Talk:Kansas evolution hearings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kansas Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Kansas, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Kansas-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Date of board vote

"It is expected to be voted on by the board in the summer of 2005." Evidently, this sentence is outdated. Any changes or comments? --Oop 07:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits, Science, and NPOV

I made a couple of minor edits, and FeloniousMonk changed them back without comment. I object to this. For one thing, I object to saying that a campaign "seeks to redefine science to allow for supernatural explanations", unless the proponents of that campaign describe it that way. This sounds like something that the critics would say. Schlafly 06:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The original passage was accurate, since the scientific method creates knowledge based on observation alone, and Intelligent design seeks to change this definition [1] by eliminating "methodological naturalism" from science and replacing it with "theistic realism" [2]. I'll add the cites to the article to make this clear.
NPOV policy requires all significant viewpoints to be covered, including those of "critics." FeloniousMonk 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You are violating NPOV policy. You are giving me your opinion about the scientific method, but it is not the opinion of the Kansas folks. If you want to cite the opinion of critics like Barbara Forrest in a separate paragraph, that is okay with me. Schlafly 02:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no violation of NPOV policy, read the articles here on WP concerning Scientific method and related topics. We can certainly enter what "Kansas folks" think if they are cited, but they are not authorities on the scientific method unless they are also well regarded scientific researchers. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain how including a factually accurate statement violates NPOV. Your insertion contradicts all evidence I have seen. If you want to dispute the neutrality of this article, please provide a citation in support of this position. Guettarda 03:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that it does factually describe what Kansas was doing. The Kansas Board did not say that it wants supernatural explanations, or use those other terms. Maybe other creationists have used such terms, but this article is about Kansas, not other creationists. Schlafly 04:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Schlaf, have you even the remotest clue as to what "supernatural" means? The crux of the Kansas hearings was the inclusion of intelligent design (ID) in the science curriculum, yes? Kansas has since adopted the inclusion of ID, yes? ID, by definition presupposes a cause outside of nature, thus making the causer supernatural, yes? Thus, your NPOV argument is incorrect, and continuing with it would merely prove that you seek to have your specific POV be that which guides the article.
That's it, Roger, short, sweet, to the point and logically unassailable. Jim62sch 10:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at this page, the more problems I see. There are many critical comments about the Kansas board, without including the Kansas POV. Eg, the Board should not be called "pro-creationist", unless they identify themselves that way. The hearings did not conclude that evolution is "an unproven, often disproven" theory; that was just one opinion.

That is just the first paragraph. Most of the other paragraphs are written with an anti-Kansas POV. Schlafly 03:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, what exactly is an "anti-Kansas POV"? Non sequiturs like that make me suspect you're not sufficiently well-versed on the issues and topics as they relate to this subject. FeloniousMonk 03:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Kansas POV? Uh, yeah, OK. Get real. Read up on the subject before pontificating. Jim62sch 10:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
POV templates are to be used as last resorts, not starting points for discussion. To begin with you need to produce some support for your claims. Guettarda 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The NPOV template just says that there is a dispute. Do you deny that there is a dispute? There are some big problems here. There are a lot of attacks on Kansas, but no accurate description of what Kansas actually did. I just inserted a summary of what Kansas did, which I pasted from the Kansas web site http://www.kansasscience2005.com/Short_summary_of_changes.pdf.
I put in the template because people were removing my changes without discussion. I even made a grammar correction, and somebody removed it. There are obviously 2 sides to this Kansas debate. I just want both sides accurately represented. Schlafly 04:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The NPOV template is not there for any Tom, Dick and Roger to slap up willy-nilly, it is there as a matter of last resort. This really is not a difficult concept to master.
Thanks for the reading citation. Note the following passage from that citation: "e. About the controversy over whether microevolution can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes like new body plans and systems that appear irreducibly complex (emphasis added)". Would you care to guess when the term "irreducibly complex"? I'll save you the trouble, it's from Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box), one of the members of ID's "Expert" Troika. Thus, as there is a note in the summary explaining that ID does not have to be part of the curriculum but most certainly can be, and given that a number of the other changes relate directly to passages from ID publications, and given the usage of Behe's term, there really is no NPOV dispute here. The tag needs to be removed. Jim62sch 10:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
No, the NPOV template is only use by convention when there is a failure to solve the dispute. Your initial insertions were factually inaccurate, and thus should have been removed. So there was no grounds to insert the template. You have now inserted an admitted copyvio. You cannot cut and paste material from other sources without providing permission from the copyright holder releasing the material under an appropriate free license. Guettarda 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
We have a failure to resolve the dispute. I want the article to describe what Kansas really did, followed by the criticism. You just want the criticism. Schlafly 04:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
How can you say that there is failure to resolve a dispute? You have proposed two changes, one of which was factually inaccurate, and the other which appears to violate copyright law. So...what dispute has not been resolved? What attempt have you made to make a case for change? Guettarda 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we've already found limit of what he's willing to contribute to this article. The NPOV template is being misused yet again by someone when their edits fail to gain consensus approval, in my opinion. FeloniousMonk 04:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I see someone put the summary of changes back in, but with serious errors introduced. You are unwilling to allow the Kansas POV. You have inserted words like "supernatural" which are not used by the Kansas Board.
I propose we put in the Kansas Board view, and the opposing view. What's the problem? Schlafly 06:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What? More copyvios? No, summaries are perfectly acceptable. Allowing for an intelligent designer as a scientific explanation for the origin of life by necessity means that they're redefining science to allow for supernatural causes, whether they realize it or not. A rose by any other name... FeloniousMonk 07:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
"The Kansas Board view"? You mean the pro-ID view, I think. The website you claim represents the the Kansas Board viewpoint, kansasscience2005.com, is actually run by intelligentdesignnetwork.org and John Calvert, one of the principal ID proponent responsible for the hearing's outcome [3]. Suggesting that kansasscience2005.com somehow is representative of the Kansas State Board of Education's viewpoint is rather disingenuous, unless you're subtly suggesting that the board was in the back pocket of ID lobbyists, in which case I'll be eager to hear more. The actual Board of Education view would be found at ksde.org. FeloniousMonk 09:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the POV template that Schaffly has re-inserted, again, I ask the question - what dispute have we failed to resolve? You can't say there is a dispute when you have made one edit that was factually inaccurate and another that was a copyvio, and failed to discuss the changes you want made to the article. Nothing is stopping you from correcting anything you see as violating NPOV except WP:CITE and WP:V. Nothing at all is stopping you from discussing changes you would like to see made to the article. Broad generalisations and illegitimate additions, on the other hand, are not grounds to tag the article. What specifics of the article are you disputing? Guettarda 18:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is extremely one-sided. In almost every paragraph, it gives one POV and not the other.

There are other articles that describe evolution, intelligent design, creationism, Discovery Institute, etc. I would drop most of that stuff, and focus on what the actual changes that were under discussion at the Kansas hearings. The article should describe the changes, give the arguments for and against, and refer to other articles for info on evolution, religion, and other subjects.

To give a simple example of bias, consider this under "Result": "The new standards were approved by 6 to 4, reflecting the makeup of religious conservatives on the board." It then gives a reference to a USA Today article. The USA Today article does not say that the vote does not say that the vote reflected the "makeup of religious conservatives". The statement suggests that the vote was a religious vote. I am sure that the majority would argue that their vote was for scientific and educational reasons. The statement is as one-sided as if someone said, "The new standards were approved by 6 to 4, reflecting the minority status of the atheist secular humanists on the board."

I suggest that the statement just say, "The new standards were approved by 6 to 4." The arguments for and against can be recited elsewhere.

I intend to put in the following neutral description of the Kansas changes. I am all in favor of including criticism, but the actual changes should be described as they were proposed and enacted. If there is something wrong with what I write here, then please explain what is wrong. If you change it without explanation, then we obviously have an unresolved dispute.

The Kansas curriculum changes
The most controversial proposal was to change the definition of science:
The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." [NY Times, November 15, 2005]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/science/sciencespecial2/15evol.html?ex=1289710800&en=8222cfc9c70fd951&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

In the November 8, 2005 the Kansas Board of Education approved the following changes to its science standards:
Add to the mission statement a goal that science education should seek to "inform."
Change the definition of science, as described above.
Exclude intelligent design from the standards, without prohibiting it.
State that evolution is a theory and not a fact.
Add standards that reqire informing students of purported scientific controversies regarding evolution.
Your recent addition to the article abandoned a concise list of the changes for an editorialized explanation of the redefinition of science. As such, it's fundamentally unencyclopedic. Let's just stick to listing the facts. FeloniousMonk 22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk is a Wikipedia vandal. I didn't abandon anything. I inserted a very short paragraph that had the old and new definitions of science. This was the most controversial issue in the hearings. It was neutral.
FeloniousMonk insists on inserting a characterization of the definition of science that says that intelligent design is a supernatural explanation, and that supernatural explanations are within the definition of science. Those are disputed points. The Kansas definition does not use the word "supernatural".
Again, I am all in favor of citing critics of the new definition. But it is crucial to accurately describe the actual changes before describing the criticism. The NY Times included the old and new definition. Why can't Wikipedia? This article has about 1000 extraneous words attacking the Kansas Board, and a NPOV requires accurately describing what Kansas did. Schlafly 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Now someone else (not me) has added a couple of good paragraphs explaining the motives of the Kansas Board, and another vandal deleted them one minute later without any explanation. Is there something wrong with those paragraphs? What? Schlafly 03:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

In the buzzing of the darkness there fester many conspiracy theories in which the roles of vandal and common-sense editor are reversed. Here we see just such an example, one in which the good people wishing to keep the article NPOV in the face of POV vandalism are cast as vandals for upholding one of Wikipedia's main guidelines. Obviously, this buzzing is but a mere gateway to a dark parallel universe in which logic is tempest-toss'd until its semblance to logic as we know it is lost. This is a parallel universe in which evolutionists and their willing dupes (read vandals) are leftist atheists, hell-bent on excising any semblance of the truth of revealed science. It is a parallel universe from which emanate the ramblings and rumblings of the rightist-Bible-thumping-creationists, ramblings and rumblings that eschew true discourse in favor of personal attacks. Alas, the buzzing of this dark universe has found its way to this page. Jim62sch 11:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

"FeloniousMonk is a Wikipedia vandal. " per Schlafly, who has made similar accusations when his edits did not meet with support on the only other article he has ever seriously edited, Phyllis Schlafly. Schlafly, I strongly advise you to go, now, and study WP:NPA, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:CON, and consider your trolling carefully before proceeding. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with the WP procedures. I have inserted accurate statements, and cited neutral sources, only to have FeloniousMonk and others remove them and replace them with false and unsourced statements. I have explained my position here, and tried to reach a consensus. FeloniousMonk is not following NPOV or other WP protocols. Schlafly 02:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
A rather bold statement without foundation. Jim62sch 11:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
We seem to have reached consensus that Schlafly's edits are POV-pushing and bad, no? He hasn't really explained what was wrong with it. He seems to want to pretend that the DI isn't behind it all (head in sand time). The only thing wrong with it so far is that I can see that it doesn't make enough references to Edwards v. Aguillard, the establishment clause and the fact that they're going to be whacked by a lawsuit. — Dunc|☺ 12:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, Dunc. In doing some research I found that the user seems to have a strong anti-evolution bias to the point of being rather militant on the issue. Jim62sch 13:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yea, verily. FeloniousMonk 07:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that you are using biased sources in order to provide a point of view (such as quoting from PZ Meyers about certain situations) yet criticize others for using any ID supported citations. This makes no sense and shows a bias.Kerdos 09:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Abrams

Someone (not me) inserted the following info about Steve Abrams:

Kansas veterinarian Steve Abrams and Chairman of the Board explained why he held these hearings: "The point of the science hearings is to show that, indeed, among scientists with many degrees, having received many research grants, having published many peer-reviewed papers and books and having accomplishments great and small, there is great controversy about biological evolution being taught as dogma." (Abrams commentary printed in the Wichita Eagle May 11, 2005).
The hearings were boycotted by mainstream scientists, who accused it of being a kangaroo court and argued that their participation would lend an undeserved air of legitimacy to the hearings. The scientific community rejects the teaching intelligent design as science; a leading example being the United States National Academy of Sciences, which issued a policy statement saying "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." [1]. Dr. Abrams responded to this criticism as follows: "We invited evolutionary scientists from all across Kansas and the United States to testify. But they have all decided to boycott. Now, a thinking person would ask: Is it because the hearings are rigged? Is it because of arrogance of the majority scientists? Or is it because what the majority proposes is actually full of holes?" (Abrams commentary, supra).

This seemed like a useful description a view from the Kansas Board. It is not my opinion, but it is Abrams' opinion, and this article should have the opinions of the Kansas Board as well as the opinions of its critics.

Nevertheless, the vandals here have just deleted it without explanation. Why? Why do they want to exclude what the Kansas Board did, and how they justified it? Schlafly 05:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

One, because Abrams is parroting the already familiar Discovery Institute boilerplate spin, and two, we already have Kathy Martin in the article eloquently describing in her own words just how she her other 5 like-minded board members reasoned this one out. In other words, quoting Abrams reading from the DI play book adds nothing new or unique to the article. FeloniousMonk 07:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Registering again my disgust with Schlafly's ad hom attacks of anyone who edits anything on this article that is not in complete agreement with his POV as vandals. Grow up and learn some manners. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Jim62sch 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
So FeloniusMonk endorses the vandalism because Abrams allegedly agrees with the Discovery Institute?!
This is not an article about the Discover Institute. It is an article about the Kansas hearings, run by Abrams and the rest of the Kansas Board. There is a separate article about the Discovery Institute, if anyone cares. The views and actions of the Kansas Board belong in this article. Kathy Martin has her opinions, but they are not necessarily the same as those of the others on the Board.
Someone who reads this article on the Kansas hearings is going to want to know what the Kansas Board did, and what its stated purposes were. He is also going to want to know why many scientists boycotted the hearings. The article gives some explanation of the boycott, but fails to adequately explain what the Kansas Board was doing. Schlafly 07:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the third time you have accused an editor of vandalism because they did not agree with you. Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and for good measure, WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not. Vandalism usually looks like this [4] - if you don't care to follow the link, someone inserted the words "WHO MUTHA FUCKIN MIKE JONES HOE!!!!!" in an article. That is vandalism. Stop calling other editors vandals until and unless they start making additions like that, or blanking the page. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
This will come as no shock, but KC is correct. Aside from Wikipedia's definition of vandal or vandalism, I suggest you crack open a dictionary and look the words up. This isn't your blog, you cannot dominate the page by inserting items that are either clearly POV, or that offer nothing to the article. Additionally, the talk page's purpose is to resolve disagreements, and your knee-jerk labeling as a vandal anyone reverting one of your edits is certainly not the rational way to get your point across. Jim62sch 16:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's wrong to use personal opinions (POV) why is Borofsky's view allowed, or, for that matter, any supporters or critics? I think you are showing a bias toward ID as a movement and treating this place more as a sound board for your POV than allowing different POV to be allowed. Kerdos 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You should probably read the relevant policy, WP:NPOV. There's also some FAQs that apply as well WP:NPOVFAQ. Lets know if you have any questions, it's fairly nuanced and subtle stuff. FeloniousMonk 01:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Schlafly

From his Dark Buzz blog: blog Jim62sch 02:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labeling witnesses

Someone keeps labeling the witnesses as "creationist", even though some of them are not. Their testimony speaks for itself. Perhaps someone could check the transcripts, and count how many identify themselves as creationist in their testimony, and put the count in the article. Otherwise, it is just a biased epithet.

Saying that they are "mainly creationist" doesn't cut it either. Maybe they are mainly Caucasian, Republican, Christian, and football fans for all I know. Let's stick to relevant and verifiable facts. Roger 02:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been through the article and I don't see the clear and unambigous citation that states that all witnesses are creationists (which isn't even necessarily the same thing as being proponents of ID). Can we get those cites, or edit the article to make it clearer what backs up that edit? Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't revert legitimate changes in your zeal. I've refixed the typo that keeps creeping back in (jounalist). -- nae'blis 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the witnesses say that they are not creationists. Their testimony is what is relevant, not some inaccurate name-calling. Please don't revert the changes without explanation. If someone has documentation that they are all creationists and testified for creationism, then show it. Otherwise, the label does not belong. Also, why is anyone reverting to a misspelling of "journalist"? Roger 21:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Now someone put this in: "The following is a list of witnesses (most subscribe to creationism or other forms of anti-evolutionism)". This is no more useful than saying, "most attend church on Sunday". It might be useful to list those who testified that they believe in creationism, evolutionism, anti-evolutionism, science, Christianity, and maybe some other topics. An NPOV would present the witnesses views as they testified. Criticism of their testimony could be elsewhere, of course, but it should not replace what they actually said. If anyone disagrees, please post your reasons. Roger 00:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I put that in. If you read my edit summary you would see that I mentioned the transcripts (which we cite on the page). Since you don't seem to be paying that much attention to these sorts of issues, let me repeat the link for you http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html . Now, scanning through it one sees that over half of the witnesses are creationist or some other for of anti-evolutionist. Hence my edit. If you want to go through each single one and label them, more power to you but a summary is still useful. JoshuaZ 00:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, your summary is incorrect and misleading. The witnesses had a variety of views. If you think that their testimony on creationism was so important, then find the quotes to back you up. Roger 01:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Since you insist on doing this the hard way this impasse is easily resolved; we'll simply break them all down in verifiable groups and add cites to each one establishing their orientation. The trial transcripts can serve as a source or better yet secondary sources for these are readily available. FeloniousMonk 01:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Good. I want to see facts, not opinions. And not original research either. Just categorize them according to their actual testimony, and not your opinion. Roger 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, Sclafly claim that "your summary is incorrect and misleading" is false. I have broken down the individual witnesses on Talk:Kansas evolution hearings/transcripts. One easily gets that of the 19, at least 13 are creationists/IDers/miscelaneous anti-evolution people. And that is from the transcript alone. Even if at my most generous, I still had 10 of them in the creationist category, and that's counting multiple fellows of the DI and John Calvert himself. In fact, if we took the time to source it we might be able to say that the vast majority of witnesses were creationists or IDers. JoshuaZ 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope you have names and quotes to back up your claims. Roger 05:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of hoping you could look where I pointed you where I did precisely that. JoshuaZ 07:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The article now has brief biographical clause or sentence on each witness. I haven't checked the accuracy, but it appears to be a stretch to say, "All but two ... are affiliated with the Discovery Institute." Carlson just signed a DI petition. Gonzalez-Bravo just gave a DI interview long after the hearings. Bryson's only connection is that she was briefly mentioned on the DI web site. There are not affiliations. Roger 06:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The label's added by FeloniousMonk are accurate. However, I agree with you that the description of all but 2 affiliated with the DI seems a bit weak. I would therefore strongly support adding back wording that details that the majority (maybe even vast majority) are either IDers, creationists or miscelaneous anti-evolution proponents. JoshuaZ 07:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Considering the hearings were arranged by the DI, the testimony of these people was arranged by the DI, so by definition they are all going to affiliated. There's literally no shortage of evidence to this effect. The fact that nearly all have signed the DI's puff-piece, Dissent from Darwin, seals the deal. FeloniousMonk 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that there are details on each witness, I removed the false and misleading summary sentence. The reader can see the affiliations for himself. Please stick to verifiable facts.
Let me see if I understand this. You asked for citations for the various people to back up the summary. The citations were given and you then respond by removing the summary and asking people to "stick to verifiable facts"? Do you see why this might be a bit odd. I also note that in your removal, you also removed the part about most of them being creationists/anti-evolutionists despite the fact that you have made no effort to respond to the citations from the transcripts I gave concerning that. JoshuaZ 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The citations make the summary unnecessary. Worse, the summary doesn't match the citations. Felon. apparently looked up who signed the DI petition and who didn't, and thinks that has great significance. Okay, fine, now it says who signed the petition. The reader can infer whatever he wants. Maybe you think that only a creationist would sign the petition, but that opinion adds nothing. Stick to the facts.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the citations from the transcripts". Felonious put some citations on the page. I responded that they don't all show an affiliation with the DI. Roger 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The citations don't make the summary necessarily unnecessary - summaries are very useful even when all the data will then be given. That's why articles have introductions, for example. In any event, that doesn't explain why you then claimed that somehow we needed to "stick to verifiable facts" as if that justified your reversion of Felonious (considering that everything he put in was cited). As for the other citations, I'm going to assume good faith that you just keep not noticing the link I've put down, so I'll repeat it one more time: Talk:Kansas evolution hearings/transcripts. JoshuaZ 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Rog, was someone you know involved in this kangaroo kourt? Did you have a personal stake in it? You seem awfully het up on this issue...almost like it's an obsession or something.•Jim62sch• 20:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't know anyone involved, and I have no affiliation with the DI. I am not a creationist, and I have some sharp disagreements with some of the testimony. (I've only read some of it.) But that is beside the point. This wiki entry is nearly useless because it is written by people who hate the DI for various reasons. The bias shows throughout the article. If a witness testified that he thought that the Moon is made of green cheese, then perhaps that could be cited. Their testimony speaks for itself. There is no good that comes out of distorting their testimony. Just give the facts.
I see that someone has reverted to an inaccurate summary statement again. Their individual affiliations are now listed. Any statement about what they advocate should be backed up by actual testimony, or omitted. The NPOV way is to give the testimony, not to use biased name-calling. Roger 22:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the biased name-calling? Creationist? I've known creationists who use the term as a badge of faith. I've not run into any who rejected the title outright. Of course, this would be OR, but nonetheless, the premise that starts this tread is, in my experience, incorrect. •Jim62sch• 22:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If any witness calls himself a creationist in his testimony, then it is all right to label him a creationist. As you say, some creationists like the term. The testimony is online for you to read. It is inaccurate and improper to call someone a creationist when he says that he is not. Roger 23:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No it's not. If acceptable evidence exists to the contrary, noting the discrepancy is the method here. FeloniousMonk 00:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you claiming that there are people who believe that the world is young, who reject common descent and who think it that there is evidence of a "designer" and who want some variant of that taught in schools who aren't "creationist" "intelligent design proponents" or "anti-evolutionists"? What would you prefer "the majority of witnesses rejected common descent and/or other standard notions of mainstream science?" JoshuaZ 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If some subscribed to a young earth theory, then I think that it is fair to call him a creationist. It may even be reasonable to call certain others creationists. But I want facts, not name-calling. If you want to list how many of the 19 witnesses testified in favor of a young earth theory, that is fine with me. If you want to list how many call themselves creationists, then that is okay. But I object to calling them creationists when they testified that they are not creationists.
I don't know your definition of a "creationist" or an "anti-evolutionist", and I don't know what sort of evidence would convince you that someone deserves such labels. There is no need for such subjective considerations when the testimony is on the record. Roger 06:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I see, please explain what is subjective in they're explicit denials of common descent? JoshuaZ 06:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with a statement that 15 of the 19 witnesses explicitly denied common descent in their testimony, if that is indeed a fact. (I don't know; I just gave an arbitrary number.) Anyone could verify the statement by just reading the online testimony. But do you want to call someone a creationist if he doesn't believe in common descent? I don't think that is common usage, and it is misleading to the reader. Maybe you think that anyone who denies common descent is some sort of kook, but let the reader decide that. Roger 06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, first of all, I haven't anywhere called creationists "kooks" that seems to be you imposing your own POV on the matter. Second of all, I didn't say they we're creationists, I said they we're anti-evolutionists. Now, what do you find unreasonable in calling people who deny common descent anti-evolutionist? JoshuaZ 06:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that JoshuaZ added "More than half of the witnesses explicitly rejected common descent in their testimony." I am wondering how he counted this. I see that some witnesses rejected common descent outright, but others accepted a limited form of common descent and many claimed that the evidence is inclusive. For example, do you include Edward Peltzer who testified, "There are serious problems with common descent. There are serious problems. It hasn't been demonstrated. There are serious questions there." ? Roger 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course Peltzer is included. Please read the entire section:

From Pelzter- "Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent, that all life is biologically related to the beginning of life? Yes or no." "A. No." One has similar answers for Simat, Carlson, Sanford, Leanord, Ely, Barham. One has almost as strong answers for most of the others. JoshuaZ 20:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be more accurate to say that Peltzer doesn't accept common descent because he thinks that it hasn't been demonstrated. But putting that aside for the moment, Barham said just the opposite:
Q. Do you accept that general principle of common descent, that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life?
A. [Barham] I do.
I don't see how you can count Barham as someone who explicitly rejected common descent.
Also, did you count those who supported YEC? Why didn't you list that? Roger 21:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that should have been Bryson, not Barham. As for why I didn't list them, I will if you insist- but I do have other things to do and this isn't a high priority. JoshuaZ 21:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You claim a majority of the 19, but you can only name 6. Now you admit that 1 of the 6 is an error. I suggest that you get your facts straight before inserting into the article.
Hmm, 6-1+1=6 and the testimony of many others also implies rejection of common descent although not as explicitly. In any event, I have removed the comment pending better sourcing/phrasing. JoshuaZ 23:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of life

Origin of life can have different meanings depending on the context:

  • Origin belief focuses on beliefs concerning the origin of the universe and the origin of life in various religions and cultures.
  • Origin of life focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life.

Based on the above snippet, I'd say that what the hearings are attempting to determine is which approach to the origin of life should be taken in public schools: the approach which regards the matter is purely scientific (non-supernatural), or the approach that combines both scientific and religious ideas.

I daresay a substantial minority of (non-Wikipedian) advocates regard the origin of life as purely a "scientific" matter, i.e., one that should be examined only in terms of physical causes.

Others believe that supernatural causes are relevant also.

Perhaps the issue is a sort of turf war. Who gets control of the topic? Educators who want to exclude God and/or religion from the classroom, or those who don't mind including them.

It might help the article if the predispositions (or motivations) of the various disputants were described in the article. The connection between advocacy of atheism and advocacy of philosophical naturalism ought to be explored, and if possible described. If not in this article, then in a spinoff.

We all know already the connection between religious faith and Creationism. You couldn't make that clearer if you ground it into powder, dissolved it in hot coffee, and threw it in the reader's face!

What we need is a balanced, in-depth article. And preferably, one which didn't take sides. --Uncle Ed 19:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, since the topic of this article is science standards for science class rooms, the Origin of life that focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life is the only appropriate link. FeloniousMonk 01:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
So, Ed, have anyone in mind here? "The connection between advocacy of atheism and advocacy of philosophical naturalism" Can you prove such a connection on a grand scale? Yeah, you could probably whip out Dawkins, but where do you go after that? And even if you could dredge up some semblance of a correlation, you'd be no nearer to proving a causation, unlike the case of creationists/IDists who spout scripture (as the "devil" is wont to do) when facing an evangelical audience. I look forward to your reply. •Jim62sch• 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejection by mainstream

Cut:

  • The scientific community rejects the teaching intelligent design as science; a leading example being the United States National Academy of Sciences, which issued a policy statement saying "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." [5].

This isn't really needed here. There is no way any reader who's gotten this far in the article could be unaware of what the mainstream scientific position is. We don't have to ram it down their throats.

We might want to mention this in the context of explaining why mainstream scientists refused to attend the hearings. Like:

  • We're not coming. ID is not science, and there's no point debating this. This hearing is a farce, and the outcome is politically pre-determined. (or whatever they actually said when they announced their boycott)

Anyway, was ID specifically mentioned in the hearings, proposed standards, or rulings? Or was that just something anti-ID advocates feared might slip into classrooms? How we mention things is important: context is everything. --Uncle Ed 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you really have to ask you shouldn't be editing the article. But since your question is already answered in the article and you just didn't bother to read it or you chose to conveniently ignore it, apparently you shouldn't be editing the article anyway. FeloniousMonk 21:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
FM is correct: if you don't know about the subject, why are you editing the article? •Jim62sch• 09:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
These are not answers. If you refuse to discuss the cut, I see no reason not to make it. --Uncle Ed 13:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I for one oppose you deleting the content, and will add it back in. It's relevant and necessary. FeloniousMonk 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, just don't overdo it. (There's an entire article on why the mainstream opposes ID: it's called Intelligent design! :-) --Uncle Ed 15:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert by Joshua

You reverted a whole bunch of my changes (rv pov edits to last by felonious, Ed, cut it out).

Did you intend to undo all my work, or did you object only to parts of it?

And what did you mean by pov edits? Did anything I put in or take out tend to make the article one-sided? --Uncle Ed 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, after going through them in more detail, I'm not sure why I did revert all of them. I don't think I realized how many I was reverting, the main issue was [6] but looking over it, it looks like a reasonable way of stating it. Consider objections dropped. JoshuaZ 23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to new science standards

I don't think the pro-evolution point of view is given enough weight here :-) and is certainly not explained clearly. [7]

Both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association spoke out against the new science standards; in addition to separate statements from each opposing the standards, the two groups issued a joint statement<ref>"National Science Academies Sign Joint Statement on Teaching of Evolution" InterAcademy Panel. June 21 2006. (PDF file)</ref> that the new Kansas standards are improved, but as currently written, they overemphasize controversy in the theory of evolution and distort the definition of science.

I just now read the referenced press release, and it doesn't mention any of these objections. I'd like to know why NAS & NSTA oppose the standards. Did they say that the standards themselves distort the definition of science? If so, how? By allowing supernatural causes explicitly (or not specifically excluding them)? If that's their objection, our readers certainly would like to know this.

Do the standards mention the controversy over evolution specifically, i.e., the controversy itself? Or just 'open the door' by saying something general like Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory.? This criticism should be amplified. :-)

Readers want to understand everyone's POV on how science is taught: both the critics who'd like a 'wedge' to get God back into the classroom and the mainstream (?) who want to keep God out. Let's have both sides, please. --Uncle Ed 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Get god "back" into the classroom? He/she/it wasn't there when I went to school. •Jim62sch• 20:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Cite is now provided. There's no shortage of sources available to support this point, and every other one you've objected to here. So please become more knowledgeable on the topic before tossing around specious objections and wasting your time and ours. That is, unless your goal here is to tendentiously wear down your opposition, then please, by all means keep at it. FeloniousMonk 14:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad there are sources to which to attribute that point of view. I don't objection to including sourced info, or providing links to them. Perhaps you misinterpreted a hastily written edit summary I wrote?
The point of articles is to enable the reader to become more knowledgeable on the topic; it's not for contributors to promote or discredit any particular POV. The bit about 'wear down your opposition' sounds like a tit-for-tat accusation; please review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. I'm only concerned with improving the article, so that it explains both opposition to, and support for, the new Kansas science standards. You want both sides described accurately and fairly, don't you? --Uncle Ed 14:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's up with this edit summary, ed?

" 09:19, 3 August 2006 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (→Overview - Jim dropped his objections; 2 subheads emphasize the opposing POV) " I did? Where, when? Did I miss it? Did you make it up? •Jim62sch• 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant JoshuaZ. Read up about 35 lines and you'll see it. My mistake. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Er yes. I dropped my objections in so far as I didn't strongly care one way or another about those edits. JoshuaZ 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation assistance - formating

I just added a large number of citations. I'm not familiar with how the ref template works, so if someone could look it over and confirm that I did things correctly I would appreciate it. JoshuaZ 03:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borofsky

I continue to edit out the comments by Joel Borofsky under the following reasons: He has admitted he is not involved in the movement He is not Dr. Dembski's research assistant for ID but for his seminary work Comments showing that he recanted some of his statement have not been shown

It is highly unfair to keep posting those comments without allowing for those facts as well.

factually accurate, verifiable against reliable sources (an unsigned comment from User:Kerdos 10:26, 10 August 2006)

Joel Borofsky's comments are factually accurate and verifiable against the reliable sources provided. Saying Borofsky is Dembski's research assistant is accurate. Of course it is assisting Dembski's theology work at Southwestern Seminary since there is no verifiable ID research being conducted anywhere, much less by Dembski. If there are verifiable retractions by Borofsky, absolutely they should be given here as it would serve as another good example of the ID tactic of acknowledging then denying religious motives. FeloniousMonk 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1389

This site should be of value where Borofsky explains his comments. Of particular interest:

I am proud to say that I am very insignificant in this movement, so much so I really am not part of the movement.

I was voicing a personal opinion about what I wish would occur. As a layperson who is not involved in the movement, I do wish that ID would be taught in public schools as a scientific theory. Does this mean that if you call up Nancy Pearcey, she will ascribe to what I am saying? Absolutely not. Does this mean that Bill indoctrinated me to believe this and therefore whatever I say Bill inherently said first? No, it does not mean this at all. Bill and I even have two different approaches to the issue, so it does not matter what I say.

It should also be noted that I am his assistant on theological work, not necessarily the ID movement.

(Kerdos 19:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

That's a clarification, not a retraction, but I'll gladly add it to the article. FeloniousMonk 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does anyone care about Borofsky's opinion? Is he more important than anyone else? Shouldn't you be collecting opinions from people who were actually involved in the Kansas hearings? Roger 21:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As Dembski's assistant who made statements concerning the trial and criticism, his inclusion is valid. as an analogy: If the vice-president makes a statement about criticism of one of the president's policies, that is valid for inclusion on an article about the policy, even if the VP was not present at the meeting(s) where the policy was formed, surely you see that? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The VP is a spokesman for the administration, and is a full-time employee of the taxpayers. Who pays Borofsky's salary? Does he speak for Dembski? Did Borofsky post that message on his own time, or in his capacity as Dembski's assistant? Isn't it possible that Dembski might employ someone with different views? Do you really think that being a research assistant for Dembski is comparable to being the VP of the USA? If Eugenie Scott's assistant went to church on Sunday, would you think that was relevant?
Dembski is not bashful about expressing his opinions. He testified on the record. If you want Dembski's opinion, just quote him. Roger 23:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Borofsky is relevant, he is an assistant to a Discovery Institute Fellow, and his comments were made in the wake of the board elections which will result in the Discovery Institute's science standards being overturned. His comments bear out the exact criticisms opponents to the standards had been leveling all along. Borofsky couldn't be more relevant. FeloniousMonk 23:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Borofsky isn't relevant at all to the discussion based upon the reasons that he gave. He is a research assistant for theological work, not the ID movement. Does this mean we should also quote Bill Dembski's maid on her thoughts about the situation? Borofsky does theological work, not ID work, thus it makes no sense to use him. If anything, this is showing a further bias on the part of the "moderators" than any relevancy. Kerdos 08:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What's next? Shall we find some professor who signed some pro-evolution petition, and then find some grad student of his who goes to church or believes in the Bible?
It is amazing to me that the evolutionist contributors here refuse to quote actual testimony at the hearings, but instead want to quote some random message board opinion by someone who wasn't even there. Roger 17:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Schlafly, there are so many problems with the above comment, I'm not even sure where to begin. I won't belabor the point that the comment is precisely relevant because it confirms exactly what critics have said since Felonious has already tried to explain this. I will address 4 other issues. First, the common creationist misconception that a "pro-evolution petition" would somehow be inconsistent with evolution. In fact, I find it odd that you would accept that premise given your attempts to distintiguish between creationism and ID and your seeming dislike of creationism. Incidentally, a very large number of clergy seem to disagree with you see[8]. Second, an additional problem is that in your hypothetical, the grad student has only made his personal belief clear, he has not made a claim about a general movement or such. A better analogy would be if the professor claimed that evolution did not have an anti-evolutionary element, and his research assistant disagreed. Third, your comment that Borofsky posted his comments on a "random message board" is innaccurate but on Demsbki's own blog which is about ID and which Borofsky is one of the moderators. One has to wonder if Borofsky is merely a theology student and ID is a scientific matter what he is doing moderating a blog on ID. JoshuaZ 02:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk confirms FeloniousMonk's criticisms. Does that mean that FeloniousMonk should be quoted? Oops, bad example, the article does that already!
I have no quarrel with that Clergy Letter Project. Perhaps you missated your first point, and meant to imply that I think that there is a conflict between evolution and faith. I don't. Some people do. But my personal opinion is irrelevant. An article about the Kansas hearings should focus on the views actually presented there. It should also mention the raionale expressed by the boycotters. But Dembski didn't testify, and you refuse to include his views, so why should you include the views of his assistant? Roger 05:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What part of the Discovery Institute's science standards were said to be a ruse by a Discovery Institute Fellow's assistant, confirming the criticisms of opponents to the standards isn't relevant? It is highly relevant. We can add text to the article to connect the dots if necessary. FeloniousMonk 22:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Proximity to an event has no bearing on the relevance of the quote. Lincoln was not at Gettysburg for the battle and yet his most famous speech is about the battle. •Jim62sch• 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, a point that our "unbiased" moderators continue to ignore is that Borofsky is employed by Southwestern University and a research assistant in theology, not ID. It makes absolutely no sense why his comments should be added...the only reason they are added is because of a heavy bias against ID. Oh, and Jim, by your logic we should be able to take any random person's quote and apply it to the situation. Roger is right, we need to use those that were actually involved in the event. Had Borofsky been involved in the event, written a paper, given a speech, etc., then there would be ground to include his opinion. As it is, a theological research assistant offered his own opinion on his own time and therefore gets included in something he had nothing to do with? Is this really the standard for an "encyclopedia"? If anything, you're making Wikipedia look more and more like a joke. Kerdos 16:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you missed the point...sigh. Lincoln was not a random person, he was intimately aware of the details given his role. Ditto for Borofsky. Cute nick by the way -- Greek seems rather popular these days. •Jim62sch• 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
"Borofsky is employed by Southwestern University and a research assistant in theology, not ID. It makes absolutely no sense why his comments should be added..." It makes a lot sense to me since the result of the Dover trial was a ruling that "ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science" [9] and that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" [10]. How about instead of ranting against editors who have done so much research on the topic and worked hard to write objective, complete articles, try separating yourself from your personal attachment to ID long enough to think the topic through objectively against all the evidence available. FeloniousMonk 17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If FeloniousMonk and the others really wanted to "write objective, complete articles", then they would quote the people who were really involved for the positions that they were actually taking. Instead of facts, the article has hearsay from people who were a couple of steps removed from the process. The whole article is biased. Roger 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Roger, yes, we know you think the article is biased. You've said it here, on your user page, on your blog, etc. Unfortunately, repetition does not make it so. •Jim62sch• 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The complete testimony is linked to in the article. The subject of the article is the Kansas evolution hearings and since only one side of the debate over ID vs. evolution, the ID side, participated in the hearings, there's little of their testimony to present that wouldn't be a one-sided diatribe for all the sundry arguments of the ID advocates. That raises the issue of NPOV and undue weight since the policy calls for all relevant viewpoints to be presented on the subject, with minority viewpoints not needing to be covered as much as majority viewpoints, and within the science community and the science education community, ID is a very small minority viewpoint.
So, unlike as you say, it's not that long-times contributors here are excluding the pro-ID viewpoint while subverting WP:NPOV; it's that you have a flawed understanding of what the NPOV policy requires. None of us are against expanding the article to include direct quotes from the testimony given in the hearings, but policy prevents this article being turned into a vehicle for one side of the debate to restate its position, a position that has ultimately been rejected in state after state.
If you are genuinely concerned about bettering the project, not in using it to promote the ID viewpoint, then take the time to better understand that the NPOV policy and how it requires all significant and relevant points of view to be presented here, and how that relates to ID, which is a minority pov. FeloniousMonk 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In essence, FeloniousMonk is arguing that the NPOV policy prevents an article on the Kansas Evolution Hearings from describing what actually happened at the Kansas Evolution Hearings. Instead, he wants to quote some remotely-related hearsay which he claims to support his wacky conspiracy theories.
No, it is FeloniousMonk who is contrary to NPOV policy. Roger 22:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a specific point or quote you think should be included? JoshuaZ 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
As a specific example from your (JoshuaZ's) recent changes, you insist on calling the witnesses creationist even tho neither you nor FeloniousMonk has been able to find any documented evidence that any of them are. Maybe some are, I don't know. But the article should present what the Kansas Board and the stated reasons for doing what they did. As it is, the article gives no sense of what the Board was trying to do, or what the witnesses were saying.
I guess FeloniousMonk would say that the article should not present a view that has "been rejected in state after state." But the reader cannot understand what happened unless that view is presented. The NY Times has no sympathy for the creationists or ID-promoters, but it has published much fairer articles. Roger 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Odd, the one possibly questionable matter of common descent has been removed. It currently reads " most of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute and/or are creationists, intelligent design advocates or advocates of some other form of anti-evolution." Now unless you think that all of these make someone creationist, then the article does not say what you claim it says. Or do you think these are all synonyms? JoshuaZ 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think that they are synonyms, but it is not my opinion that matters. You have characterized in ways that they might not agree with, and which is not backed up by sources. What is the point, other than name-calling?
Many of the witnesses endorsed the Kansas standards, and those standards teach evolution. So they were making pro-evolution statement, not an anti-evolution statement. They may view it that way, anyway. You may view it some other way. You should just describe what they say and leave the criticism for later. Don't call them creationist unless they call themselves creationist. You and FeloniousMonk violate every NPOV rule in every paragraph in this article. Roger 05:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Rog, instead of bitching about everything, why not be useful and provide some sources to back up your assertions (opinions). If you really think most of these people support evolution, prove it.
Furthmore, this is twisted logic, "Many of the witnesses endorsed the Kansas standards, and those standards teach evolution. So they were making pro-evolution statement, not an anti-evolution statement". It's also belied by this little thing called "truth". •Jim62sch• 12:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Connie Morris

Since we've been on the subject of the claim of the conservative school board members just wanting to "teach the controversy" and that the new science standards had nothing to do with religion or were anti-evolution, I think the recent comments of outgoing Kansas school board member Connie Morris after losing her seat in last week's elections are particularly relevant since they confirm the longstanding criticisms leveled by opponents to the standards:

Nor do such liberal opportunists mind "slandering people and harming their families and their reputation and their business and their communities and their state," Morris continues. "It's a shame," she adds. "It's a shame, and I feel bad for them when they face God on Judgment Day." . . . "Although four born-again Christians remain on the State Board of Education, Morris believes the newly empowered liberal majority will waste no time adopting new science standards. In January, she says, when the new members are sworn in, the Board will likely rescind the existing standards and adopt new ones that "let government schools teach children that we are no more than chaotic, random mutants."[11]

A point worth noting in the article. FeloniousMonk 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sadly, though, Morris show her own ignorance of Christian Dogma when she notes, "I feel bad for them when they face God on Judgment Day." Pity for the damned (which is what is calling them) is a damnable offense. Tsk. •Jim62sch• 21:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL, pity is 180 degrees opposite from a "damnable offense". Why do you think The Lord of the Rings is so popular among Christians? For one thing, because of the mercy that Bilbo showed to Gollum, "not to strike" when he had the chance: "It was pity that stayed his hand."
It think this comment (even if only meant as a joke) reveals a deep, pervasive misunderstanding of Christianity and similar religions. --Uncle Ed 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If I may, I think the comment was obviously meant as a joke. Furthermore, your claim that it "reveals a deep, pervasive misunderstanding of Christianity and similar religions" is innacurate. I can easily give many example of those who claim to be Christian or claim allegiance to other Abrahamic religions that have made claims very close to that (such as Jack Chick for example). Now, can we please get back to the topic at hand? This is very OT from what this page is for. JoshuaZ 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Ed, you are, once again, wrong. Find me a preacher who feels that pity for those damned by god (or by themselves, really) is an appropriate sentiment and is a "good thing". In showing pity for the damned, one is defying the will of god. Seems your grasp of Christian theology is as good as your grasp of intelligent design/creationism. Of course, we are off-topic here, but if you wish to discuss it further, send me a message via my talk page. •Jim62sch• 22:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's off-topic, why did you mention arch-fundamentalist Jack Chick, and why did Jim pipe in? It's relevant because it addresses the motivation of anti-Creationism campaigners. Please don't lecture me on "what talk pages are for", just because you deem an aspect of the topic irrelevant. (The principle is, "Explain first, then scold." You went straight to the scolding. ;-)
FeloniousMonk is right. The publicly-expressed views on religion which Creationism advocates have are relevant here. Expanding on this, I think the views which anti-Creationism advocates have expressed are likewise relevant.
Evolution supporters, materialists, atheists, etc. want the Theory of Evolution taught from a strictly "naturalistic" point of view so that they can exclude all discussion of the possibility that human life may have originated from a non-materialistic cause. If they can censor and ban such a discussion, they can advance their anti-religious agenda just that much further: "This is science class, Johnny, you have to leave religion out of it."
The argument of Creationists is that the origin of human life is too important a topic to be limited to the teaching and endorsement of one POV only. Specifically, they want (or the IDM want) the scientific "approach" (is this the right word?) to be amended. They want to keep falsifiability, experiments, and all that BUT they want to drop the requirement that only physical causes should be explored in biology. It's not a requirement in archeology or criminology, they argue: when assigning a possible cause to the origin of a monolith or an injury to property, the question is always "Was this caused by natural forces such as erosion, the activity of wildlife, or a human being?" (Is the search for extraterrestial life considered pseudoscience? I'll have to re-read CETI and Carl Sagan.) --Uncle Ed 14:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ed, thank you for showing your bias and ignorance, "Evolution supporters, materialists, atheists, etc"..."can advance their anti-religious agenda just that much further." You know Ed, my mom believes evolution is correct and does not think creationism or religion belong in public school, and she's a 76-year-old Lutheran. Thus, by just that one example, your thesis is blown to shit.
Your last paragraph might be one of the most specious, fallacious arguments (if you can call it an argument) that I've ever seen. I don't think your average archaeologist or criminologists asks, "could the cause be supernatural?" (yes, you mentioned other things, but they were all of natural origin). Odd that. In biology you want the supernatural included, but in your other examples you cite natural phenomena. See the disconnect there? See the flaw in your logic? •Jim62sch• 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You thought I meant all of "Evolution supporters, materialists, atheists, etc"? No, just the anti-religious ones. I've actually met some people in this group who are neutral or favorable to religion. Slow down, son, before you hurt yourself. ;-)
Specious and fallacious though the argument of Creationists may be in your eyes, it is nonetheless
  1. not my POV, merely something I'm summarizing; and,
  2. a widely held POV which should be described in any relevant article.
Slow down, pops, and remember to sign your posts. Ed, what you meant was pretty clear; you can try to spin it any way you wish, but you were clearly implying an equality between evolutionists and materialists/atheists: to paraphrase Judge Jones, any rational ninth-grader.

could see what your point was.

Interesting to that I noted that your argument was specious and fallacious, but you attempt to transfer my criticism to Creationists, and then, essentially, claim not to be a Creationist. See, there's this disconnect again, smells like neurons and synapses not firing in order. But maybe there's a reparative therapy for that, kind of a psyche-tune-up ;) •Jim62sch• 22:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Highlights from testimony

Since Roger Schlafly wants excerpts from actual testimony added to the article, we should go ahead and add some of the high points. There's two ways to do it, 1) add notable, memorable excerpts from each witness to their listing in the list of witnesses section with a cite, or 2) create another section with quotes followed by attributions and cites. Either way, quotes will need to relevant to their own positions, yet any testimony that is relevant to the opposition's claims should be briefly quoted as well, with cites.

Any preferences as to which structure we use? Since JoshuaZ seems to have become the most familiar with the transcripts here, perhaps he can start us out with a few quotes and cites here to discuss before we begin. FeloniousMonk 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I added them as part of the refs already. •Jim62sch• 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my complaint was that generalities about the witnesses should be grounded in actual quotes from their testimony. If you say that the witnesses are creationist or anti-evolutionist, then there should be some documentation, at the least. As of now, the witnesses are still called creationist, and yet no one has been able to find a quote that ties any of the witnesses to creationism. I am NOT advocating cherry-picking quotes for the purpose of embarrassing the witness. The quotes should fairly express the POV and opinions in their testimony. It should be such that the witnesses themselves would agree that it accurately presents what they had to say. Criticism belongs in another section afterwards. Roger 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See below. •Jim62sch• 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of participants

All are now firmly linked to anti-evolution stances, in their own words. •Jim62sch• 23:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Where are they linked? Did you find where any witness identifies himself as an anti-evolutionist? Or is that just your editorial judgment? Roger 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Click on the refs Rog, it's really easy. Or are you just playing games again? •Jim62sch• 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No they are not firmly linked to anti-evolution stances. I clicked on the refs for one at random, Manuge, and one just said that he was a Christian, and the other was an essay that discussed various aspects of God, evolution, and intentionality. I wouldn't call it anti-evolution unless you think that Christianity is anti-evolution. I can only assume that you failed to find the references to justify your name-calling. Roger 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
At random my arse. In any case, I fixed the ref. Note: Q. Do you accept the general principle of common descent that all life is biologically related back to the beginning of life? A. Not as defined by neo-Darwinism, no. Q. Do you accept that human beings are related by common descent to prehominid ancestors? A. I doubt it. •Jim62sch• 00:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, in Menuge's own words, "In what follows, I will begin with an explication of Dennett’s theory (section 2).Then I will develop four main objections to the theory (section 3), and finally I will present a positive case for saying that intentionality is a real, but non-naturalistic quality and that the best explanation of this fact is some form of theism or intelligent design(section 4). •Jim62sch• 00:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Theory and not a fact"

State that evolution is a theory and not a fact.

Was this really on their list? So... did they not know the scientific definition of theory in the first place?

It seems odd to me that they would demand something that was already there. Esn 10:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 404 Not Found, additional reference

References 7 and 8 show links which offer the text of the standards and commentary on it, but now come up with 404 Not Found messages. Presumably these could be replaced by live links, possibly at www.kansasscience2005.com. One link from that site which isn't at the article at present is this December 10, 2004 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REVISIONS (pdf) which gives interesting insight into the aims of the "standards" being "to replace a naturalistic definition of science with a traditional definition.", removing "a concept called methodological naturalism" which they conflate with atheistic naturalism – as described in the Support for new standards section with reference to Teach the Controversy, but in this document explicitly shown with reference to the draft standards, so I suggest adding this link. .. dave souza, talk 09:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAAS declines to participate in the Hearings

Not sure if this is mentioned anywhere in the article or links (I didn't see it), but here is the letter from Dr Alan Leshner whereby the AAAS declined to participate in the hearings. He gives a very brief statement of why, which probably parallels the other scientific organizations. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0412kansas.pdf Engr105th (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)