Kansas Creationists Fail To Do Their Homework

by DemFromCT

There's a fellow in Kansas named Pat Hayes, who is doing a marvelous job of blogging the absurdity of the Kansas "Inherit the Wind II" mock trial. Background from the KC Star:

Two sets of proposed science standards are before the Board of Education. One, known as the majority opinion, received support from 18 members of a 26-member curriculum panel and maintains the current science standards for the teaching of evolution.

The other proposal, submitted by eight panelists and called the minority report, requires that criticism of evolution, and alternatives to the theory, be taught. It also offers a new definition of science that does not rely only on natural causes.

However, it seems some of the creationists on the Board of Ed and on the witness panel (entirely made up of creationists) didn't bother to read the majority report, even though the ostensible reason for the whole show was to decide between them. From Hayes:

Then, out of the blue, under a withering cross-examination by Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray the hearing room was electrified by Edward Peltzer’s admission that he had not read the science standards draft written by the pro-evolution majority of curriculum committee. Peltzer, a Scripps Institution oceanographer and intelligent design witness was flown in from California to share his expert evaluation of the competing science standards drafts, and is currently enjoying the hospitality of Kansas taxpayers.

As the day wore on, each witness in turn was forced to fess up – to an increasingly scornful Irigonegaray — that they too hadn’t bothered to read the majority draft before giving their testimony. This despite the fact that each had earlier testified – in response to questions from intelligent design attorney John Calvert – that the minority draft was superior to the pro-science majority draft.

“I’ve not read it word for word myself,” confessed board member Kathy Martin in an ill-fated attempt to salvage the credibility of the witnesses.

As groans erupted through the hearing room in response to Martin’s admission – and AP reporter Josh Funk ran for the exit to phone the story in – a new feeling that the intelligent design showcase was turning into a failure began to seep into the room.

I can't help but get the feeling that these folks aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. From the KC Star:

Board member Kathy Martin of Clay Center said she had not read the entire document proposed by educators and now criticized by proponents of intelligent design. ...

Martin, who said she had doubts about evolution, said many of the science standards proposed by the majority were too technical for her to read thoroughly. She said she had read most of the minority report.

“I scan,” she said. “I'm not a word-for-word reader."

Still, this isn't about elitist CT opinions of the qualifications of Board of Education members in Kansas. Nor is it about the dim prospects of Kansas competing in the bioscience revolution that the other states want in on. Not directly, anyway. This is about political power at the local level, about creationists doing what they want to because they can... just like the Republicans in DC are doing.

Apathy has its drawbacks, but I don't think I'm ever going to ignore a local school board election again. I will, at the very least, make sure the Board of Ed candidates I vote for know how to read.

Now, wouldn't it be ironic if the Kansas creationists fail in their war against science because the Kansas voters failed to do the same?

[hat tip to Kevin Drum for the Pat Hayes link]

Comments

[DemFromCT]

don't miss Hunter's excellent Children of the Corn on the same topic.

See also Plutonium Page's stories on same.

[Meteor Blades]

Poor Kathy doesn't know the difference between scan and skim. But that seems to be the least of her problems.

[Blue the Wild Dog]

Bwahahahahahaaaahhaaaaa ... what a buncha maroons.

Since the "case" against evolution is mainly composed of rhetorical tricks, maybe leaving the scientists at home and just going with a sharp lawyer was a smart move. Somewhere, Clarence Darrow is smiling.

[DemFromCT]

Darrow lost the battle, of course, but (we thought) ultimately won the war. This may well be a replay with similar results.

But you're right, Blue, this was never about the facts.

[DemFromCT]

more fron the AP:

Witnesses trying to persuade Kansas officials to encourage more criticism of evolution in public school classrooms are making statements some scientists say betrayed creationist views.

Witnesses in a State Board of Education hearing on how the theory should be taught also have acknowledged they hadn't fully read evolution-friendly science standards proposed by educators. Nor had two of three presiding board members.

[NG]

Sometimes I believe keeping it simple is the best defense in this anti-creationist argument, at least to win over any fencesitters. The true far-out-there crowd is likely lost forever, and if one's society is mostly made up of this crowd, the future for that society looks dim!

The defense should center on the well accepted idea that without a secure foundation, any building cannot stand for long. Claims about a deity creating something can never be proven or disproven, and any social actions resultant from such claims/beliefs have no natural foundation. They are doomed to failure at the hands of societies that do follow logical scientific methods to advance! Therefore, the obvious economic and quality of life gains of the last 200 years that were overwhelmingly sponsored by the scientific method are unlikely to ever be repeated in a society that has all the answers in a pre-determined mindset of its religious scholars blaming God for all happenings and shunning innovation they dislike. Their view was called and lead to the dark ages for a reason.

Surely all but braindead, frightened little people can see the wisdom of the scientific method being in control of any foundations being put down!

[Blue the Wild Dog]

Would you think me cynical, NG, if I said that exposing the creationists as bigoted yahoos is a better and simpler defense than what you propose?

[NG]

Blue,

I would have agreed with you 4 or more years ago when I thought a repeat of the Monkey trials was just a fantasy without any realistic chance to be supported by many Americans and the media! Now, as I stumble out of may shock and paralysis that this is really happen at all, I don't think your approach is solid enough to do the job that needs to be done!

I believe the gains we have made using the scientific method need to be CLEARLY shown to the average American, and why these gains were really made possible via this method (good repeatable buildable foundations). Any unmoveable (by definition) foundation based on unnatural forces and faith just cannot be a foundation you can count on. For example, praying did not lead to curing smallpox! With enough examples of the dangers of stagnation from pure unfounded BS foundations outside the scienctific realm, I think most Americans can be made to see the real dangers here!