The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Seattle Times congratulates Kansas

Posted 10 August 2006 by Jack Krebs

The Seattle Times published an editorial Tuesday that was reprinted in the Lawrence, Kansas, Journal World today: Seattle applauds Kansas vote The basic take-home point: Intelligent Design is dead as an attempt to disguise creationism as science. Oh yes, it is alive and well as a cultural and religious force among anti-evolutionists - that problem still exists. But all this talk about there being anything to ID as science has been rejected by the courts, rejected by the voters, and rejected and ignored due to lack of any substance or relevance by the world of science. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute has hitched their wagon to a sinking ship (pardon the mixed metaphor.) The only places they have made any temporary progress is when they has tried to use political bodies that were so far out of the mainstream that their successes, such as they have been, were bound to be short-lived. Here are some excerpts from the editorial:
Angry parents and disgruntled voters in Kansas turned back another attempt to blend religion and science in the classroom. Keep up the fight. ... Darwin's views on the origin of the species are indeed a theory, ripe for vigorous scientific prodding and poking. But challenges to those propositions have come from proponents of so-called intelligent design, who lay off the complexity of life to the work of an unnamed, unidentified supernatural designer. Evolution's critics defer to a creator instead of taking on Darwin with science. Setbacks with voters and in the courts are taking the steam out of a point of view that is best left to a philosophy or religion class. ... Kansas voters rightfully reclaimed control of their science classes. Creationism has been repackaged with an intimidating veneer of scientific what-ifs. Another part of the story that does not get repeated often enough: The judge in the Dover case noted he heard testimony from scientific experts who said Darwin's theory "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator." Voters in Kansas acted in the best interest of a sound education, separating science and religion.

15 Comments

Gene Goldring · 10 August 2006

Seattle Times needs to keep this editorial handy. They'll need the basic content for Ohio after the fall elections there. ;)

Tyrannosaurus · 10 August 2006

Amen, no pun intended ;)

Moses · 10 August 2006

Yes, but if the voters only had Carol's special bible, they'd know that ID was true...

bjm · 10 August 2006

As a phrase 'Discovery Institute' throws up some interesting and ironic anagrams.

Divinity secrets out
Covert deity in suits
Vet your ID scientist

Nothing we didn't already know?

Peter Henderson · 10 August 2006

More from AIG:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0810kansas.asp

Jack Krebs · 10 August 2006

As a phrase 'Discovery Institute' throws up some interesting and ironic anagrams. Divinity secrets out Covert deity in suits Vet your ID scientist

— bjm
That's great! And what do you suppose the probability of that happening by pure chance is? By applying the explanatory filter, we can conclude that the name "Discovery Institute" was obviously designed to contain these messages.

David B. Benson · 10 August 2006

Metaphor not mixed: They actually did hitch their wagon to a sinking ship. ;-)

Bruce Thompson GQ · 10 August 2006

I predict the DI response to the editorial will be:
The conservative majority of the Kansas Board of Education was swept from office, clearing the way to cancel instructional guidelines that were to go into effect in 2007.
No, it was not a clean sweep, it was a narrow margin in several races. Anyway school board races don't matter. Read my essay.
They undercut the state's science curriculum and opened evolution to unsubstantiated attacks.
No, all the criticisms of evolution are well substantiated. Buy my book.
Darwin's views on the origin of the species are indeed a theory, ripe for vigorous scientific prodding and poking.
That's all we want to do. Read our press releases.
Evolution's critics defer to a creator instead of taking on Darwin with science.
We produce peer reviewed articles. Read our web site.
A federal judge last December knocked down an attempt by a Pennsylvania school district to package religion and science.
No, the judge erred: Buy our book.
Another federal judge in January ruled that stickers debunking evolution could not be pasted on the front of biology books. In February, the Ohio School Board dropped mandatory criticism of evolution from the curriculum.
It's not over till the fat lady sings. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

shiva · 15 August 2006

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/letter_on_kansas_evolution_con.html#more

Here's the DI's tired and limp response. The Kansas rout seems to have sucker punched them. Science lovers too are tired; you can guffaw only so much at the clowns from the DI

JB · 17 August 2006

Oh woopee! The Seattle Times congratulates us!

In the meantime, the national media has smeared Kansas.

Hey, Liz Craig and Jack Krebs, why don't you fine scientists...oops, sorry, I forgot you are NOT scientists...alert the national media, as if your strategy, about the new school board.

JB · 17 August 2006

By the way Shiva, it was no "rout"

At least Harry McDonal lost.

The poor guy might have won if the Kansas Citizens for Science card had not been played so hard.

A lot of people in that area don't like the atheistic rants on their message boards that are more about attacking religion than promoting science.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 August 2006

atheistic rants

But ID isn't about religion. No sirree Bob. It's just them lying atheist darwinists who say it is. (snicker) (giggle)

Jack Krebs · 17 August 2006

JB writes, "Hey, Liz Craig and Jack Krebs, why don't you fine scientists...oops, sorry, I forgot you are NOT scientists..."

FYI: I have never claimed to be a scientist, and there is no reason that I should. I am president of Kansas [strong]Citizens[/strong] (which can include people from all walks of life) [strong]for[/strong] Science: that is, how can I say it any clearer - we are [strong]for[/strong] science. We thinks it's good stuff, and we think kids should learn it the way the vast majority of the world understands it.

Now this is all ludicrously easy to understand. However I am willing to bet that JB, in this or some other incarnation, repeats the comment about me not being a scientist at some future time.

And I just don't get the point. I'm not a scientist and I don't understand the supposed jab that JB is trying to make.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 17 August 2006

Can someone remind me, please, how many of the Kansas board members who wrote the new standards were, uh, scientists . . . . . .?

Henry J · 18 August 2006

Re "Can someone remind me, please, how many of the Kansas board members who wrote the new standards were, uh, scientists ......?"

Eh? What, you want the degree of scienciness to be judged by actual scientists? Picky, picky! :)