Talk:US state of Kansas in battle over "Intelligent Design" in education

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NPOV[edit]

The first paragraph needs to be rewritten. Not to mention, the article as a whole is quite bad in terms of formatting and detailing. There could be a little more background information about this subject, and the organization of this article could also be improved.

Quote

"The board now contains enough Conservative members to demand inclusion of Intelligent Design in the school curriculum."

--MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what is wrong with the sentence you quoted. Since you didn't say what part you object to, I am guessing you think the word "demand" is too strong ? I changed it to "vote for". As for the NPOV issue, both views are included, as is required by the NPOV policy. Here is the Conservative POV quote:
"Getting intelligent design into school curricula is the worthiest cause of our time and the key to reversing the country's moral decline."
The level of detail is necessarily low since this article was split off of another article. To avoid duplication, that means each article now has roughly half the original detail. The remaining detail is available via the "See also" link to the other article. However, if you have more detail, please add it.
What is wrong with the format ?
StuRat 14:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
MrM, {{sofixit}}. This article doesn't appear to have a glaring POV (and if it does, it's not been pointed out here). If the style is bad, fix it. It's not horrible enough to render the article unpublishible. I've removed the tags and republished. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. StuRat 16:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with MrM. The story seems very weighted to make Creationism seem foolish. As legitimate a critique as that is, it's POV. This line, "The new version (of science standards) changes the very definition of science from 'seeking natural explanations' to 'seeking logical explanations.' That is why I think FSMism is able to be included. It is as 'logical' as any other theory," needs to be elaborated on. What was Rupe's original position on Creationism? Is she stating that she would seriously consider voting for it? Or is she against the teaching of Creationism and is making a facetious statement? You also might want to include a statement by Pope John Paul II when he spoke to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 where he said evolution was an essential subject and of interest to the Church. --Wolfrider 16:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
That quote from the Pope sounds more about teaching evolution in religous schools than teaching religion in secuar schools. A pic from the pro-Intelligent design lobby might solve the "balance" issue, but so far we can't find any. Do you know of any we could use ? StuRat 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Also note that some anti-Intelligent Design info was left out, to make it more balanced. An example is "Intelligent Falling", the theory that since we can't prove that gravity exists, we should all believe that God is pushing everyone down. See the "saucy" source for more info on this. StuRat 17:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wolfrider, I have to disagree with you characterizing that the article is "weighted". Including more quotes from ID people will not make it better! Moreover, Creationism is (luckily) not up for debate right now. Also not sure why that sentence needs elaboration. The distinction between "natural explanation" and "logical explanation" is quite clear, as in this dichotomy "logical explanation" includes "supernatural explanation", as long as the explanation follows logically from first premises (i.e. that some "intelligent designer" guided evolution or the FSM created the world). Also, given the nature of FSM there is not much room for misunderstanding the statement and intention of Rupe. Statements of John Paul supporting evolution have been partially contradicted by statements of Ratzinger, so including Pope statements will make this a lot more complicated. --vonbergm 18:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

other than the spaghetti monster[edit]

... it should be pointed out that many serious religions believe in organic growth of the Universe, not deliberate design. In most Animist societies the world grows spontaneously, without an engineer. In Norse mythology, the world is built by the gods from the members of a slain giant, and the first human beings are licked from a salt stone by a cow. The hypothesis of "intelligent design" blatantly contradicts most of earth's most time-honoured traditions and beliefs. It is unclear why a random Iron Age Hebrew tale should have precedence in 21st century curricula over, say, the Edda, or the Enuma Elish. 81.63.50.227 15:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Once you open the door to teaching non-scientific concepts (those which can't be tested), you end up with an infinite variety of silliness which will then demand equal time, the GSM included. StuRat 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Because your 'random Iron Age Hebrew tale' happens to be the most widely believed in religion in the world today. Seeing as so many people believe in it, it seems fair enough to teach it in schools. What's the point in teaching something hardly anyone believes is true? If, however, a substantial number of educated people believe something is true, it seems reasonable enough to teach it, at least as an alternative to Darwinism.
Christianity may be the largest religion, but far from a majority of people believe in it, worldwide. It's inclusion in the classroom would therefore beg for the inclusion of the other major world religions, and you might as well toss in a few minority religions, too, like FSM. Also, the fact that many poeple believe something isn't much of an argument, as the majority is frequently wrong, as when they thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. The name of the logical fallacy of believing that the majority is always correct is an appeal to the majority. StuRat 22:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
This notice is a friendly reminder that talk pages are to be used for discussion of the development of the article, and are not areas to express your own personal opinion on matters. Thank you. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


This is a reminder that the article talk pages are here to provide a place where brainstorming discussion of ideas and viewpoints can flourish and sometimes unleash energies and thoughts which can serve the production of better articles...i.e. free speech and free thought are good things and this is the place for them to be expressed in relation to the associated articles. Neutralizer 21:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • MrM is right in that this is a side discussion and slightly off target. But that does not mean that it has no space here. Different people have different views on the direction the article should be heading, and this discussion is merely exploring such a direction. So to address the point: The article right now focuses on the debate of science, i.e. explanation using natural phenomena, and the proposed Kansas standards which allow for supernatural explanations, under which tales and myths can be subsumed. The reason the FSM plays so prominently here is not that it is a serious alternative to ID or of historical and cultural significance as some other ideas mentioned above, but that it is useful to expose the problems with the approach toward science that Kansas is taking. Its power is that it is entirely ridiculous. Suggesting that other creation myths should be taught means accepting the fundamental premise that ID is founded on: giving up the foundations of science.

--vonbergm 21:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I was commenting on "what is the FSM doing in this article". The FSM is designed to piss off creationists, and is needlessly poisoning the debate. I think that the history of religion, including Biblical history, Judeo-Christian religions etc. should be taught in school. Also, the Edda, and other myths are certainly deserving of study. This is not the same as saying "then we'd have to study the FSM too". The former are a subject known as "science of religions", a field of humanities. The latter is at best a recent issue of pop culture and US politico-religious landscape. Therefore, I do think my comment was relevant to the article. You want to put creationism into perspective? Point out that it is part of the humanities, don't point to the FSM. You make the nerds chuckle, but you discredit wn as a news source. "Intelligent Design" can be discussed in terms of philosophy and theology. It is well worth reading what the church fathers have to say about it. It should obviously just never be mistaken as part of the field of natural science, and certainly not as an "alternative to Darwinism", because it isn't. Whoever suggests such a thing has understood neither Darwin nor Augustine. Augustine cannot any more replace Darwin than Darwin can replace Augustine. 81.63.124.173 21:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree on the pupose of FSM. It is a serious attempt to point out the fallacy of allowing religion into the science classroom. If it manages to piss off a few Creationists in the process, that's just a bonus. StuRat 22:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
What you say is essentially true. But what is obvious to you is NOT obvious to the Kansas School Board and the only point of discussion here: ID in the SCIENCE classroom. FSM's purpose is to illuminate why this is a problem. And it does a good job at that. --vonbergm 22:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No, FSM is quite reasonable on the same grounds as religion. Whats true is that neither belongs in a science class, but you won't be able to logically include one without including both. No, FSM is not designed to piss off creationists, its designed to make their kids stop believing in "Santa Clause for Adults" period, any pissing off effect is incidental. - 134.214.102.33 15:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the point is to turn children away from their ancestors religion!
If we don't want them prosthletyzing our kids, let's not say we want to do it to theirs. The point is to keep science scientific, not change anyone's religion. Anonymous