<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Narrow Victory for Science in Kansas</title>
	<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/</link>
	<description>Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:11:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Swami</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22122</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:52:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22122</guid>
					<description>Life is, life was, and life always will be. Only it's state changes.

Who knows?..a part of me could have filtered through Julius Ceasar's urinary tract 2000 years ago. Moses's stool?,..Nah.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Life is, life was, and life always will be. Only it&#8217;s state changes.</p>
	<p>Who knows?..a part of me could have filtered through Julius Ceasar&#8217;s urinary tract 2000 years ago. Moses&#8217;s stool?,..Nah.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22111</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22111</guid>
					<description>Brett, just FYI...  The theory that life arose from non-life some time in the past, the study of how it might have happened and when, is called &quot;abiogenesis&quot;.  Since you believe that &quot;the real issue is where did life come from, not how does a species adapt over time&quot;, your beef is not actually with evolution,  nor is the evolutionist your enemy.

You want to go out and find some abiogeneticists and argue with THEM.  In the meantime, please leave evolution to those that understand it.

-me</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Brett, just FYI&#8230;  The theory that life arose from non-life some time in the past, the study of how it might have happened and when, is called &#8220;abiogenesis&#8221;.  Since you believe that &#8220;the real issue is where did life come from, not how does a species adapt over time&#8221;, your beef is not actually with evolution,  nor is the evolutionist your enemy.</p>
	<p>You want to go out and find some abiogeneticists and argue with THEM.  In the meantime, please leave evolution to those that understand it.</p>
	<p>-me
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Pat B.</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22067</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:06:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22067</guid>
					<description>Yes, Maha, thanks for writing about this subject.  I was frantically searching for election returns last night and your link to the Lawrence Journal-World was far more up-to-date than anything I could find on the KC Star or the Secretary of State websites.

I thought it was funny that you used the term &quot;whackjob&quot; because that's my own private term for those far-right Kansas fundies.  There are honorable Republicans and I can agree to disagree with them on certain fiscal and social issues, but the theocrats whose religious faith is so literal that it's threatened by science are certainly stripping the term &quot;Republican&quot; of any real meaning.  The self-identified moderates and mainstream voters of Kansas have much more in common with one another, regardless of their official party affiliations, than the moderate Republicans have in common with the whackjobs.  (Not too many years ago, the crazy &quot;Reverend&quot; Fred Phelps of &quot;God hates fags&quot; fame actually ran for governor of Kansas as a Democrat, which really pissed me off.  NOTHING he stands for is remotely close to anything I believe in as a registered Democrat, so I think I understand a bit how people like Paul Morrison feel.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Yes, Maha, thanks for writing about this subject.  I was frantically searching for election returns last night and your link to the Lawrence Journal-World was far more up-to-date than anything I could find on the KC Star or the Secretary of State websites.</p>
	<p>I thought it was funny that you used the term &#8220;whackjob&#8221; because that&#8217;s my own private term for those far-right Kansas fundies.  There are honorable Republicans and I can agree to disagree with them on certain fiscal and social issues, but the theocrats whose religious faith is so literal that it&#8217;s threatened by science are certainly stripping the term &#8220;Republican&#8221; of any real meaning.  The self-identified moderates and mainstream voters of Kansas have much more in common with one another, regardless of their official party affiliations, than the moderate Republicans have in common with the whackjobs.  (Not too many years ago, the crazy &#8220;Reverend&#8221; Fred Phelps of &#8220;God hates fags&#8221; fame actually ran for governor of Kansas as a Democrat, which really pissed me off.  NOTHING he stands for is remotely close to anything I believe in as a registered Democrat, so I think I understand a bit how people like Paul Morrison feel.)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: joanr16</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22065</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:00:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22065</guid>
					<description>Hey Brett, guess what.  I, personally, believe that the universe was designed by a creative intelligence.  That's not science, nor even a theory; it's my own, personal, spiritual belief.  I don't want &lt;i&gt;anyone's&lt;/i&gt; personal spiritual belief taught in our public schools, whether want to lie and call it Science, or Social Studies, or Home Ec.  In any case you'd still be a liar, as well as a spiritual fascist.

Even with my personal beliefs, I have no fear or resentment of Darwinian theory.  It's a small mind, lacking in imagination, that does.  And, ironically, the spiritual fascists' fear-of-everything tends to make them resemble our perpetually-frightened ancestor, the lemur.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Hey Brett, guess what.  I, personally, believe that the universe was designed by a creative intelligence.  That&#8217;s not science, nor even a theory; it&#8217;s my own, personal, spiritual belief.  I don&#8217;t want <i>anyone&#8217;s</i> personal spiritual belief taught in our public schools, whether want to lie and call it Science, or Social Studies, or Home Ec.  In any case you&#8217;d still be a liar, as well as a spiritual fascist.</p>
	<p>Even with my personal beliefs, I have no fear or resentment of Darwinian theory.  It&#8217;s a small mind, lacking in imagination, that does.  And, ironically, the spiritual fascists&#8217; fear-of-everything tends to make them resemble our perpetually-frightened ancestor, the lemur.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: mark</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22064</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:52:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22064</guid>
					<description>I say we pass a law that says all the anti-sciencers, creationists, whatever...cannot use anti-biotics, antidotes, or xrays, etc. since they don't believe in what helped discover it, they don't deserve the benefits.

I bet that would shut up most of them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I say we pass a law that says all the anti-sciencers, creationists, whatever&#8230;cannot use anti-biotics, antidotes, or xrays, etc. since they don&#8217;t believe in what helped discover it, they don&#8217;t deserve the benefits.</p>
	<p>I bet that would shut up most of them.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: moonbat</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22057</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:11:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22057</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;Lets be honest, the real issue is where did life come from, not how does a species adapt over time.&lt;/i&gt;

From a science perspective, it's easy to demonstrate that species do evolve over time. I well remember the example given in my high school biology class regarding the colours of moths in England as the country burned more soot producing coal, which favored dark coloured moths.

As for the origins of life, and the possibility that life evolved from primitive amino acids - this is science trying to extend its powers of explanation back in time to a possible scenario for how life began on earth. What's wrong with considering or experimenting with that?

Science is a set of tools, a methodology used to explain the universe. There are limits to these tools, limits to the knowledge spaces where they work. Science is not a panacea for every question a human can pose. Science will never be able to answer the question &quot;Why?&quot; for example.

OTOH, Religion likewise has its domains where it operative, and other domains where it doesn't really apply. In deep meditation, for example, I &quot;know&quot; or understand things I could never learn through the scientific method.

&lt;i&gt;That is why proponents of “intelligent design” are fighting so hard to get their side represented in the classroom.&lt;/i&gt;

The point is, what they're proposing isn't science. It's theology. It doesn't belong in a science classroom.

Just as you accuse science of overreaching its domain, the ID proponents are overreaching their domain by trying to inject theology into the realm of science, and calling it &quot;science&quot;. It isn't.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>Lets be honest, the real issue is where did life come from, not how does a species adapt over time.</i></p>
	<p>From a science perspective, it&#8217;s easy to demonstrate that species do evolve over time. I well remember the example given in my high school biology class regarding the colours of moths in England as the country burned more soot producing coal, which favored dark coloured moths.</p>
	<p>As for the origins of life, and the possibility that life evolved from primitive amino acids - this is science trying to extend its powers of explanation back in time to a possible scenario for how life began on earth. What&#8217;s wrong with considering or experimenting with that?</p>
	<p>Science is a set of tools, a methodology used to explain the universe. There are limits to these tools, limits to the knowledge spaces where they work. Science is not a panacea for every question a human can pose. Science will never be able to answer the question &#8220;Why?&#8221; for example.</p>
	<p>OTOH, Religion likewise has its domains where it operative, and other domains where it doesn&#8217;t really apply. In deep meditation, for example, I &#8220;know&#8221; or understand things I could never learn through the scientific method.</p>
	<p><i>That is why proponents of “intelligent design” are fighting so hard to get their side represented in the classroom.</i></p>
	<p>The point is, what they&#8217;re proposing isn&#8217;t science. It&#8217;s theology. It doesn&#8217;t belong in a science classroom.</p>
	<p>Just as you accuse science of overreaching its domain, the ID proponents are overreaching their domain by trying to inject theology into the realm of science, and calling it &#8220;science&#8221;. It isn&#8217;t.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: maha</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22056</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22056</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;“We have a new Superman who flies using only his left wing now.”&lt;/i&gt;

Lordy, where do these people come from? They must generate from ooze.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>“We have a new Superman who flies using only his left wing now.”</i></p>
	<p>Lordy, where do these people come from? They must generate from ooze.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: maha</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22055</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:01:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22055</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;We all know that the evolution being taught in our classrooms is the form of evolution that says we came from a bubbling pool of amino acids that over time mutated into all of the living organisms we have today and that humans and apes came from a common ancestor.&lt;/i&gt;

Humans and apes did evolve from a common ancestor. That's been proved six ways from Sunday. However, the origins of life on earth are not part of evolution theory. Whatever  hypotheses they've got going on now about how life originated on earth (the one you mention is an old one; I believe there are others) is a whole separate thing from evolution. Whether life generated from ooze or came here from another planet on asteroids doesn't affect evolution theory either way. 

Again, I find it hysterical that so many people are so SURE that evolution is wrong -- &lt;em&gt;and they don't even know what it is&lt;/em&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>We all know that the evolution being taught in our classrooms is the form of evolution that says we came from a bubbling pool of amino acids that over time mutated into all of the living organisms we have today and that humans and apes came from a common ancestor.</i></p>
	<p>Humans and apes did evolve from a common ancestor. That&#8217;s been proved six ways from Sunday. However, the origins of life on earth are not part of evolution theory. Whatever  hypotheses they&#8217;ve got going on now about how life originated on earth (the one you mention is an old one; I believe there are others) is a whole separate thing from evolution. Whether life generated from ooze or came here from another planet on asteroids doesn&#8217;t affect evolution theory either way. </p>
	<p>Again, I find it hysterical that so many people are so SURE that evolution is wrong &#8212; <em>and they don&#8217;t even know what it is</em>.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: temperance</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22054</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:48:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22054</guid>
					<description>This is probably ad hominem since I’m not engaging the evolution debate, but I think Brett might be living in the alternate reality Greenwald describes in a recent post on Unclaimed Territory (“Competing Realities” Aug 1).  Here’s some evidence of the worldview through which Mr. Bodine interprets political realities &amp;#38; scientific realities, taken from his blog:

Brett Bodine on the Middle East:
“I am amazed as I watch the news and see the events taking place in the Middle East. I truly believe that we are living the the last days here on Earth and the events of Revelation and Daniel will take place shortly.
. . . 
We could be seeing the fulfillment of this prophecy against Damascus right before our eyes! If this happens I think the fulfillment of all Bible prophecy will take place very soon.” 

Brett Bodine on the new Superman movie:
“We have a new Superman who flies using only his left wing now.” 

Brett Bodine describes a fight at the school where he teaches:
“This time we had a good ole' fashion Cat Fight! An Oriental student from some other school, I was told by another student that Asian was offensive and the correct term is now Oriental, and an Hispanic student were on the ground kicking, biting, punching, and hair pulling and it was up to me to pull them apart. I had my mail in my hand and didn't want to drop it so I started out with &quot;HEY, knock it off!&quot; along with a weak one handed attempt to break them up. That wasn't working so I had to make a crucial a split second decision. Do I hold on to my mail and run to get security or do I throw down and get dirty. I got dirty.”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>This is probably ad hominem since I’m not engaging the evolution debate, but I think Brett might be living in the alternate reality Greenwald describes in a recent post on Unclaimed Territory (“Competing Realities” Aug 1).  Here’s some evidence of the worldview through which Mr. Bodine interprets political realities &amp; scientific realities, taken from his blog:</p>
	<p>Brett Bodine on the Middle East:<br />
“I am amazed as I watch the news and see the events taking place in the Middle East. I truly believe that we are living the the last days here on Earth and the events of Revelation and Daniel will take place shortly.<br />
. . .<br />
We could be seeing the fulfillment of this prophecy against Damascus right before our eyes! If this happens I think the fulfillment of all Bible prophecy will take place very soon.” </p>
	<p>Brett Bodine on the new Superman movie:<br />
“We have a new Superman who flies using only his left wing now.” </p>
	<p>Brett Bodine describes a fight at the school where he teaches:<br />
“This time we had a good ole&#8217; fashion Cat Fight! An Oriental student from some other school, I was told by another student that Asian was offensive and the correct term is now Oriental, and an Hispanic student were on the ground kicking, biting, punching, and hair pulling and it was up to me to pull them apart. I had my mail in my hand and didn&#8217;t want to drop it so I started out with &#8220;HEY, knock it off!&#8221; along with a weak one handed attempt to break them up. That wasn&#8217;t working so I had to make a crucial a split second decision. Do I hold on to my mail and run to get security or do I throw down and get dirty. I got dirty.”
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Swami</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22053</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2006/08/02/a-narrow-victory-for-science-in-kansas/#comment-22053</guid>
					<description>Brett Bodine? ...Any relationship to Jethro Bodine?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Brett Bodine? &#8230;Any relationship to Jethro Bodine?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
