Well, it seems that my little-known, oft-made fun of, home state is back in the news again, and once again it has to do with Intelligent Design. With all the negative attention received, it makes me long for the time where all people knew of Kansas was the Wizard of Oz.

Kansas first stepped into the limelight recently with the huge inflation of truth that ocurred when the passing of the State's science standard's was ran as headline news worldwide. As I pointed out in a previous post here, the new standards are not what was made of them. They now sit in accordance with most other states' standards, and, contrary to the reporting, do not mandate or even allow the teaching of Intelligent Design.

This leads to the second step into the limelight...We have been getting national attention because of a professor at the University of Kansas who will be teaching a course this next fall on "Myth's". One of the main "myth's" to be discussed? Intelligent Design. This is a classic example of the naturalists refusing to look at evidence and being closed minded (which something they so often decry). To make things even more controversial, an email that he sent through a Yahoo listserv was released that exposed his true motivations for the course. Some sample quotes:

“The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category ‘mythology,’”

He signed the note:

“Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P.”

You can find more about the whole ordeal here. The email reveals alot about the motivation of the course and calls into question whether or not the course should be taught in this manner, which is clearly not academic, but rather propaganda. I understand that KU (and most universities, for that manner) lean to the left quite a bit and so some of this is to be expected. I attended KU for a semester of Undergrad, and it really is like a San Francisco in KS. (Not that it is a bad thing, just giving a little persepective). The course itself seems to have jumped the gun a little bit with classifiying ID with mythology. It's relatively young (about 10 years), and there appears to be a lot of potential in design theory, so it seems premature to go ahead and throw it out before it has a chance. It's this kind of behavior that makes outsiders observing the whole debate wonder whose side the facts are really on, when one side is talking science and the other is talking motivations, classifications of science, etc. etc. (Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has been blogging about this fact recently. The overwhelming negativity that he has received from the darwinists has really just proved the point he was trying to make. You can read his posts here. This linked post is the 3rd in the series, you can easily find the first 2)

Well, I've been gone for Thanksgiving (saw family in Indiana and Kansas) and I've been extremely bogged down with tests and practicals and presentations at school. This will continue to be the case through the next few weeks. I miss blogging regularly and will hopefully be able to keep up a little bit with it and with everyone else's blogs as much as possible.

The other day I mentioned Biomimetics, the imitation of nature in technology (or the reverse engineering of nature), in reference to how it might yield some surprising technological advances, especially when approached from a design inference. Well, just yesterday I came across this MSNBC article here that involves this very topic. It describes researchers who are using the different types of eyes found in nature to produce new and more efficient optical systems. You won't find the mention of evolution anywhere (except for a slight reference to natural selection), as it's not important when advancing science, as I've said before here.

I'll be out the rest of the week. Have a good Thanksgiving.

I grew up in a conservative Wesleyan church and I always considered the Baptist's as allies on issues in thought and theology. However, over the past few years, I have been extremely disappointed in those of the Baptist denomination that I have interacted with in real life.

First, let me begin with the incident that is bringing on this whole tirade. This past weekend, I attended a basketball tournament that my younger brother was playing in. In the first game, he played a certain Baptist Bible school at a neutral site. The majority of their fans, first of all, inappropriately placed themselves directly behind my brother's team's bench. It's usually customary, at a neutral site, to sit behind your own team's bench and support them, rather than place yourself behind the other's team bench in order to heckle and ridicule them. These fans were UNBELIEVABLE. Continually heckling the referee's and my brother's team with phrase's such as "Jesus hate's you," "You're not going to heaven," etc. You get the drift of what they were saying. It was out of control. About the time they started yelling for their team to physically "punch him and knock him out of the game", in reference to my brother, I had had enough. I turned around and simply said, "Shut up." No yelling, just instructing them on what was appropriate. I was then proposed with an option of stepping outside and fighting, not with just one, but "all 25 of us." I left it at that, but the fans then mocked me and my family whenever we would supportively cheer for our own team. At this point, let me just say that I have been to many sporting events throughout my life and never heard as offensive of comments as were coming from the students and parents associated with this school. If I were a non-Christian sitting in the midst of these fans, I would have maybe been turned off to the gospel forever. Why would I want to be one of them? Most people without Christ are better behaved and more respectful than them. They can't even show respect to their fellow Christians (my brother plays for a Christian College) or for their own religion. Why would someone want anything to do with that? I know I wouldn't. This is from the same group of fans that, when I played against this particular school, cheered when one of my teammates was knocked unconcious by a vicious and purposeful elbow to the temple. They also once got in a fight with the fans of a rival school. The arrogance and hate in these people is literally sickening to me, and I hope they don't represent Baptist's in general, though this is a school where their minister's and leaders are trained! To their credit, 2 young women did come up and apologize after the game for their fans and students behavior.

The other incident that recently got me fired up about the baptist's is when my wife and I recently tried out a Baptist church in the new city we moved to. On our first Sunday there, I was confronted in regards to the way I was dressed. Now, I have attended church my whole life, and I dress nicely out of respect for God and for the church itself, so I was not inappropriately dressed by any means. However, this was a very traditional church, and they wanted the men to wear slacks and ties, "if at all possible." Now, again, what if I was not a Christian and was so offended by their lack of acceptance that I never stepped foot in a church again? I guarantee that this happens. I wanted to call the man a "Pharisee" to his face and tell him that he was a perfect example of a "white-washed tombstone."

So, are there any Baptist's out there who would care to offer a brief defense of their denomination??!!?? I know that there are good people in the denomination and I have just ran into the bad ones of the bunch, but it has definitely painted a negative portrait of them in my mind in general, and this is unfortunate.

Here is a classic Calvin and Hobbes strip in which, through Calvin's duplicating of himself, Bill Watterson (the author) really gives us some insight into what typically happens to a new idea in science.

Frame 1: The validity of the idea is called into question, as is the "rightness" of it. No one likes to change the status quo. Hobbes provides this to Calvin with his simple question.

Frame 2: Calvin gives the typical knee-jerk reaction, accusing the accuser of inhibiting scientific progress, which no one wants to be accused of, thus convincing the other their idea is worth merit for the sole reason that it is "advancement."

Frame 3: The usual response, from Hobbes, that no one wants to be the one that prevents scientific progress, so they guess they'll just go along with it.

Frame 4: The new theory is proved correct...and it went "Boink!" This is the best part of the cartoon to me. A new theory comes along, (take for example, the Big Bang theory), there is a huge debate about it's validity, the ethical/moral implications, the experiment's are run to test the hypothesis, and it turns out to work! The Big Bang model (the Duplicator in the cartoon) works! But wait...it went "Boink?" To me, this a play on the fact that once this big, new, life-changing theory becomes established, it turns out that to most people, it just went "Boink." That is, it didn't really change anything. The huge NON-impact it had on most people was more of a surprise then the fact that it turned out to be right. And thus the world moves on. (only now, with 2 Calvin's.) And don't ignore the little argument going on over the true genius of the idea...another jab at the scientific world.

Ok, so I probably overanalyzed this, but I find it hilarious. :)