evolution

Loyal evolution reader Melissa has been talking about Mount St. Helens for a few days. I wasn’t interested in it at first, because CNN reported on-air that seismologists were saying “no way, no how” to an eruption this time around. You’ll recall that in 1980 Mount St. Helens did erupt, totally blowing off the top part and killing 57 people.

However, the volcano is rumbling once again, and the Beeb has noticed. Melissa also sends along these Mount St. Helens facts, compiled by Fox News.

Again, unfortunately, I am not referring to myself or my site: Don’t ignore evolution issue, crowd told at KU. From the Kansas City Star:

Kansas residents should become involved in the evolution debate immediately, a high school math teacher said at a forum Tuesday night.

Otherwise, Jack Krebs said, the state could experience another round of humiliation like that it endured in 1999, when the theory was de-emphasized in Kansas schools.

“Last time around all the discussion was after the fact. … Now we have the chance not to make it a done deal,” he said.

Krebs told the audience at the University of Kansas that he believes the Kansas Board of Education may try to change science standards back to the way they were in 1999, when the teaching of evolution was de-emphasized. That change was thrown out in 2003.

John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Kansas City, said he was unaware of any proposal to teach intelligent design — the theory that the universe was created by some sort of intelligent being — within the Kansas public school system.

“There is no proposal on the table to teach or test intelligent design,” said Calvert, who attended Tuesday’s forum but was not a speaker. He said he simply wanted evolution to be considered a theory that could be tested or challenged.

In 1999, the move against evolution was from primarily “young-Earth creationists,” who believe that God created the universe in six days and that Earth is only a few thousand years old.

This time, Krebs believes, the movement would be led by a group within the intelligent design movement, which accepts many tenets of evolution but believes that a designer was responsible for the origin of the universe.

“Intelligent design had virtually no impact on the science community,” Krebs said. “There are no testable hypotheses. … There is no science there.”

Calvert said Krebs inaccurately described the theory.

“This is an event that is designed to suppress criticisms of the evolution theory,” Calvert said. “Every single bit of it was name-calling. This was a sermon. This was a political event.”

University of Kansas Chancellor Robert Hemenway opened the program, telling the audience: “If evolution is to be challenged, let the debate begin here and let it be a civil debate.”

Calvert and other intelligent-design proponents criticized Krebs, who spoke alone, for not allowing both sides to participate in the presentation.

“It’s curious you have a public debate, but no opposition was included in this,” Brian Sandefur told Krebs after the speech.

Jeremy Whetstone, building manager at the Kansas Union, where the event was held, estimated that 450 people attended.

A committee appointed by the state board is working on an update of the science standards but will not present the draft to the public until December.

Calvert and his group miss the point. It’s not “name-calling” to label “intelligent design” as not being science — it isn’t! I don’t claim that it’s loony far-right nonsense or even that it’s not worth consideration — it certainly is, and one of the most interesting exercises I undertook in college was a review of philosophers who argued for and against it. It’s not even that “intelligent design” can never be considered science. But right now it isn’t science, and shouldn’t be passed off as such.

The solution — Governor Sebelius (or some brave future governor) should dissolve the Board of Education if she is constitutionally able to do so, and replace it with a proper Department of Education headed by a Secretary of Education. The SecEd would be subject to confirmation by the Legislature. Then, the Department of Education will be accountable to Governor Sebelius directly, and by extension, the voters: Think about how many Kansans know and follow the Board members versus how many Kansans know and follow the Governor’s office. It makes sense, and should be done sooner rather than later.

Two items about education: First, a Washington Post editorial about the No Child Left Behind Act that is fair and makes some excellent points.

I too think that NCLB makes unrealistic expectations (100% of students 100% proficient in reading and math by 2014 — you will never, ever have 100% of anyone doing 100% of anything) and too directly lashes struggling schools to the anchor of their communities. I believe that the single greatest force in schools is not teachers — it is parents. Many kids (and this is a not-uncommon problem at my school) are not taught basic standards of respect and behavior at home, especially (as in my district) when one or more parents is out of the home for long periods to make ends meet. It is very difficult for a student who cannot master these to take in more complicated ideas. Thus, it falls to the teacher to teach these things — and then issues of qualification come in. Do we want teachers to not only teach his or her subject but basic behavior too? I am eminently qualified to talk about high-school level mathematics, but my master’s degree in no way qualifies me to teach standards of behavior and other such things.

Secondly, it pains me greatly to read this Kansas City Star article: Evolution debate returns to Kansas. You’ll recall that in 1999 my home state was held up as an object of ridicule on a global scale because of a ridiculously foolish decision by the Kansas Board of Education — a body that Governor Sebelius ought to abolish — to dilute instruction in one of the millenium’s greatest scientific theories. You would no more eliminate evolution from science curricula than you would Newton’s three laws of physics.

But, as they say, “once more under the bridge, dear friends”:

A new evolution storm is gathering over Kansas.

The next Kansas Board of Education won’t be seated until January, but a renewed debate over the teaching of evolution in science classes already is beginning.

Jack Krebs, who supports instruction in evolution, will tell an audience tonight at the University of Kansas that the new board probably will go back to a stance similar to one the board took in 1999 when it diluted the teaching of evolution in public schools. Kansas was ridiculed worldwide that time, he said.

This time, he said, the board could do more than embarrass the state: It also could hurt the state’s blossoming biosciences initiative.

“People who are concerned about this ought to start talking about it now before it happens rather than waiting until after it happens and having the damage done,” said Krebs, a high school teacher.

John Calvert, a leader on the other side of the debate, criticized Krebs for speaking publicly at this time and KU for serving as host of the forum. A committee appointed by the state Board of Education still is drafting an update of the science standards, and “what Jack is doing is undermining that process,” said Calvert, a founder of Intelligent Design Network Inc., a group formed in the wake of the 1999 debate. Krebs is a member of the board’s committee.

Mounting evidence shows that evolution alone does not explain the origin of life, Calvert said. Students should be allowed to also hear about intelligent design, he said, the theory that the universe was designed and cannot be explained by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural processes alone.

“This whole controversy can really be taken out of context,” Calvert said, “and I think that is one of Jack’s motives.”

A 25-member committee, which has been working this summer on a periodic review of the science standards, expects to present a draft to the board in December. A draft is expected to be posted early next month on the Kansas Department of Education’s Web site.

State board Chairwoman Janet Waugh of Kansas City, Kan., said Monday she was expecting another heated fight. Conservatives are positioned to comprise a majority of the 10-member board, because conservative Kathy Martin, a retired teacher from Clay Center, defeated a moderate, incumbent Bruce Wyatt of Salina, in the Republican primary in August. No Democrats filed, so Martin will be unopposed in the Nov. 2 election.

“I’m not looking forward to this,” said Waugh, a Democrat and supporter of evolution instruction who was on the board in 1999. “I thought it was a nightmare last time, and I don’t want to do it again. But if we have to, so be it.”

The board will hold public hearings on the standards before adopting them. Waugh estimated that it probably would be at least March before the board takes a final vote.

The debate is expected to be different this time around.

The 1999 vote was influenced by young-earth creationism, the idea that God created the universe and everything in it in six days, as the Book of Genesis states in the Bible. Its advocates believe that Earth is only a few thousand years old.

The 1999 vote did not go so far as to embrace young-earth creationism, but it did remove some questions about evolution, such as the big bang theory, from state assessments. That meant teachers were free to ignore those topics in their classrooms. When moderates gained control of the board in 2001, they threw out the 1999 standards. Since 2003, the board has been split 5-5 ideologically.

In recent years a national movement called intelligent design has gained momentum. Its advocates believe that intelligent causes, such as a designer, rather than natural processes, are responsible for the origin of the universe and the diversity of life. They accept many of the tenets of evolution, such as the age of Earth, but they believe scientists should look for logical, not natural, explanations.

Evolution, on the other hand, theorizes that living things share common ancestors but have changed over time. It accepts only natural explanations for scientific phenomena.

Intelligent Design Network has been involved in the rewriting of science standards in other states, such as Ohio. Calvert said Ohio changed its definition of science to include a search for logical explanations for the world around us, a definition he supports. The Kansas definition, which Calvert would like to see changed, defines science as the activity of seeking natural explanations.

The Ohio definition allows teachers to talk about intelligent design and evolution in an objective way, he said. The Kansas version limits teachers to evolution.

“There is a ton of evidence that suggests that natural causes are not adequate to explain living systems,” Calvert said.

Fossil records, in many respects, are inconsistent with the theory of evolution, he said.

“The problem is that evolution is really a theory in crisis,” Calvert said “What worries Jack and what worries the scientific community is that students may be shown both sides of the evolution controversy.”

Krebs said proponents of intelligent design asserted that they were objective, but “their big goal is to show there is scientific evidence that a divine creator has had to have been involved in life.” They are willing to accept “foot in the door” successes, such as the Ohio vote, to establish a platform for their views, Krebs said.

If proponents of intelligent design want to subject evolution to critical analysis, he said, they should run their experiments, write their papers and make their case to the scientific community.

The job of a science standards committee, he said, is to “take the things that are accepted as mainstream and put them into the school system. It’s not schoolchildren who should be trying to judge whether challenges to science are valid or not.”

Calvert is not a member of the science standards committee, but his views are represented on the committee by another founder of his network, William Harris of Prairie Village. Harris is a professor in the School of Medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a heart disease researcher with St. Luke’s Hospital.

Harris said he hoped the two sides would find common ground. Hurting the state’s reputation is not in anyone’s interest, he said.

Like Calvert, Harris said he was disappointed that tonight’s forum in Lawrence would be held. It is being sponsored by KU’s Center for Science Education and several academic departments.

KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway is to introduce Krebs at the event, which begins at 7:30 p.m. in Woodruff Auditorium in the Kansas Union.

“As a leading science research institution, it’s only natural for us to provide a forum to discuss the issue,” KU spokesman Todd Cohen said. “Everyone in higher education is following this issue closely.”

Krebs said he would be speaking not as a committee member but as a teacher who is concerned about what the board might do.

The Kansas City, Lawrence and Topeka corridor has the potential to become a hub for the bioscience industry, Krebs said. That effort probably would be hurt if the board once again passed standards that fail to support one of the most basic ideas behind the biological sciences, he said.

“The public needs to be informed about what is going on,” he said.

The public also needs to be informed that “intelligent design” — even though it is a view which, in part, speaks to me — is NOT SCIENCE! It cannot be verified by any acceptable scientific method. Note that I do not dispute the truth of “intelligent design” any more than I dispute the truth of evolutionary theory. It is a debate for a philosophy class or debate team — not a science classroom! It may be that in the future, evidence of “intelligent design” may surface and be pored over by scientists. Until then, “intelligent design” is not science.

[UPDATE: 20:47] The ridicule has already begun.

[UPDATE: 18:42 09/29] And begun again.

It seems that the 2nd Kansas Congressional district (my home district), represented by Rep. Jim Ryun (R) has gotten a bit nasty. The Lawrence Journal-World is reporting that the Congressman released an ad claiming his Democratic challenger Nancy Boyda (D) “worked with a group opposed to the hunt for Osama bin Laden”: Campaign ad claims Boyda opposed hunt for bin Laden.

TOPEKA — U.S. Rep. Jim Ryun has unleashed new TV ads saying his Democratic opponent worked with a group “opposed to the hunt for Osama bin Laden.”

But Nancy Boyda, the Democrat challenging Ryun for his 2nd District congressional seat, said Monday the ad was full of lies and called on Ryun to stop running it.

“Jim Ryun is wrong to say that I did not support our troops, he is wrong to say that I did not support the war on terror, and he is wrong to insinuate that I wouldn’t do anything possible to defend our country, to rout out Osama bin Laden,” Boyda said at a news conference, flanked by military veterans. “It’s a lie. He knows that, and he needs to retract those statements.”

Ryun’s campaign maintains Boyda helped organize anti-war protests in the winter and spring of 2003 and refers to comments in The Kansas City Star newspaper stories attributed to Nancy Thrutchley, Boyda’s name before she married Manhattan attorney Steve Boyda. At the time, Boyda was living in Johnson County and was a Republican.

At one protest rally, Boyda (then Thrutchley) carried a sign that said “I Love My Country,” according to one of the Star reports.

In another Star report, she was quoted as saying about the Iraq war, “the U.S. has a long way to go to close the rift this war has caused with the United Nations and the world community.”

“She was the one who chose to launch the first attack ads in this race,” Ryun campaign spokesman Eric Haar said. “She was the one who made Congressman Ryun’s level of support of our troops an issue in this race, and it is completely fair to call into question things she has done or said.”

The Ryun ad began running Friday.

In it, an announcer says Boyda organized protests “while our troops were defending our freedom with an organization opposed to the hunt for Osama bin Laden.”

Boyda said, “This ad is an out-and-out gutter attack and is the best evidence that he (Ryun) has lost his Kansas values and will now say anything to hold his seat.”

She said that before the war with Iraq started, she had questions whether a broad enough coalition had been formed to launch an offensive. She refused to answer whether she had organized protests to the war.

But, Boyda said, once President Bush started the war, any second-guessing about whether it was the correct policy was “inappropriate.”

She said she supported the troops and wanted to make sure they were safe and returned home as soon as possible.

“It’s time for Jim Ryun to make a formal apology and take this ad off the air,” she said.

Jeff English, Boyda’s campaign manager, didn’t deny that Boyda was involved with war protests in Johnson County, but he insisted Ryun’s television ad was wrong in saying she organized protest trips to Washington, D.C.

Boyda said Ryun’s attack ad showed that he feared she could beat him in the November election, and was launched to deflect attention from his stand on the issue of selling private insurance policies at military installations.

Recent reports have shown that soldiers are getting scammed by unscrupulous insurers while Ryun has opposed efforts by the Pentagon to rein in the insurance companies.

The 2nd Congressional District runs the length of eastern Kansas and includes western Lawrence, Topeka and Manhattan.

This subject has to be the last refuge of the blogger who is tired from his day job (you know, the one where they pay you), but it’s one in which I’ve become interested over the last few months. You see, I’ve been at this blogging thing for over two years now, and my regular readership numbers less than twenty.

I don’t know how bloggers who “make it big” do it. Is it sheer volume, like Glenn Reynolds aka Instapundit; or by posting utter trash backed up by an army of advertisers and publicity machines, like that one chick. It so happens that Reynolds is a law professor, and thus incredibly intelligent — and he’s a good writer with interesting things to say. I’m fairly intelligent (although hardly in Reynolds’ league), and I think I’m interesting, anyway.

But, it may be that I’m not interesting. For some reason, I’d never considered that — I thought all bloggers were content to wile away the time, getting a few dozen visits a month. I remember how excited I was — and this was after my two-year “blogiversary” — that my SiteMeter was crawling close to 1,000. Then I discovered Reynolds — whose SiteMeter reveals that he now gets nearly two million hits per week. When I signed up with Bloghosts (which helped me purchase a domain name and submitted my site to various search engines) back in June, I remember being flabbergasted that my first month’s traffic numbered over a thousand hits.

It couldn’t have helped that I was without an internet connection for the entire month of August, and thus could not post as often as I usually do. That really did wonders for my readership: 195 visits for a single week in June (after having 990 visits in the two years prior to that), and 962 visits for the month of July, and then 362 for the month of August. That hurt bad. Since I’ve been back, though, traffic has recovered. I even started getting commenters, and I have a link from someone I don’t even know and as far as I know have never corresponded with or spoken to (and they get a link back, as well).

So, if you’re thinking of starting a blog, here’s my advice: make sure you have something to say. Many of my first entries (check the archives from 2002) are about my petty complaints or contain a great deal of unfocused rambling. Take my kid brother as an example. He is living in Japan now, teaching English to Japanese middle-school children and blogging about Japanese culture and life. That’s interesting stuff, folks. And, like Reynolds, he’s both an excellent writer and very intelligent (more so than big brother, I’m afraid). He learned about blogs from me (so he is my first and only “blogchild” — and he has spawned seven or eight “blog-grandchildren” as well) in July before he moved away, and his readership is greater than mine. My own mother doesn’t even read my blog, but she reads his.

Another blogger has compiled a great deal of advice: the Commissar over at the Politburo Diktat has some advice for new bloggers. This author is also someone who crawled up through the ranks to average several thousand hits a week and retain quite a number of readers as well. The Soviet Communist schtick he affects also works for him as a hook.

All in all, I’d have to say that blogging — unless your name happens to be Glenn Reynolds or you turn tricks for Senators — is a pretty thankless job. However, there’s nothing like it. I have become more informed and engaged in American life by blogs than I ever was by any news media — in fact, through blogs, I have become engaged both by and with the news media. I would still maintain evolution even if no one read it. I might occasionally be frustrated, but I’d still do it.

The Pope speaks out against economic inequality — from his summer palace.

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy – Pope John Paul II denounced the “imbalance” between the world’s rich and poor Sunday and applauded efforts to eliminate hunger, like the recent U.N. initiative to increase funds for development.

The 84-year-old pontiff had to stop for breath every few words as he spoke to a few hundred pilgrims and tourists in his last Sunday appearance this season at his summer palace in the hill town of Castel Gandolfo. John Paul has Parkinson’s disease, making it difficult for him to walk and to pronounce his words.

The pontiff said Sunday’s Gospel passage about Lazarus, an impoverished beggar who ate the scraps from a rich man’s table, was “ever more appropriate in reference to the problem of the imbalance between the riches and poverty of the world today.”

This from the church that admitted Galileo and Copernicus were right to say that not everything in the universe revolves around the earth — in the 1960s.

I think Chiefs fans have to ask now: What is going on?

The Chiefs lose to the Houston Texans 24-21, on a PK Kris Brown FG with seven seconds remaining. One key factor was penalties — The Chiefs had 11 penalties for 85 yards. Also, the Chiefs made bad plays at inopportune times; for example, QB Trent Green threw an INT into the Chiefs’ end zone, which was returned 102 yards the other way for a Texan TD. That together with a two-pointer tied the game at 14, where a Green TD pass would have made it 21-6.

The defense was better — the Texans had 233 yards passing and 76 yards rushing, and CB Eric Warfield continued his hot play with an INT. But while the Chiefs made bad plays at inopportune times, the Texans made great plays at exactly the right time — such as the INT return and a 30-yard pass from QB David Carr to WR Andre Johnson to set up the game-winning FG.

The Chiefs simply were beaten in this game by a tough, scrappy team.

Players of the game:

• Offensive (tie): TE Tony Gonzalez — 8 catches, 106 yards, 1 TD; RB Priest Holmes — 32 carries, 134 yards, passes Christian Okoye for 1st all time in Chiefs career rushing yards.
• Defensive: Warfield — INT to prevent a Texan TD.
• Special teams: WR Dante Hall — 133 return yards.

Next week the Chiefs visit the fierce defense of the Baltimore Ravens. Some offensive answers will need to be found before then, and the penalty situation will have to be addressed before then.