Today is the day

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.


  1. says

    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.

  2. Lya Kahlo says

    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”.

  3. AC says

    It’s a nice bedtime story. Science doesn’t back it up.

    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.”

  4. BruceH says

    “It’s a nice bedtime story,” she said. “Science doesn’t back it up.”

    Half right I think. It is a nice bedtime story. IMO, much better than the horror stories in her bible.

  5. Nate says

    From the NYTimes:

    Kansas Democrats, moreover, have a strong standard-bearer in the incumbent governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who has distanced herself from the debate.

    Is she up for re-election?

  6. Rey says

    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?

  7. anonymous says

    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.”
    (middle of page 1)

    He says “unfalsifiable”.

  8. says

    Her statement forces me to ask, what “evidence” supports ID?

    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?

  9. j says

    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.

  10. Unstable Isotope says

    Does anyone know if the pro-science candidates are supposed to win the election?

  11. Your Pal, CHRISTENSEN says

    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.