Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

You would be doomed to disappointment, Wandeljw, not in his teaching ability but in his failure to stay in the artificial intellectual box you would have him reside in.

RL,
There is some indication in the writings of Newton that he would allow the individual to decide for himself on supernatural rather than natural explanations. Newton was unhappy about the fact that there was no material explanation for gravitational attraction. On this he wrote: "Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent is material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers."

During a time when believing in many kinds of magic and gods was the norm and scientific thinking was bizarre, Newton was waaaay ahead.

Thinking that maybe everything can be explained by natural processes is really quite a modern idea.

The teaching of intelligent design finally has a place where it belongs. And in Kansas, of all places.

The religious studies department at U of K is going to teach ID, along with creationism, as religious mythology.

'LAWRENCE, Kan. - Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."

"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, department chairman. "Creationism is mythology. Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not." '


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10153657

An unintended consequence of the religionists' campaign to inflict their fantasy on the public education system well could be a move to a Federally-established K-12 curriculum - National Interest overriding States Rights - could happen, and the harder the religionists push, the fewer obstacles remain in the path of such a development.

Interesting observation Timber, very interesting.

Yes it is, Dys, and its been getting some attention. Another possibility that has been getting attention, and steadily gaining support, is tying Federal Education funds to compliance with a set of minimum curriculum standards - not mandating a curriculum, just letting the States have the choice of whether they prefer to participate in the Federal Pie, or stand on their God-Given Rights. So far as I know, God has not presented any State an alternative financing plan.

If God's collection agents here on earth are any indicator, God's not in the business of disbursing any of what she collects . . .

timber, considering George Bush has come out in favor of teaching intelligent design, I wouldn't want to put too much faith, so to speak, on any federal education standards for keeping religion out of science.

I seriously doubt that off-handedly presented (and so far as I'm aware, neither reitterated nor reinforced by its source) personal opinion in the matter will matter much - in fact, if the debate rises to the level of Federal direction, and The Currently Sitting Executive still is a factor of any sort, a "clarification" on his part would be unsurprising - a "clarification" rather unlike what the religionists might prefer.


BTW - the thrust of his comment was not that ID be taught, per se, but rather that it should be "discussed" ... hardly the ringing endorsement the religionists would like folks to think was offered.

timber, you have rather more faith in his good sense and unwillingness to push his agenda than I do.

Timber has a good point about some kind of indirect federalization occurring. I have seen it happen in the area of child support enforcement. Federal legislation passed in 1996 tied federal funds to states employing a uniform child support collection operation. One by one, states started establishing child support enforcement guidelines that met federal standards. From what I have seen, only one state has not yet complied (California).

Also, even though Bush's remarks emboldened intelligent design proponents, his endorsement was a very mild one and was later refuted by his own white house science advisor.

Doubtful that folks are going to want to send more education dollars to Washington for a conservative Congress and President to disburse.

Perhaps they would favor abolishing the Federal Department of Education altogether and returning that money to the local districts where it originated. This is a move I would personally support also because it complies with the Bill of Rights.

I see your grasp of the workings of The US Polity is equal to your grasp of science.

Would you care to elaborate and try to back this up, or are you just here to smear?

Which part of the bill of rights do you think concerns itself with the Dept of Education? I don't see any that even come close to relating to it. Lets start with the simple fact that the bill of rights is the first 10 amendments.

Big Bird sure nailed you when he observed that your knowledge of the polity is equivalent to your knowledge of science--which is to say, not to damned deep or broad. Here, i'll give you a chance to cobble together an excuse for this silly, silly statement. The "Bill of Rights" is a term used to refer to the first ten amendents to the constitution, which you will find below. My bet is that you'll attempt to use the ninth or tenth amendments in your contortions, since taxation and revenues are nowhere mentioned in these amendments. But it ain'ta gonna work . . .

******************************************

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is pretty obvious that the 10th applies. The Founders, not without exception, envisioned a limited central government with powers few and enumerated. Very unfashionable now, but that was the plan.

Yeah, i figured you'd go for that one. Having displayed such ignorance, you compound it by attempting to tell people with a thorough knowledge of the constitution and the circumstances in which it was framed and adopted what the intent of the founders was.

Executive departments are established by law--in the case of the Department of Education, it was established by H.R. 2444, in the 96th Congress (the Senate's version, S 210, was reconciled to the House version in conference committee). Therefore, President Carter, in pursuance of the Department of Education Organization Act, established the Deparment in May, 1980. The power to created executive departments is delegated to the United States by the constitution, so the tenth amendment does not in any way preclude the existence of the Department of Education, which was established by law.

Your contention about "returning that money to the local districts where it originated."--is bootless, because school district revenues are not collected and redistributed by the Federal government. The Department of Education is funded by congressional appropriation, just as is every other department of government. The sources of the monies so appropriated are the revenues and taxes lawfully collected under the provisions of the legislation which, by constitutional directive, originates in the House of Represenatives. There is nothing in the tenth amendment which prejudices the procedure of the origination of money bills in the House, nor the distribution of goverment revenues by appropriation legislation to departments established by law.

In short, you have no case, and you don't know what the hell you're ranting about.