Thursday, February 15, 2007

Kansas embraces evolution

It's good to see that Kansas has rejoined the modern era once more, for a while at least. Maybe next time, if they do decide to reject the scientific method, they'll reject it altogether. This could open up a whole world of possibilities - students could learn "alternate" theories about astronomy(the Earth is flat, really), geology (those rocks are only a few thousand years old) and even human biology(can you prove the stork isn't real?).

One quote in the article was puzzling -

But many Kansans still harbor religious objections and other misgivings about the British naturalist's theories. The Intelligent Design Network presented petitions with almost 4,000 signatures opposing the standards the board eventually adopted.

John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the group, accused the board of promoting atheism. And Greg Lassey, a retired Wichita-area biology teacher, said the new standards undermine families by "discrediting parents who reject materialism and the ethics and morals it fosters."

How exactly is reinstating teaching according to science "discrediting parents who reject materialism"? Are these people so far gone that they think evolution = atheist libertinism? What does evolution have to do with "ethics and morals"? Clearly, Lassey here has created a chain of thought - teaching evoltuion means rejecting God, rejecting God means rejecting morality, because without God there is no morality. Not very scientific for a retired biology teacher. And it certainly puts the lie to the idea that "Intelligent Design" isn't a way to sneak religion into the schools, that it's just another valid way to look at the evidence. If that were truly the case, how could teaching evolution lead in any way to talk of ethics and morals?

Posted by

No comments: