Kansans, remember to get out and vote today—a low turnout is expected for the primary election for the Kansas school board, and you really want to dump Connie Morris, right?
Connie Morris, a conservative Republican running for re-election, said the board had merely authorized scientifically valid criticism of evolution. Ms. Morris, a retired teacher and author, said she did not believe in evolution.
"It's a nice bedtime story," she said. "Science doesn't back it up."
Evolution is the only story backed up by science. You don't really want a school board run by ninnies who don't know that, do you?
Oh, yeah…there are other races besides the school board.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
After losing her seat in last week's elections, outgoing Kansas school board member Connie Morris says it's everyone else's fault, not hers:
A conservative member of the Kansas State Board of Education claims the "lying liberal media" defeated her in last week's primary election. She and other…
Kansans can go to their county clerks' offices today through noon on the Monday before the election and cast an early ballot. Then you don't have to worry about whether you can make it to the polls on election day.
You can still register to vote until the 23rd.
Before you head out to vote, be sure…
November 7th is election day around the country, with many Senatorial and Congressional seats up for grabs. But in Ohio, there is also a crucial battle going on for seats on the state board of education. In particular, Deborah Owens Fink, the primary force behind the push to get ID into public…
A while back I pointed out a new group in Ohio dedicated to helping protect Ohio's schools against foolishness, and that the biggest target was one Deborah Owens "Truly A" Fink. She's been described as Ohio's answer to Connie Morris, and frankly, I don't want to know what that question could have…
Be sure to drop a reminder when this sort of thing happens in Texas. I'm not used to dealing with this sort of thing from the politicial angle.
Her statement forces me to ask, what "evidence" supports ID? Do I even want to know? I have a feeling it starts with "B" and ends with "ible".
Ms. Morris further stated, "Now if you'll excuse me, it's late, and my kids are tired. I need to read to them about the magical man in the sky who'll give them candy after they die as long as they don't touch their naughty bits."
Half right I think. It is a nice bedtime story. IMO, much better than the horror stories in her bible.
From the NYTimes:
Is she up for re-election?
Bedtime story, heh. I'm always amused at those who think we're in the thrall of some master storytellers or charismatic powermongers. Since when has science ever provided the easy answers or the stuff we want to hear? Who tells us that we're not the center of the universe, and that the universe is, in fact, unimaginably vast and indifferent to our suffering? Those fellows in the lab coats, of course.
Then again, some of us find that sort of view empowering or ennobling, but who among us hasn't at some point wished for some almighty arbiter of justice to lay the holy smackdown on someone who richly dserves it, or to reward us for our perceived good deeds and suffering?
AC, if one should know anything about Connie Morris, it would be that she is certainly not above touching HER naughty bits:
http://www.pitch.com/Issues/2005-08-18/news/feature.html
Did no one notice this truly marvelous quote by Steve Abrams, in the very same NYT article?
"We have explicitly stated that the standards must be based on scientific evidence," Dr. Abrams said, "what is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and unfalsifiable."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/us/01evolution.html
(middle of page 1)
He says "unfalsifiable".
You need to understand the language they use. "supporting ID" is translated as "against evolution", as if weakening one argument inherantly strengthens the other. And "evidence against" translates as "things not currently explained by". So the "evidence supporting ID" is basically everything which doesn't quite fit the current understanding of evolution. These are not really the epic issues ID supporters make them out to be: gaps in our understanding merely suggest refinements still to be found, not foundational cracks. For instance, pre-20th-century physics breaks down when confronted with things which are very small, very heavy, or moving very fast. That's not a complete destruction of Newtonian physics, but rather an indication that it's only a (quite good) approximation of a correct system, subject to refinement.
Hell, holes in evolution are good. Means there's still discovery to be done. If every scientific system we had was perfectly understood, what advancements to knowledge would be possible?
Ooh, anonymous, I didn't notice that one. A very telling Freudian slip indeed.
The Kansas City Star has openly endorsed all the pro-science candidates for school board. Too bad I can't vote in Kansas.
Does anyone know if the pro-science candidates are supposed to win the election?
Evolution is the ONLY story backed by science?
What about your atheism PZ?
Do you agree with Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris that it is backed by science?
Jack Krebs over at Kansas Citizens for science tell us that scientists aren't claiming that.
Of course, Jack is not a scientist and he is wrong.
So why don't you tell us, Great One.