enough to make a court
case worthwhile. They'll be lame ducks," said Jack Krebs, vice
president of Kansas Citizens for Science.

That is what happened in 1999, when the board sought to undermine the
teaching of Darwinian theory. Moderates took control of the board in
2000, only to see it regain a conservative Republican majority in 2004.
Krebs also said he believes opponents could win a court case by showing
that the Kansas board is violating the Constitution by imposing
religion in another guise.

Members of the Kansas majority insisted that science motivated them,
although several have made clear their position that life's development
is too complex to be explained by natural evolution unguided by a
higher power. That view describes many adherents of intelligent design,
a critique of evolutionary theory that has gained particular support
from the religious right -- and ridicule from the vast majority of
trained scientists.

Asked about intelligent design last summer, Bush said, "Both sides
ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the
debate is about."

Prominent scientists and scientific organizations dismiss the call from
intelligent design proponents to "teach the controversy." The
scientific mainstream says there is no significant controversy, that
evidence from fields ranging from paleontology to molecular biology
shows all life on Earth originated from a single simple life-form.

Intelligent design "does not provide any natural explanation that can
be tested," said Francisco J. Ayala, an expert in evolutionary genetics
and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. He said the Kansas standards "are an insult to science, an
insult to education and an insult to the American Constitution."

The Kansas board argued about which side was more truthful.

Member Kenneth Willard accused the scientific establishment of having
"blind faith in evolution." He told his colleagues during a 45-minute
debate that the anti-evolution view is more intellectually honest.

"What we're dealing with here," Willard said in an argument that
infuriates mainstream scientists, "is a high degree of fear of change."

Two Republicans and two Democrats opposed the move. Sue Gamble said the
board, by dropping a phrase that defined science as "a search for
natural explanations of observable phenomena," was opening the door to
supernatural explanations. Waugh said she believes in the biblical
version of creation, but does not believe it should be taught in
science class. And Carol Rupe mentioned the "hundreds and hundreds of
scientists from around the world" who wrote to protest the board's
impending move.

"I wish you were not changing science to have it fit into your faith,"
she said. "It's a lousy time for us to be lowering science standards in
Kansas."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Armond Perretta]

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

[Armond Perretta]

perryneheum@hotmail.com wrote:

[Bill Bonde ('by a commodi]

perryneheum@hotmail.com wrote:

[Bill Bonde ('by a commodi]

Armond Perretta wrote:

[Jeffrey Turner]

Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:

[Mike Lyle]

Jeffrey Turner wrote:

[Bob]

[Armond Perretta]

"Bill Bonde wrote ...

[Bill Bonde ('by a commodi]

Bob wrote:

[Default User]

perryneheum@hotmail.com wrote:

[Bob]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:48:47 -0800, Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of
recirculation') wrote: