Excellent post, Pat, and I look forward to reading Monkey Girl.
One small but important correction: it was our then president Harry McDonald who led the way with the boycott.
I was KCFS vice-president at the time. I personally was tempted to want to argue for some type of participation, but I became convinced that the boycott was the right thing to do, and in looking back am absolutely convinced of that. I was, however, Pedro's assistant throughout the hearings, so I got to participate that way.
P.S. I liked Galileo' Daughter a lot, also. Great book.
Excellent post.
I read The God Delusion on my flight to LA & back for a Deposition last Friday.
Pat, the more these nuts try to use religion to destroy our civilization, the more sense Dawkins makes.
This is a story of child abuse. And, an amazing number of people here in Kansas don't seem to care.
Where is the story that Sam Brownback is Opus Dei in the mainstream press? A fundamentalist Roman loose in fundamentalist Protestant Kansas? Let's at least let Soapy Sam explain living in his little "commune" in DC with the other adherents of Opus Dei.
Great post - good summary of KS story!
I've ordered an advanced reading copy of "Monkey girl". I've read an advanced reading dopy of "40 Days and 40 Nights" by Matthew Chapman, another entertaining description of the Dover trial. Monty Python fans will find the Dover trial highly entertaining.
Great post Pat. You clearly spent a lot of time writing this, and it shows. Very well written.
"In 1999, Abrams led an effort by Christian conservatives to *remove all references* to evolution, the age of the earth, and the Big Bang from the state's science curriculum. That effort was thwarted when pro-science moderates won the next election."
Misinformation like this is what makes Kansas look bad, and those of you who support this type of tactic should be seriously ashamed of yourselves. It's *your* fault our fine state is viewed in a negative light, it's not the fault of the board members. If the truth had been presented through the media outlets, our state wouldn't have had to take the heat that it has.
Abrahms had no intention of removing *all references of evolution* from science curriculum. That is absolutely ridiculous. Evolution is a valid theory and has been taught in Kansas schools for years. He was concerned as to how *some* of the concepts of the theory were being taught and wanted the districts and parents to have more control as to how these subjects would be addressed (*how* they would be addressed, *not if* they would be addressed). He also wanted both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory to be considered.
It is an outright lie to insist that the board wanted evolution taken out of the curriculum.
Jack, you know better and you let it happen.
I read The God Delusion on my flight to LA & back for a Deposition last Friday.
Pat, the more these nuts try to use religion to destroy our civilization, the more sense Dawkins makes.
This is a story of child abuse. And, an amazing number of people here in Kansas don't seem to care."
This kind of comment shows the extreme paranoia that the anti-religion crowd is relaying to the public.
Comments like this also show that atheists are not in this debate due to the science but because they fear a religious theocracy, which is such a ridiculous fear as our freedom to do whatever we please is at an all time high.
I merely have to move my fingers slightly to pull up any kind of perversion known to man right on my computer screen. Our society definitely is not controlled by any religious affiliation.
You aren't in this due to science but due to your own religious beliefs.
The irony is that this is exactly what you accuse us of.
Your accusation of "child abuse" apparently stems from your own ignorance of the entire situation surrounding the science standards controvery. Perhaps you should actually talk to the people who are making these decisions instead of looking toward Dawkins, the almighty, for your answers.
Oh look, FtK is back.
Interesting that you so strongly jump to the defense of Abrams. The same Abrams who famously said the we must choose between evolution or the bible? Care to defend that statment too, or is your contention that Abrams was pushing for the removal of all religion?
"It is an outright lie to insist that the board wanted evolution taken out of the curriculum."
No. It would be an outright lie to say that they succeeded, but I think it's a truism that they would like to completely remove evolution from the curriculum. It's just that most of them are at least politically savvy enough not to say it in front of a camera. Lying for Jesus is apparently ok, though.
Further:
"This kind of comment shows the extreme paranoia that the anti-religion crowd is relaying to the public. "
No actually. These kinds of comments are a reaction to the ever growing threat of religious right dominionism in the US. The simple fact that you can take one persons statement about their opinion of religion and project that into a completely unrelated screed about morality, and paranoid ranting about how we are all out to get you. BOO! =P
Really, most of us could vare less if you want to practice your religion. Just keep it in your church and home, and don't force it on us or our children in public schools. If I were to paint all thiests with as broad a brush as you do atheists, you wouldn't like the results.
I've never seen faith move a mountain, but I've seen what it can do to skyscrapers.
Cheers.
Oh, look! It's FTK visiting us from her home planet of Anoxia Prime. You tell 'em, FTK, that it was the evil old press that made Kansas look bad in 1999.
Like this article from which I extracted a few simple sentences that even you, FTK, might (just might) be able to comprehend:
New York Times, Aug 12 1999
The Kansas Board of Education voted yesterday to delete virtually any mention of evolution from the state's science curriculum, in one of the most far-reaching efforts by creationists in recent years to challenge the teaching of evolution in schools.
''The number of changes made, the thoroughness with which references to evolution are deleted or definitions changed, it's more extensive than what we've seen before,'' said Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education.
With the help of creationists, Mr. Abrams rewrote the standards, deleting most of the two pages on evolution. What remained was ''micro-evolution,'' which refers to genetic adaptation and natural selection within a species. But ''macro-evolution,'' the origin of species, was gone.
Mr. Abrams also tried to insert these words: ''The design and complexity of the design of the cosmos requires an intelligent designer.''
Golly gee-willikers, FTK! The origin of species, aka theory of evolution, was gone! Just like the oxygen on your planet! Poof.
When creationism is finally gone, and we are all evolutionists, will we then have world peace, full employment, and no inflation?
No Grady, we won't, as these two things aren't related like that.
But it's sort of silly for you to even think anyone thinks they are.
By the way Les, I have a copy of Chapmans book too. He amusingly points out that the lead counsel for the defense, from the Thomas More Center, disappered for DAYS at a time leaving his second chair and one part time aide against nine people on the defense team.
He got a kick out of it!
Probably he knew he was screwed; he knew he was gonna punt the case from the beginning.
And Chapman seems to ignore the fact that the Discovery Insitute warned the Dover board to back down, that this was the wrong case at the wrong time.
But they forged ahead.
I still think there is more to all that than we will ever know.
My advice to the IDers...fall back, regroup, learn from this and let the heat cool off.
My advice to the IDers...fall back, regroup, learn from this and let the heat cool off.
Grady
Ahh - that's the ticket! Lull them to sleep and catch them when they are not looking. I guess that is their only hope since they have no science to rely on.
FtK argues that the 1999 & 2005 boards didn't want to remove evolution.
Bullshit.
They continually pointed out what they called weaknesses in the theory. They referred to it as flawed, and didn't even bother to read the evolution-strong standards they criticized.
If those board majorities really cared about what kids learn in science class, why would they want this supposedly-flawed theory taught?
"Oh, no, we wanted evolution taught" is sounding more and more like Nixon's "I am not a crook."
RSR's original post says,
--". . . Humes doesn't allow Buckingham to escape responsibility for his actions. Actions which ultimately cost the taxpayers of Dover $1 million in court costs and lawyer's fees." --
I am fed up with the Dover school board being blamed for the big $1 million bill. Others bear much more responsibility for this big bill:
(1) The plaintiffs had an excessive number of attorneys of record -- 9-10 -- with at least five attorneys in the courtroom on every day of the six-week trial.
(2) 2 - 3 of the 5 attorneys from Pepper-Hamilton were partners.
(3) There was an excessive number of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, six. Though they worked for free, their large number greatly lengthened and complicated the trial. The expert-witness testimony in court took about three weeks and there were also expert witness reports and depositions.
(4) Judge Jones did not follow the Edwards v. Aguillard precedent of refusing to hear expert witness testimony (in Edwards, the judge refused to hear the expert witnesses because none of them had participated in the enactment of the law).
(5) The defendants got a big "discount" -- the original bill was over $2 million -- but the plaintiffs were responsible for the high starting point of negotiations over the bill.
Buckingham would have preferred to have Genesis actually taught in the Dover public-school science classes, but he knew that was unattainable and was just trying to get as much as the courts would allow ( I am not conceding here that ID is a creationist concept -- I am only saying that Buckingham thinks that ID supports creationism). He should not be blamed for wanting to get as much as the courts would allow, and there is nothing wrong with desiring more than the courts allow. Litigation over evolution disclaimers is relatively new and therefore there is little precedent to use as a guideline. The following mitigating circumstances in Dover made it possible that the courts would allow the Dover ID policy:
(1) Only evolution was actually taught in the Dover schools.
(2) Nothing expressly religious was mentioned in the ID statement that was read to the science classes.
I've still got a few $$ left on my Barnes and Noble gift card. I think that I know what I'll be using that on.
Geo O'C: TGD converted me from pretty solid agnostic to raving, militant atheist in 3 days. In other words, I agree that it was a GREAT book.
FtK: Please, PLEASE, do not reproduce! I hope that I'm not too late to ask.
Dear Larry,
Boo hoo.
Doc Bill said,
--"Dear Larry,
Boo hoo."--
Thanks, Doc Bill, for implying that I have good reason to be pissed.
Grady:
"But they forged ahead.
I still think there is more to all that than we will ever know."
Paranoid much?
Really, seriously, instead of innuendo slinging, why not provide us with evidence of some conspiracy between defense counsel and, well, whoever . .
Larry wrote: "Thanks, Doc Bill, for implying that I have good reason to be pissed."
Ummm, actually, I doubt that he was implying that at all. You may have inferred it, but as your legal and engineering training certainly should have taught you, there are differences between words that can be important..
Item about the book in York (Pa.) Dispatch.
Albatrossity wrote,
-- Larry wrote: "Thanks, Doc Bill, for implying that I have good reason to be pissed."
Ummm, actually, I doubt that he was implying that at all. --
Please note that Doc Bill only said "boo hoo" -- he made no attempt to rebut any of my arguments.
Great post, Pat. My copy of "Monkey Girl" has been shipped!
If it's even *half* as good as Dava Sobel's "Galileo's Daughter" and "Longitude," it will put me behind on my chores for too long.
Larry opined
"he made no attempt to rebut any of my arguments"
Now I'm only inferring here, I'll let Doc Bill speak for himself if he wants. But your "arguments" have been rebutted many times on many blogs, including your own. Why should anyone waste time on them again?
That is my inference about what "boo hoo" means - your side lost, and lost for good reasons, so quit whining about it.
Albatrossity moaned:
--"Larry opined
"he made no attempt to rebut any of my arguments"
Now I'm only inferring here, I'll let Doc Bill speak for himself if he wants. But your "arguments" have been rebutted many times on many blogs, including your own. Why should anyone waste time on them again? "--
If you can't show that you can answer my arguments here, who should believe your above statement? You are just a big bag of hot air.
My arguments have been rebutted, but never refuted.
You might visit my blog sometime. You will find that my arguments against Judge Jones and his Kitzmiller decision are so airtight that usually not even the trolls try to answer those arguments anymore.
"You might visit my blog sometime. You will find that my arguments against Judge Jones and his Kitzmiller decision are so airtight that usually not even the trolls try to answer those arguments anymore."
Larry, I thought your tautology was comedy gold, but this . . . man, you've outdone yourself.
--"You might visit my blog sometime. You will find that my arguments against Judge Jones and his Kitzmiller decision are so airtight that usually not even the trolls try to answer those arguments anymore."
Larry, I thought your tautology was comedy gold, but this . . . man, you've outdone yourself. --
No, you are the one who has outdone yourself. Saying "I could refute your arguments if I really wanted to" is just a load of crap. You are just a big bag of hot air. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
"You might visit my blog sometime. You will find that my arguments against Judge Jones and his Kitzmiller decision are so airtight that usually not even the trolls try to answer those arguments anymore."
Is certainly one hypothesis. I suggest another:
Your descent into ad hominem/personal attack, your avoidance of any actual evidence, your perfection of the "gish gallop" in argument, and your use of sockpuppets on your own blog (and Ed Brayton's before you were thrown out) makes you not worth the bother of debating.
Hey, lets "teach the controversy" here!
The idea that other people not engaging you any more proves you are victorious is the playground-level statement of the unpopular kid no one will play with.
Now, Larry, you put this:
"I could refute your arguments if I really wanted to" in quotes. Please don't put words in my mouth again.
---Now, Larry, you put this:
"I could refute your arguments if I really wanted to" in quotes. Please don't put words in my mouth again.---
That was just my own interpretation of what you meant. Obviously no one with any sense would believe that those were your exact words. If it will make you happier, I will say, "essentially saying 'I could refute your arguments if I really wanted to' is just a load of crap."
Also --
--Your descent into ad hominem/personal attack, your avoidance of any actual evidence, your perfection of the "gish gallop" in argument, and your use of sockpuppets on your own blog (and Ed Brayton's before you were thrown out) makes you not worth the bother of debating.--
I am usually not the one to initiate ad hominem/personal attacks. I have never used "sockpuppets" on my own blog or Brayton's blog. I cite far more evidence than most bloggers and commenters. And I don't know what in hell a "gish gallop" is. In other words, you are full of crap.
So what evidence do you have that your interpretation of why folks don't bother with you on your blog is more correct than mine?
You could have googled "gish gallop", it can be found at your favorite authority-wikipedia.
If you don't usually start the ad homs does that mean that sometimes you do? Would this have been an example, or are there others you can point to? What percentage of the time do you resort to ad homs?
And thanks for doing so, by the way. I had money riding on it. I bet you could go from sadly misinformed to abusive in three comments, and you delivered.
-- So what evidence do you have that your interpretation of why folks don't bother with you on your blog is more correct than mine? --
I could ask you the same question.
The evidence is that according to Sitemeter, between about 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 of the visits to my blog last an hour or more and/or have more than 10 page views. These visitors have plenty of opportunity to add to or detract from my posts but usually do not say anything.
--You could have googled "gish gallop", it can be found at your favorite authority-wikipedia.--
Yeah, it's another Darwinist "gift" to the English language -- like "quote mining."
--If you don't usually start the ad homs does that mean that sometimes you do? --
At least I have the honesty to admit that I sometimes do. But I have to be pretty exasperated before I initiate the ad homs. Many others do it for no reason at all.
--Would this have been an example--
No, this is not an example.
--What percentage of the time do you resort to ad homs? --
I don't keep count.
--And thanks for doing so, by the way.--
I thought you were asking me. Now you're telling me.
--I had money riding on it.--
You just lost your bet.
Great post! I just finished reading Monkey Girl and I loved it. Having been to high school in West Texas with a similar level of ignorance, I definitely get where you're coming from. I like your style. The intellectual dishonesty & laziness of this crowd is intense.
hockey wagering hockey wagering hockey wagering. bad credit loan rate refinance bad credit loan rate refinance bad credit loan rate refinance.
Commenting by HaloScan
