KANSAS INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN SCHOOLS, ID POLITICIANS OUT IN PA

John Rennie, an editor over at SciAm.com (the website for Scientific American magazine) has some brilliant commentary on a recent victory and loss to either/both sides of the ID (Intelligent Design) argument. First, here's a bit from [http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=kansas_where_ignorant_is_the_new_educate|a post] regarding what he says about Kansas voting to allow what Knight Ridder newspapers [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002612118_webkansas08.html|calls in an article] at SeattleTimes.com, "science standards critical of evolution":

Somewhere right now in Kansas, there is a little child who may grow up to be a brilliant scientist. She may make fantastic contributions to science, and future generations may remember her as one of the brightest intellectual lights of her time. But if so, it will be despite the public education that she received in Kansas, because today six dimwits on the state's Board of Education voted to lower the standards for how science is taught.

Needless to say, they don't think they are lowering the standards--to the contrary, they think they are raising them. That's how you can tell they are dimwits.

Or Republicans ;)

Ah, I kid the Republicans, by I love them...

Rennie goes on to quote an unnamed article:

Supporters of the standards said they will promote academic freedom. "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican.

HAHAHAHAAH!! That's so funny--it doesn't remove dogma--it puts it back in! After all, Dictionary.com's first definition of "dogma" is this:

A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

Of course, the pro-IDders would probably cite Dictionary.com's second definition which is:

An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

Funny thing about some theories--they're pretty much true until a better explanation comes along. Intelligent design IS NOT A BETTER EXPLANATION.

There is hope, however--Rennie [http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=it_s_over_in_dover|blogs] the following quote from [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover.html|an article] at NYT:

All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.

...

The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum.

We shouldn't call this a win, really--it's more of an un-loss. I mean, when the best possible explanation has to defend itself against something that has about as much supporting evidence aliens visiting the Earth, it's a very sad day.

Check out [http://blog.sciam.com|the blog] over at SciAm.com for more great opinions on the world of science.