The theocracy averted yet again (this time, in Kansas)
by KrauzeChicken-littles obsessed about the US being turned into a theocracy are having it tough these days. The primary election for the Kansas Board of Education is over, and two of the candidates who supported the "teach the controversy" standards have lost their seats to "no controversy" candidates. In other words, an attempt to just teach criticisms of evolutionary biology failed. In Kansas. With George Bush as president.
I'm sure "concerned scientists" will think of new rationalizations to be scared of the Coming Theocracy, so here are the turn of events over the last 12 months, from Nick Matzke's post, "Is ID DOA?":
* November 2005. After the dramatic revelations of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, voters in Dover sweep the ID/creationists out of office. Coincidentally (I'm sure), on that very day, the Kansas Board of Education votes in the Intelligent Design Network's "critical analysis of evolution" standards, overturning the recommendation of their own appointed standards writing committee.
* December 2005. The judge in Kitzmiller declares "intelligent design" unconstitutional, especially the book that introduced ID to the world, the public school biology textbook Of Pandas and People. The judge furthermore notes that various other euphemisms are just as problematic.
* February 2005. The Ohio Board of Education reverses its previous decision and removes the "critical analysis" standard and the attached lesson plan from the curriculum, removing the Discovery Institute's "crown jewel" in their program to mess with education.
* August 2005. The creationists on the Kansas Board of Education lose their majority in the Republican primary, in which the "critical analysis of evolution" standards were the main election issue.
Yup, the country's going to be run over by theocracts with torches and pitch forks aaany day now.
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:15 am
Mmm… one could of course actually argue that the reason why the "theocrats" were repeatedly defeated is precisely because the "chicken littles" raised public awareness about the "coming theocracy".
I personally don't subscribe to the "theocracy risk" rhetoric, but I do so because I know that, when push comes to shove, the majority of people in this country are not bigots and when properly infomed will reject fundamentalism, not because I am deluding myself that many religious fundamentalists and assorted "culture warriors" (who - let's be frank - form the bulk of rank-and-file pro-ID and creationism activists), do not in fact long for a largely theocratic government system (i.e. a reactionary system that puts religion-based law-making above civil liberties).
Comment by Andrea — August 2, 2006 @ 8:15 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:00 am
Krauze:
Actually, it goes deeper than this. As one commentator at PT said, this occurred
Don't forget, Krauze. We were told that we were supposed to become political and officially oppose the standards. I wonder what we are going to have to oppose next in the Post-Wedge World.
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2006 @ 9:00 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:14 am
Hi Andrea,
I didn't say that you guys didn't play any role in this. But let's remember that just a few days ago, the NCSE's Public Information Project Director found it worthwhile to drop in here and urge us to get up on our soapboxes and officially oppose the standards.
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2006 @ 11:14 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:26 am
Krauze:
Indeed. Here it is:
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2006 @ 11:26 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:43 am
Andrea:
How many is many? 10%? 50%? 90%?
I've been following this debate on the Internet for many years and I don't recall any ID proponent longing for "a largely theocratic government system." Why don't you describe what "a largely theocratic government system" would look like.
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2006 @ 11:43 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:56 am
MG: I've been following this debate on the Internet for many years and I don't recall any ID proponent longing for "a largely theocratic government system." Why don't you describe what "a largely theocratic government system" would look like.
Or why not explain what the real fear is?
Comment by Bradford — August 2, 2006 @ 11:56 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:28 pm
A comment from this essay might identify the actual source of theological paranoia:
"His own work has contributed to the destruction of Darwinism, and he seems to be suffering from a condition I call metaphysical panic, resulting from the shaking of a worldview he had always assumed to be unchallengeable. Persons suffering from metaphysical panic tend to lash out in impotent rage while making wildly illogical arguments. I encounter this sad condition regularly."
Comment by Bradford — August 2, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:26 pm
1. Um, Bradford, supportively quoting arrogrant rhetoric about "Darwinists" from Phillip Johnson is not exactly going to help the case that we are living in a "Post-Wedge World".
2. As for Krauze's post, it is very difficult to tell what, exactly, the ID skeptics could do to make him happy. If we don't get concerned about things like Kansas, we don't oppose the actions of ID advocates, and science education becomes bastardized to fit a specific group's narrow theological views. Subverting education is not a full-blown theocracy all by itself, but it is legitimately disturbing.
If we do get concerned and exercise our democratic responsibility to get involved, and science happens to win (this time) because a few thousand votes (literally this was the difference) happened to go the right way, after literally years of hard work by conscientious people in Kansas, then we get accused of being "chicken littles".
So, your position, as far as I can tell what it is, is incoherant.
Comment by Nick Matzke — August 2, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Hi Nick,
"1. Um, Bradford, supportively quoting arrogrant rhetoric about "Darwinists" from Phillip Johnson is not exactly going to help the case that we are living in a "Post-Wedge World"."
The post-wedge world simply means that there is no threat of intelligent design being used to institute a theocracy. Unless you think that someone quoting Phillip Johnson on a blog is going to usher in the theocracy, you've misunderstood the concept.
"If we don't get concerned about things like Kansas, we don't oppose the actions of ID advocates, and science education becomes bastardized to fit a specific group's narrow theological views."
I never said you couldn't get concerned. We all have different issues that push our buttons, and if you choose to direct your attention to keeping science curricula free of nonsense, then bully for you.
On the other hand, it seems to me as if there is a lot of grey area between "not being concerned" and "demanding that everyone else take a stand and denounce the standards".
"Subverting education is not a full-blown theocracy all by itself, but it is legitimately disturbing."
Well, if you're looking for people subverting education, there's plenty to get disturbed about in the public school system. Here, for example, is a book in a Miami school giving a misleading description of life in Fidel Castro's communist paradise. I can certainly sympathize with those parents who, having escaped Cuba, are now compelled to support the purchase of those books with their tax dollars. Yet I don't go around demanding that everyone else take a stand on this.
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Nick,
I'm not sure why you think we are concerned about you being concerned. On this blog, we've shown what it takes to make us happy with some ID skeptics. They don't engage in character assassination, don't impose their stereotypes on us, don't spread or nurture fear-mongering conspiracy theories, and can actually be respectful. Yet they remain full-blooded ID skeptics and earn our respect and our ears.
In contrast, consider your recent "concern," Nick. Even though we applauded the Dover decision, have made it clear that we oppose "˜The Wedge', and there is no evidence that we supported the Kansas science standards, you came in here demanding that we publicly and loudly oppose the Kansas standards, otherwise we had no credibility. Nice litmus test. In essence, you accused us of being liars who were hiding our secret support for some watered-down expression of the Wedge. Is that your idea of "concern," Nick?
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:05 pm
In fact, here is what one KCFS supporter is hoping will succeed instead: KCFS supporter speaking his mind
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 2, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Hi Salvador,
It looks to me as if the poster is just making a joke, poking fun at some of thethreatiness from the ID-friendly community. I think you're only doing your blog a disservice by keeping that post up.
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Krauze,
I'm inclined to believe there is sincerity in his wishes. In any case, I don't want to be a distraction to this thread. Thank you for your hospitality here, so……
Regarding Mike's points, given he knew more about Dominionist and Reconstructionist theology than I did until yesterday, I went an looked up some things last night. It turns out, a lot of reconstructionists consider the movement largely defunct since 1985.
In fact, a key Christian thinker whom dominionists and reconstructionists have supposedly built their cause, actually repudiates reconstructionism and distances himself from dominionism:
The theocracy threat was never there, and even in the most conservative circles, it was frowned on as "a mistake". And even so few of us in reformed and presbyterian circles were exposed to it. I certainly can't recall anything from the pulpits and Bible studies over the years regarding that, and I'm probably as much an insider as anyone posting here!
Salvador
Nancy Pearcey is a Francis Schaeffer scholar. Charles Thaxton was Schaeffer's student, and so was my former pastor. Forrest failed to report the repudiation of reconstructionism by people tied to the Wedge. And if reconstructionism were so widespread, how come in my years in Evangelical churches did I have so little contact with it?
Seems Forrest was dredging up stuff to help sell her book and her cause. My circle all get a good chuckle out of Forrests conspiracty theories.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 2, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Matzke says: 1. Um, Bradford, supportively quoting arrogrant rhetoric about "Darwinists" from Phillip Johnson is not exactly going to help the case that we are living in a "Post-Wedge World".
2. As for Krauze's post, it is very difficult to tell what, exactly, the ID skeptics could do to make him happy. If we don't get concerned about things like Kansas, we don't oppose the actions of ID advocates, and science education becomes bastardized to fit a specific group's narrow theological views. Subverting education is not a full-blown theocracy all by itself, but it is legitimately disturbing.
What specifically do you think would happen to science education if the standard consensus became: there is physical evidence implicating intelligence as a cause of life's origin? Assume that the primary evidence in support of this is the encoded nature of nucleic acids and proteins.
Comment by Bradford — August 2, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:59 pm
Hi Bradford,
Maybe you and Nick could take that discussion in the latest open thread? It's not a topic I intended this thread to explore.
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Looks to me like the Wedge is not dead. Look at this quote by Wesley Elsberry from "Evolution News and Views" over on the DI web site:
"If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement, you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers. Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ's message to the world, but they also have a deep loathing of liars"
Apparently he thinks the wedge will work from his side. Is this what they mean by co-option?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 3, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Hi John,
"Evolution News & Views" have nothing on us. We covered that back in December.
Comment by Krauze — August 3, 2006 @ 12:45 pm