Bertvan:
>>Most fields are a healthy
>>mixture of materialists and non materialists. When the Kansas school board
>>did nothing more than refuse to teach that the mechanisms of macro evolution
>>are know "facts", they were attacked by the press as being religious
>>extremists.
Brian Harper:
>Thus, I haven't really kept abreast of all the developments, though I have read
>a few of the items posted here and on the asa list. But from what I've read,
>I'm a little surprised by your statement. Do you have some evidence that this
>is all they did? I thought there was a warning label for text books (you know,
>like the surgeon generals warning on packs of cigarettes :), or I'm I
>confusing the Kansas case with another case? Oh, and didn't they consult a
>creationist organization to help them draft the revisions?
The disclaimer was proposed for Oklahoma textbooks (it has since been
dropped on a technicality) and is in full force, as far as I know, in Alabama.
The Kansas thing *does* violate the Constitution because there were no
scientific reasons for them to do what they did. Religious fundamentalism
was the obvious reason, and yes, they have admitted that they consulted a
creationist organization to draft their standards. It's being re-examined
currently and probably won't fly in the end. Kansas is an amazingly
intelligent state. I was once in a KFC in Newton (remote town about the size
of your thumb) and realized the piped music was Mozart.
The state school board had been packed with steath creationists who probably
had the whole thing planned from the start. Every Kansan I've talked to
about it is furious. It is most definitely *not* how they want their
children educated! The Kansas State School Board is an elected body. If any
of them have a political future it will be a miracle of the non-materialist
kind :-)
>>The fact that no biologist spoke out in their defense suggests
>>those biologists who are not materialists are intimidated by a those who
>>appear to have some anti religious axe to grind.
>
>The argument from silence is very weak. You make a strong claim. You need
>more evidence than this.
it's also extremely tough to intimidate a biology professor with tenure.
>>If Talk Origins is not an
>>official spokesman for biology, biology should find some spokesmen other than
>>Dawkins and Gould. I don't know why I'm protesting. This acrimonious
>>controversy is going reach the talk shows soon, and that should be great
>>entertainment.
>
>hmmm.... Biology has no official spokespersons. There are no high priests.
:-) and it's already been on Politically Incorrect. This acrimonious
controversy has been going on for nearly 150 years. Biology seems to roll
along without the approval of the "immaterialists."
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 19:19:50 EST