Archive for Friday, July 7, 2006

Intelligent design advocates to campaign in Kansas

July 7, 2006


— A Seattle-based research group that advocates intelligent design said today it will campaign to educate Kansans that the science standards approved by the State Board of Education are sound.

"Kansas citizens need to have accurate information about what the science standards do," said John West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture for Discovery Institute.

West said the group will start an information campaign over the Internet immediately and possibly start a radio campaign. He declined to say how much the center would spend.

The decision puts the Discovery Institute in the center of hotly-contested State Board of Education school board races.

The board's 6-4 decision to approve science standards that question evolution has been a major issue in the five board places that are up for grabs this year. The science standards are used as guidelines to what students learn in Kansas public schools.

Mainstream scientists have said the standards criticize evolution in a way that could introduce intelligent design in science classrooms. Intelligent design posits there was a master force that designed life.


staff04 11 years, 10 months ago

I can't muster the energy to go 'round on this again, so I'm going to sum it up early...


See? That should save everyone a lot of trouble...

BunE 11 years, 10 months ago

Hahahahahahahahah. I heart creationists!

Baille 11 years, 10 months ago

Ooooh. An internet campaign. I can hear the slow creak of hearts and minds changing as we type.

Horace 11 years, 10 months ago

Fossils are a trick of the devil. Dinosaurs are demons from hell.

yourworstnightmare 11 years, 10 months ago

"Kansas citizens need to have accurate information about what the science standards do,"

Indeed. They need to know the creationist-inspired "science" standards make them look like fools.

They need to know that the standards will drive away jobs and businesses based on science.

They need to know that the science standards confirm every prejudice leveled at Kansans e.g. uneducated, ignorant buffoons.

kmat 11 years, 10 months ago

do as I did and send an email to the b.s. institute telling them they aren't welcome. I advised them to visit the Natural History Museum on campus so they can be educated about real science and evolution. Once it's announced where they will be, I will be there protesting them. This is a KS issue and people from other states need to butt out and mind their own business.

How long until we're a theocracy?

remember_username 11 years, 10 months ago

There is a great old Herman cartoon that I recall -

Two cartoon regulars in a bar.

First cartoon, "I believe that some people were created and others evolved."

Second cartoon, "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."

First cartoon, "You're just jealous."

The thing I like about that joke is it doesn't state a belief on one side or the other (but I'll wait for the lawyers to call me on the copyright violation). This subject has been so abused that even the most rabid posters struggle to add commentary.

Redzilla 11 years, 10 months ago

Click the name of all that you consider holy, just click away from this discussion...ehn,

Fred Whitehead Jr. 11 years, 10 months ago

This is really a funny thing, people in Seattle think that Kansans are not good enough at looking like uneducated jerks, that we need help to do that. So the carpetbaggers have set out on a holy crusade to help Kansas rush headlong into the Middle Ages. What next, witch-burning?

Strontius 11 years, 10 months ago

I really regret coming to KU to earn my diploma. It's going to be worth about as much as the piece of paper its printed on if this debacle continues.

The U.S. used to be the center and forefront of knowledge and education in the world, with cutting-edge science and mathematics programs that churned out some of the brightest minds in the world. NASA used to produce some of the best tehcnological advancements the world ever saw, resulting in massive amounts of consumer goods and medical advancements. Alas, this assault against science has done more than criticize evolution.

Now we either export those minds because of our political climate, or we export them because of our religious climate.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

We were at our best when we had "Apollo Science" and our whole world changed for the better. WHy do people want us to go backwards and call that "progress"?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "..understand the importance of removing indoctrination from our schools."

Yeah maybe we can get those re-written science standards the 6-4 court on the BOE passed and get that religious indroctination out of there and replace it with something the National Science Admin will again endorse.

                      WHY OH WHY US??

devobrun 11 years, 10 months ago

But conservativeman, the hippy scientists can't be indoctrinating from our schools.

They are open-minded, they can't be insistent to the point of indoctrination. They have evidence. And evidence is science. They have lots of evidence. They have lots of scientists who agree with them. They hold the truth.

No sir conservativeman, these guys are liberal. And we all know that:

Liberals never indoctrinate, that's a religious thing to do. And religion is not liberal. Its fundamentalist. OOOh, bad. How dare anybody question the great Oz?

Now, stand back and read the personal attacks, smears,and the invective.

Kelly Powell 11 years, 10 months ago

The first person who manages to make this a democrat/republican thing is going to get a beer bottle smashed over their skull.......... But would'nt it be cool if the phelps found out someone in the group was gay and they had to protest it........

anonimiss 11 years, 10 months ago

"Benchmark 3: The student will understand the major concepts of the theory of biological evolution. The student : 1 understands biological evolution, descent with modification, is a scientific explanation for the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors. 2. understands populations of organisms may adapt to environmental challenges and changes as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and various mechanisms of genetic change. 3. understands biological evolution is used to explain the earth's present day biodiversity: the number, variety and variability of organisms. 4. â-² understands organisms vary widely within and between populations. Variation allows for natural selection to occur. 5. understands that the primary mechanism of evolutionary change (acting on variation) is natural selection. 6. understands biological evolution is used as a broad, unifying theoretical framework for biology. 7. explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations."

If that doesn't scream Creationism, I don't know what will.

anonimiss 11 years, 10 months ago

Wait, maybe this:

"NATURE OF SCIENCE Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation. Scientific explanation must meet criteria that govern the repeatability of observations and experiments. The effect of these criteria is to insure that scientific explanations about the world are open to criticism and that they will be modified or abandoned in favor of new explanations if empirical evidence so warrants. Because all scientific explanations depend on observational and experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available. The core theories of science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and have a high degree of reliability within the limits to which they have been tested. In areas where data or understanding is incomplete, new data may lead to changes in current theories or resolve current conflicts. In situations where information is still fragmentary, it is normal for scientific ideas to be incomplete, but this is also where the opportunity for making advances may be greatest. Science has flourished in different regions during different time periods, and in history, diverse cultures have contributed scientific knowledge and technological inventions. Changes in scientific knowledge usually occur as gradual modifications, but the scientific enterprise also experiences periods of rapid advancement. The daily work of science and technology results in incremental advances in understanding the world."

Religious Fundies!

anonimiss 11 years, 10 months ago

Hold your horses, almost forgot the nail in the coffin:

"From the testimony and submissions we have received, we are aware that the study and discussion of the origin and development of life may raise deep personal and philosophical questions for many people on all sides of the debate. But as interesting as these personal questions may be, the personal questions are not covered by these curriculum standards nor are they the basis for the Board's actions in this area."

Berserk 11 years, 10 months ago

Wow, and I thought Fred Phelps was all the fundamental religiosness we needed.

You know I put you people (Phelps & Spaghetti monster followers) in the same category with the Taliban and Al-Quaida, they believe so strongly that they will go to thier version of heaven if they kill people, you believe the same thing, but without killing, just brainwashing and "converting".

Based on... no evidence to support any of your theorys?!?



HMcMellon 11 years, 10 months ago

I'm beginning to think that the handful of nutcases who consistently post on their constipated beliefs on these threads consider a "liberal" to be anyone who doesn't play with snakes in their cult church or who doesn't protest the funerals of our brave soldiers.

What a bunch of whacked-out morons. They are a very small minority in Kansas, but they make a lot of noise and have made our once-enlightened state out to be the laughing stock of the world.

It is still a mystery to me how the voters were fooled into allowing those six nutty goofballs to be elected to the KBOE.

Godot 11 years, 10 months ago

bennyoates wrote: "Those who know that this "research group" is nothing more than a front for undermining public education should find out where these propagandists will be in Kansas, and do their best to engage them in critical dialogues."

Where were you when the hearings were held? You were refusing to speak to honor "the idiots'" with a response. Why would you speak up now?

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

OK For all You Conservative wanna be's. The Discovery Institute is also tied up in "Cascadia"> Who are they? THEY and their "mission" is stated below from theior web page. YES these are the guys that STOLE PRIVATE PROPERTY from PRIVATE CITIZENS (for a high speed rail system) through EMMINENT DOMAIN, the project fell through, and then they SOLD THE PROPERTIES FOR PROFIT AND KEPT IT! Making 3x what they "gave" the owner's to whom they paid "fair Market values".

YEs, what a great bunch of "Christians" thes yahoos are! Take a hint, theives like this should NOT be deciding NOR dictating what our KIDS in KANSAS should or should NOT be taught.

Wise up guys!!!

Cascadia MISSION

The mission of the Cascadia Center is to support the development of a balanced, integrated, and expanded transportation system for people and goods in central Puget Sound and the greater Cascadia region of Washington, British Columbia, and Oregon.

National advocacy for Amtrak reform and high speed passenger rail as well as TEA-21 reauthorization. International advocacy for U.S./Canadian border improvements, "Two-Nation Vacation" tourism initiatives and strategic security investments through the International Mobility and Trade Corridors Project (IMTC), CAN/AM Border Trade Alliance and the development of a West Coast Corridor Coalition.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

I wonder how much of the "Cascadia Public funding for transportaion grants is "flushed" through the "Discovery Institute". I think they probably need to loose their not for profit status if they are indeed tied up with this stuff.

I think it is time for a congressional investigation of the public funding.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

Follow the money....always follow the money!

hottruckinmama 11 years, 10 months ago

you know what? i don't care what they teach my kids about this. personally i believe the bible version. but i can sure teach that at home if they don't teach it at school. i'm tired of hearing about it. h*ll's bells i'd just be happy if they'd teach them much of anything at all in school most of the time.

bondmen 11 years, 10 months ago

Stand Up For Science

By: Staff Discovery Institute July 7, 2006

New Public Education Effort Encourages Citizens to Stand Up For Science, Stand Up For Kansas

TOPEKA, KS "Should public schools censor scientific evidence just because it challenges Darwin's theory of evolution?" asks Robert Crowther, director of communications for Discovery Institute a non-partisan public policy center. "Of course not. Teachers should present all the scientific evidence, including both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory, and this is exactly what the Kansas state science standards call for."

Sign the Petition and Stand Up for Science at

At the behest of Kansas teachers and parents the Discovery Institute in July will launch the website to help defend Kansas' science standards. At the website people who support teaching both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution will be able to sign a petition supporting the state's science standards.

In 2005 the Kansas State Board of Education revised the state's science standards to require students to learn the full range of scientific evidence for and against biological and chemical evolution, after hearing testimony from 23 scientists and scholars about how such evidence should be presented in the classroom.

"There is now a concerted and organized effort to undermine those standards, and ultimately to repeal them and replace them with dogmatic, Darwin-only science standards," said Crowther.

According to the Institute, polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that when biology teachers present the scientific evidence supporting Darwin's theory of evolution, they should also teach the scientific evidence against it.

In their rationale for adopting the standards the Kansas State Board of Education stated: "Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory."

continued below...

bondmen 11 years, 10 months ago

continued from above:

"There are some in Kansas, and around the country, now using their voices to try to tear down Kansas' science standards and stifle discussion of the scientific evidence they don't like," added Crowther. "We think that the Kansas science standards are the best in the nation and so we're committed to helping preserve them, which is why we started the website."

According to Crowther, Kansas's approach to teaching evolution will better inform students about the facts of the scientific evidence in biology, and also require them to critically analyze the evidence so they will gain the critical thinking skills necessary to become good scientists. Four other states Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and South Carolina have standards requiring students to learn about critical analysis of evolution already in place.

Scientists continue to raise questions about evolutionary theory, and in recent years a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues challenging various aspects of biological and chemical evolution. Students deserve to learn about the views of these dissenting scientists, both so they can better understand the scientific evidence, and also so they can formulate the critical thinking skills needed to be good scientists.

Discovery Institute is a non-profit, public policy center that studies issues from transportation to technology to science. In science education, it supports a "teach the controversy" approach to Darwinian evolution and believes that students should have the opportunity to study both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. At the same time, the Institute opposes any attempt to mandate the teaching of alternative theories such as intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. For more information visit the Institute's website at

Sign the Petition and Stand Up for Science at

Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at:

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

BUNCH OF LIES FROM Bondmen's link. Same old BS that "This is NOT ID", THis is Not creo. There is something wrong with darwin. All the same BS>

From the YAHOOS website:

"Stand Up For Science is a service of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture to educate the public on the debate over how to teach evolution."

HOW TO TEACH EVOLUTION, by not teaching it.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

"Discovery Institute applies a very strict code of ethics and is a model for objectivity in the scientific community."

LOL. These guys LIE all the time. They got caught in lies at the Dover Trial, at the Georgia Trial, and everyone knows ther MO.

IF THAT is your idea of "strict code of ethics" you would believe Jack the Ripper was "passionate" insted of psycotically obsessed.


"They are under great scrutiny which requires that they act with non-partisan applications."

By whom? They have been discredited by most of the national scientists. THeir list of 600 scientists has only 50 some biologists, the rest are in physics or engineering. They know nothing about the biological processes. Most of the "biologists" are from like Bob Jones University and earned a "Biology Degree" with creationist thesis. NONE of the socalled scientists for the Discovery Institute is Peer reviewed and published in scientific literature.

ryanjasondesch 11 years, 10 months ago

Haven't you guys figured it out yet? I created the world. That's right, I did it 10 minutes ago and I gave you all memories of everything that happened before that, including reading this article. I'm sending a prophet to Kansas to persuade you to teach the truth about creation in your schools. I think you'll find I have just as a persuasive and logical argument as these misguided "Intelligent Design" folks. Now worship me lest I send my army of unicorns for you all to run into.

ryanjasondesch 11 years, 10 months ago

That's right, make it something personal, attack me, hell make it about my height, the color of my skin, cuz you got no argument. And remember that a secular society tolerates extremism, extremism does not tolerate a secular society. Thank your god you don't live in an extreme one in which you didn't make the 'right choice'. And don't forget to worship me, you don't wanna burn for eternity do you?

johngalt 11 years, 10 months ago

someone tell me (seriously) SPECIFICALLY what is in the new science stds that folks don't like?

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

When I agree with HGA, you know that is wideley divergent points of view that agree on a single fact.

ID and Creo is BS and is NOT science.

Dembsky and BEHE are the IDiots, and YOU are FOOLS to follow them.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

Specifically, that Science will take into account "supernatural" explanations.

That means majic, paganism, wiccan, etc. Watch out what you are wishing for you just may get it.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

I think that about sums it up for the whole READING world to see.

ANTI Science is what that standard is.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

You also have to remember that these Science Standards AS WRITTEN are in violation of copyright infringement. Yes that is right, the NAS copyrighted material is not supposed to be used as the NAS withdrew the Kansas right to use their material after the fundamentalists butchered it.

SO if they are inacted expect a copyright infringement civil case ON TOP of our already stretched education dollars.

That is right, these fundie so called religious leaders STOLE and LIEd about using that material. Makes you wonder just how MORAL they actually are.

Remember about Cascadia and the linkage to Discovery.

flames_over_the_wasteland 11 years, 10 months ago

Con man--I'm from Montana, and believe me, we're not praying for you or for Kansas. We're laughing like hell at you and your state, moron!

Strontius 11 years, 10 months ago

I think people really need to understand that there is no dissention in the scientific community over evolution.

Evolution is a fact, not just an idea that someone came up with one evening while looking up at the stars. If evolution wasn't true, the fabulous advances in medical and biological science simply wouldn't have take place over the last 200 years. Telling biologists that evolution is false would be no different than telling Robert Oppenhiemer that Einstein's Atomic Theory is flawed right after the first atomic bomb was detonated. In other words, the people claiming evolution is false or flawed are either:

  1. Ignorant (General Population)


  1. Lying (Discovery Institute)

Of course the general population can't be faulted for being ignorant. Evolution is a very complex subject that takes a great deal of time to learn in total. This plays right into the hands of the people in the Discovery Institute who aren't interested in discovering scientific truth, but are interested in changing American culture and the definition of science altogether. This is outlined quite openly in their "Wedge Document":

These people are not in any way interested in fostering true scientific discussion, simply undermining a scientific process they see as detrimental to their theology. The "scientists" who are taking up the gauntlet against evolution have one very important attribute in common: None of them have any credentials in biological science! Who are these people to tell biologists their business? They are con-artists and liars who believe they are doing a service to humanity by lying for God, not in discovering the truth about our surroundings but by propagating outdated and long disproved stories of human origins written in caves by people who believed the Earth was flat.

Everyone should also note that Intelligent Design has no testable hypothesis and is not falsifiable, a key element to any scientific concept. Intelligent Design is a philosophy and a theology, not a science.

So whether or not Intelligent Design sounds plausible to you, everyone should be able to agree that it's simply not science and therefore has no place in science classrooms.

Peaty Romano 11 years, 10 months ago

Something to do while waiting for this whole thing to blow over again.

devobrun 11 years, 10 months ago

anonimiss, If yer still there.

You have presented a fine definition of science based on the philosophy of logical positivism. That is, Descartes Dream. The world according to mathematics.

You make several statements that are very positive in their assertion. For example:

"Because all scientific explanations depend on observational and experimental confirmation, all scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available."

Scientific explanations modified on the basis of evidence is called evidentiary science. This type of science has a big problem. It doesn't tests for refutation.

It doesn't become fruitful because the tests are positive. Nobody really cares except in a mythological (story telling) way. The theories can't be trusted with your life, because the tests only involve gathering data. Not actually doing the thing hypothesisized.

The tests don't have meaning to people because their purpose is only to explain.

Other statements in your writing:

"The core theories of science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and have a high degree of reliability within the limits to which they have been tested."


This isn't the way of traditional physics. Logical positivism is an old philosophy which went out of favor, but is making a comeback thanks to computer models.

Climatology, evolution and other modern "sciences" approach the work in a positive manner. The "tests" conducted are tiny fractions of the hypothesis. Most statements in these fields simply cannot be tested.

So, write a computer program and test that. Modify the model and see what happens. This ain't testing for refutation. It's lousy science.

But it's easy. And it sells to journalists and the general population. So, this method of science is powerful politically, but its only application is behavior mod via laws (Kyoto) or in the classroom(9th graders).

anonimiss 11 years, 10 months ago

My quotes were taken word for word from the kansas science standards that are in question. My point was to show what the controversy is about. My personal belief is that science is an act of creating hypotheses and trying to disprove them. There is no way to prove anything, only support in the way of not being able to disprove. I do not consider any study of history, be it some areas of biology, geology, or other earth and life sciences to be true science, as those involved only seek to try to prove instead of disprove. I applaud criticism of all theories, as they only lead to stronger, more developed theories. Evolution has great potential in explaining the nature of life. But it is not completely developed. If biologists were true scientists, they would seek to explain criticisms, develop the theory until one exists that cannot be criticised any further. Instead, they are more interested in poking fun at Kansans, developing computer programs that show signs of evolution, coming up with dates for when species split apart, and playing around with DNA.

In a side note, I believe in something more like adaptation, not evolution. The fossil records show stability over long periods of time, and sudden changes in species, usually attributed to changes in environment. If evolution were truly fluke accidents and mutations, they would be expected to occur at the same rate. A dinosaur with wings is better than a regular dinosaur-why didn't it come around sooner? Instead, animals react to changes in environment much the same as reptiles and amphibians can grow larger or smaller depending on their environment, or how the blind or deaf can develop their other senses better.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

"My point was to show what the controversy is about. My personal belief is that science is an act of creating hypotheses and trying to disprove them. "

Then your concept of Science is wrong.

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

"I do not consider any study of history, be it some areas of biology, geology, or other earth and life sciences to be true science, as those involved only seek to try to prove instead of disprove."

Well just voted you "King of the World"? I am sure there are somewhere near 10 million scientists that disagree wtih your assessment that these "studies" of history are not "true Sciences". BTW, what is yoru credential or bonafidice that gives yur opinion any weight in matters of science. By reading ID creationist sites? Is that your credential? Or is it simply that you are refusing to accept fact and evidenceand wanting to "believe" otherwise?


"I applaud criticism of all theories, as they only lead to stronger, more developed theories."

No you do not. YOu only want to criticize evolution. You do not want anyone to detract or criticize ID or Creo.


"Evolution has great potential in explaining the nature of life. But it is not completely developed. If biologists were true scientists, they would seek to explain criticisms, develop the theory until one exists that cannot be criticised any further."

HOw do you "know" it is not fully developed??? IF ID/Creo idiots were really scientists they could have some sort of evidence to SUPPORT their ideas, instead of just merely criticizing evolution. TO develope a "theory until it cannot be be criticized further"? We would have NEVER made it to the Moon!! That my son and truly intellectually impaired is called "APOLLO SCIENCE". We go as far as we know and jump into the unknown sometimes. Finding the unknowns is waht experiments are for. Evolution has had millions conducted. How many "experiments" do the ID/Creo guys have to show?? NONE! ALl they do is bitch about how evolution is not this and is this without really knowing what evolution actually is.

As an example:


"In a side note, I believe in something more like adaptation, not evolution. "

You stupid yahoo....THAT is what evolution IS!!! That is EXACTLY what it is. Chages and adaptations over time.

This is why you guys should shut up. You have not clue one about what you are hollering about. You are just hollering because some yahoo came to your church and raised hell that this was the problem in society. The real problem in society is the yahoo that came to your damn shurch with this garbage!!!!!!!

ASBESTOS 11 years, 10 months ago

(cont.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"If evolution were truly fluke accidents and mutations, they would be expected to occur at the same rate."

According to whom and following what biological principal? Please explain how YOU know what and how long, and scientists are still collecting data on how long and WHAT makes animals change. ALl evolutions is is that they change. Change can be brought on for many and seperate or combined processes and events. How in the HELL do you make a statement that the rate of change in DNA in a virus will change or mutate at a same rate as that in an elephant???

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Instead, animals react to changes in environment much the same as reptiles and amphibians can grow larger or smaller depending on their environment, or how the blind or deaf can develop their other senses better."


Commenting has been disabled for this item.