Election ’05 — A mixed bag for the ‘culture war’

November 9, 2005

Yesterday produced four major “culture war” headlines, two on modern science, two on discrimination against gays. The results were split right down the middle.

In Maine, yesterday produced a rare victory against intolerance.

Maine voters on Tuesday upheld a law that gives protection from discrimination to gays and lesbians, a reversal of two previous votes on the issue. With 74 percent of precincts reporting, unofficial results showed Question 1 losing by a 56-44 margin, according to The Associated Press.

The question sought to repeal a law that extends protection from discrimination to gays and lesbians in employment, housing, credit, education and public accommodations. In 1998 and again in 2000, voters rejected laws giving similar protections based on sexual orientation.

Ted O’Meara of Maine Won’t Discriminate said attitudes have changed since the defeat five years ago. “I think tonight has been a very clear and convincing statement about discrimination,” he said. “I think we put this issue to rest now.”

Texas took a far less progressive approach.

Texans voted overwhelmingly to add a prohibition of same-sex marriage to their constitution on Tuesday, becoming the 19th U.S. state to do so.

With about 550,000 votes counted, Proposition 2 was heading for ratification with 75.5 percent in favor.

Ironically, there’s some debate over the language of Texas Prop. 2, and whether it may accidentally ban all marriages, including those of straight couples. Those wacky Texans; what’ll they think of next.

As for modern science, yesterday was also a mixed bag. It was encouraging, for example, to see voters punish intelligent-design creationists in Dover, Pa.

All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy. […]

The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.

“I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about,” said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.

But while the 21st-century took a step forward in Dover, Kansans decided to turn back the clock.

Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. […]

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

I haven’t read the new curriculum yet, but if science isn’t limited to “natural explanations of phenomena,” what, exactly, will science include?

“I haven’t read the new curriculum yet, but if science isn’t limited to “natural explanations of phenomena,” what, exactly, will science include?”

Maybe that could include the supernatural as well. How about ghost-hunting, Ouija-101, dousing…

  • I haven’t read the new curriculum yet, but if science isn’t limited to “natural explanations of phenomena,” what, exactly, will science include?

    It might incude metaphysics. (Although, if so, only by accident: I’m Kansan by birth.) I get embarrassed going back & forth from my astrological texts, rich with detail, loaded with sheer power, to the poverty of what passes for modern intellectual discourse.

    Two concrete examples: Astrometeorology can forecast hurricanes years in advance – the old farmers have been doing that for more than a century. Astrology can also forecast where hurricanes will land, within a hundred miles at worst. When and where. (The reason for nautical almanacs was to enable sailors at sea to predict the weather, by means of astrology. Ever see the boats Columbus sailed in? Even a medium sized storm would sink them, without a trace.) Combine astrometeorology with modern weather forecasting & you have a powerful result. Or would you rather put your faith in FEMA?

    The avain flu. Pandemics have astrological signatures, it is not possible they do not. So I cracked open Cornell’s Encyclopaedia of Medical Astrology (958 pages, two columns per page, 7 point type) & looked up epidemics, page 203. Cornell compiled his book from his own personal experience, combined with astrological research going back 2000 years. The mere compilation took him 15 years. Cornell hasn’t tagged every possible combination of factors that will produce mass sickness & death (which is beyond human ability anyway), but he has an excellent start. For more, you might also consult Richard Saunders (1613-1692), who observed various London plagues first-hand. (Saunders was the inspiration for Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac”.) It would not be unreasonable to ask of an mundane-medical astrologer (I have a couple of candidates in mind) if avian flu will strike, when it will strike, how manypeople might sicken & die and, if comes to pass, who might be at risk & what the best preventatives & cures might be. This is what astrology has on offer.

    These discredited tools, in the hands of reasonably trained people, can forecast death, disease, destruction & far more. I think my fellow countrymen are fools (I no longer live among them, at any rate), but underlying the foolishness is an increasing disgust & distrust of what passes for “science”. Kansans are not stupid. We ignore them at our peril.

  • Apparently, science teachers and students must now consider “non-natural” explanations for evolution and any other natural phenonmenon. I’m taking that to mean that many things can simply be explained as the work of God.

    I haven’t read the entire standard, but this caught my eye:

    “Science studies natural phenomena by formulating explanations that can be tested against the natural world. Some scientific concepts and theories (e.g., blood transfusion, human sexuality, nervous system role in consciousness, cosmological and biological evolution, etc.) may differ from the teachings of a student’s religious community or their cultural beliefs. Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal of education. Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically.”

    Really? So if I believe otherwise, 1+1 no longer equals 2 because you can’t force me to believe it. School would have been a whole lot for me easier under this standard.

    Kansas schools, at least in suburban Kansas City, were considered top-notch before the school board began monkeying with science standards and parents started demanding certain books be banned from the curriculum. As a parent, I’d think twice about sending my daughter to a Kansas public school now.

  • The City of San Francisco passed a ballot measure that bans the sale and manufacutre of all firearms in the city and makes it illegal for city residents to keep handguns in their businesses or in their homes. All current handgun owners are required to turn in their handguns by April.

    I’m not an NRA advocate, and I’m not a conservative or a Republican. But I am a responsible gun owner and know many other responsible gun owners. How is this a good thing? How is this going to make me or anyone else safer? I used to love San Francisco, but if I lived there I don’t think I’d be lining up by April to surrender my handgun.

  • “In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.”

    Does anyone have a link to this?
    This is the real bombshell. This
    goes much further than evolution
    or ID. So what’s next, God gave
    us finite dimensional vector
    spaces and non Euclidean
    geometry?

  • Astrometeorology can forecast hurricanes years in advance

    In the sense of “There will be hurricanes next year”, sure. Not in any meaningful or useful way.

    Astrology can also forecast where hurricanes will land, within a hundred miles at worst.

    No it can’t.

    The reason for nautical almanacs was to enable sailors at sea to predict the weather, by means of astrology.

    No. Sailors didn’t use astrology. They used the position of the stars to calculate their latitude. (Longitude was trickier, and relied on accurate clocks, which came much later.)

    They couldn’t predict any weather pattern shorter than a season. Trade winds, yes. Storms, not a chance.

    Even a medium sized storm would sink them, without a trace.

    Not true. A large storm would sink such ships, and large storms often did sink such ships. The fate of the Spanish Armada disproves your thesis.

    Combine astrometeorology with modern weather forecasting & you have a powerful result.

    True, but if you combine half a grapefruit with modern weather forecasting you have a powerful result. Astrometeorology’s contribution is entirely negative.

    Pandemics have astrological signatures, it is not possible they do not.

    What do you mean by “astrological signatures”? Astrology is so full of nonsense that you can assign some mark of disaster to any date. Of course, astronomers prefer to do this after the disaster has happened.

    These discredited tools, in the hands of reasonably trained people, can forecast death, disease, destruction & far more.

    Yes, and so they do. And so can I with a deck of cards or a dartboard. The only problem is that none of these methods work any better than random chance.

    Any astrologer who can consistently and measurably outperfom chance has a million dollars waiting for them.

    Kansans are not stupid.

    At least six of them are.

  • Pixy, did you notice the name attached to the post on astrometeorology? I think it’s no coincidence that it rhymes with “droll”. Never wrestle with pigs.

    • Comments are closed.