NYT: Kansas Debate Challenges Science Itself

[mcscajun]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of ''intelligent design'' are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as ''a systematic method of continuing investigation,'' without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

(snip)

''It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world,'' said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.

(snip)

''In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science,'' said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. ''They want to rewrite the rules of science.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Kansas-Evolu...

[Zynx]

1. Is it possible to expel a state?

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. And where do you propose

we Kansans go?

[Toots]

35. To the polls and vote the Conservative idiots out

How is it that such ignorance is allowed on the school board of all places. It appears obvious that a majority of of folks want these folks teaching their kids or at least supervising the teachers which is almost the same thing. Vote Kansas back to the twenty first century or be ridiculed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. Well I sure didn't vote for any of these yahoos

My favorite board member is the one who admitted she hadn't even read the entire proposal. Sounds like a Stepford koolaid drinker.

[atommom]

55. I'm guessing any Kansans who frequent DU already did vote against

the conservative idiots! We obviously need to keep working on the rest of the state, though.

[atommom]

7. You'd have to expel a lot more states than you might think

to get rid of the ID debate. There are people pushing this agenda in many states right now.

Personally, I'm embarrassed by the whole thing. Those of us who are not religious zealots aren't getting much press, but we are here trying to fight the conservative agenda.

[mcscajun]

19. More power to you, and keep up the fight!

We know it's not all Kansans, but you guys are certainly having a rough time out there.

[Roland99]

2. And Kansas happens to be sitting where??

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2005/05/15/niob... /

[mcscajun]

3. Interesting link you've got there...

...I wonder if ANYone involved in the Great Silly Debate in Kansas has ever seen it, or would believe anything in it if they did. :sigh:

[Roland99]

5. Maybe it's where the Jesus Fish came from.

[atommom]

8. That's one reason we have so many good paleontologists here

(all of them being rather pissed at the moment)!

http://www.oceansofkansas.com/

[Scout1071]

45. Somewhat related, but this is where the term "Rock Chalk Jayhawk"

has it's origins. The University of Kansas, located in a BLUE county, is built on a limestone hill...hence the term "Rock Chalk."

[XemaSab]

50. "The University of Kansas, located in a BLUE county"

what an amazing coincidence....

has anyone ever done a study on the correlation between being educated and being a Democrat?

or being uneducated and being a fundie sheep?

I wonder if I could get a grant...

[daleo]

4. If they want to redefine science, let's redefine religion

Let's see some hard scientific evidence of:
- the existence of God.
- the divinity of Christ.
- the existence of heaven/hell.
- scientific basis for church tax exemptions.
- and so forth.

Otherwise, let's keep scientific and religious speculations in their separate domains, where they belong.

[eallen]

9. Strangely, IDers have it as much right on this point as their critics.

The distinction between natural and supernatural is poorly defined, and often as not is used simply as a rhetorical shield by believers in ghosts and gods to defend from scientific investigation their favored beasties. There's nothing about science that needs to qualify ahead of time what answers it will uncover. ID is crap, not because it proposes to find evidence of a god, but because its arguments are hollow and its evidence is contrived.

[K-W]

11. It is not poorly defined at all.

Just poorly understood by far too many people.

ID'rs arent at all right and thier critics are right, im really not sure what you aer trying to argue here.

[eallen]

12. Really? Let's hear your definition.

[K-W]

13. A dictionary should be able to clear up your confusion.

The words have clearly defined meanings and always have.

[eallen]

16. The dictionary makes my point quite well.

Here's some of my dictionary's list of definitions of "natural," that might seem relevant to the definition of science:

"being in accordance with or determined by nature"

"having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature"

"of or relating to nature as an object of study"

"occuring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature: not marvelous or supernatural"

OK, so what is nature? Here are some of the dictionary's definitions of that:

"a creative and controlling force in the universe"

"an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual"

"the external world in its entirety"

Hmmm. Not terribly useful. So here's the sixty-four dollar question: what subject is excluded from scientific investigation when one defines science as restricted to "natural" topics? The internal world? Is all psychology excluded? The supernatural? Well, yeah. But how is that defined, except by reference to nature. And if nature is "the external world in its entirety," how does that exclude ghosts and goblins and gods and things that go bump in the night?

Of course, one way to qualify the supernatural is to say it is those things that are beyond empirical evidence. Since science relies on empirical evidence, such things -- if any such exist -- are indeed beyond its realm. This is a slick move for anyone who wants to believe in gods or ghosts, because when a critic points out the lack of evidence, they can respond, "Of course. What else would you expect?" As the Church Lady would say, how conve-e-enient.

Science is a process, and needs to be defined in that fashion, not by restricting it to some set of "valid" topics. As a process, science does indeed require empirical evidence. But who can predict of what we'll find such evidence? Fairies aren't beyond the study of science because they are fairies, and are unnatural. Fairies are beyond the study of science because there is (so far) no empirical evidence of them.

[K-W]

24. No subject is excluded from sceintific investigation.

"Fairies aren't beyond the study of science because they are fairies, and are unnatural. Fairies are beyond the study of science because there is (so far) no empirical evidence of them."

Fairies arent beyond the study of science. That is simply a claim made by those people who wish to believe in the existance of fairies where science clearly shows they do not exist. They are unnatural because as of now, they have yet to be shown to exist. If we find a fairy some day, science will indicate that fairies do exist and they will cease to be unnatural.

Because there is no empirical evidence, science tells us there is no reason to believe in thier existance. Unnatural things dont exist according to science.

[eallen]

25. So, let's not define science as having restricted subject matter.

"Because there is no empirical evidence, science tells us there is no reason to believe in thier existance. Unnatural things dont exist according to science."

I hope you realize that your second sentence doesn't follow from the first? There is a large difference between "no reason to believe existent" and "reason to believe non-existent." Until they were recently discovered, there was no reason (or at least, very little) for western scientists to think a new family of rodent existed in southeast Asia. (The locals knew the rodent existed, of course, but didn't know how important it was to zoology.) That's quite different from the greatest prime number, which we know doesn't exist, and never will be discovered.

[K-W]

30. Things do not exist until proven to not exist.

One need not prove that anything does not exist. There is either evidence of its existance or there isnt. If there is not evidence of somethings existance, we say it does not exist. Until that rat species was descovered, it did not, to our knowledge, exist.

Math is an entirely different story, I can hope you can see the limitations of comparing a rat and the greatest prime number.

What you are missing is the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on someone to prove the existance of something, not on others to disprove it. Until that burden is met, that thing does not exist to the best of our knowledge, which is as definitively as we can state anything.

[eallen]

33. Burden of proof, language, and logic

"One need not prove that anything does not exist. There is either evidence of its existance or there isnt. If there is not evidence of somethings existance, we say it does not exist."

Things aren't nearly that simple. There might be evidence that something doesn't exist, e.g., a failed search that should have uncovered it had it existed, or proof that its qualities are inconsistent with other things we know.

"Until that burden is met, that thing does not exist to the best of our knowledge, which is as definitively as we can state anything."

English is a wonderful language. It is quite capable of distinguishing between "does not exist" and "does not exist to the best of our knowledge." There are many other refinements of phrase that might be appropriate to various claims. "Proven not to exist." "Proven incompatible with Y, for which we have very strong evidence." "If existing, then having quality Z, which should guide future searchers." And even, "simply the product of myth and religion."

These distinctions are important. Many people who haven't studied much science or logic seem to think that some sort of closed-world assumption can be applied, i.e., that every sensible yes-no question should be given a current answer, and that there is some smart way to choose the default answer when current knowledge doesn't otherwise supply it. This would erase the background knowledge that plays into the question. Even ignoring empirical issues, once you have mathematical systems strong enough, you run into issues of completeness. A closed world assumption makes sense for blocksworld or Euclidean geometry, but not for more complex worlds. Including our own.

[Zynx]

15. Supernatural = violating known scientific laws

It's impossible to square the overwhelming majority of supernatural stuff, be it myths, the Bible or X-Files with the First Law of Thermodynamics.

If you get some supernatural thing that doesn't involve pulling matter and/or energy out of thin air, that may be worth looking at.

[eallen]

17. When scientists find break from known scientific law, they change the law.

Scientific law isn't revealed truth that tells what is worth studying. Just the opposite! It is the result of studying the world about us. When scientists find something that violate "known scientific laws," they don't ignore that something or put it out of their scope. Instead, they change the law.

The reason fairies are not scientifically studied is not because they are able to live indefinitely without sustenance, thus violating the first law of thermodynamics. Rather, it's because we don't have any empirical evidence of them. If that were to change tomorrow, and fairies were suddenly apparent, scientists would waste no time studying them. If it turned out that they violated the first law of thermodynamics, scientists wouldn't therefore ignore the new phenomena, but instead would figure out how to revise that law.

[Zynx]

27. No, scientists don't change scientific laws. They change theories

For something to be considered a scientific law, it already has to be proven to a point of "A = B." They're not easily revised because of the implications and science doesn't tend to listen at all to things that overtly violate them.

Saying the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong is like saying the laws of relativity are wrong or the laws of gravity are wrong. It has really huge, gigantic implications, which is why something that appears to violate them is usually dismissed out of hand.

You'd need extremely strong evidence to point to something as an example of one of these being wrong.

~~

As far as fairies, the hypothesis "Fairies do exist" is not scientific because it isn't falsifiable. You cannot prove a negative.

"Fairies do not exist" is more scientific and can be falsified. Catch one. This is referred to variously as the "vampire rule" or the "Invisible Snorg Hypothesis" or the "Yeti principle."

~~

But baring extraordinary evidence, such as discovering something that can morph and gain mass from nothing, scientists conduct inquiry along the path of known physical laws that have been proven. They are rightly skeptical of claims that make no sense in this context.

Once again, this is why science has little use for supernatural BS.

[eallen]

28. I have little use for supernatural BS.

I'm not sure quite what to say of someone who claims -- in the same post! -- both (1) "that you cannot prove a negative," and (2) that it is a proven(!), scientific law that closed thermodynamic systems whose mass-energy changes do not exist. That last is both the first law of thermodynamics, and a negative existential statement. Of course, you didn't say it was "proven," but only "proven to the point of 'A=B'." I'm not sure what point that is, since A and B are quite different.

I also don't understand this notion that there is all that huge a chasm between scientific theory and scientific law. If I were forced to choose whether I placed more confidence in QM, a "mere" theory, or the conservation of mass-energy, a "law," I think I'd give the nod to QM. To tell the truth, though, of the many hours I have spent listening to professional physicists discuss physics questions, the issue of what counted as theory and what counted as law never once came up. Funny that.

Somewhere after Maxwell, and especially after Einstein dethroned classical mechanics, I suspect quite a few physicists would have said that the principle of local reality was a scientific law, i.e., that there is no unmediated action at a distance, and that things have a definite state before they are observed. Then Bell showed in theory that QM is incompatible with local reality, and Aspect pinned it down in experiment. Physicists are quite fond of discussing the theory behind this, to what degree the experiments ground it, and the implications of it. But I've never heard one who was concerned that QM, a mere theory, proved so potent a crusher of scientific "law."

[K-W]

31. "Fairies do exist" is indeed a scientific claim.

It is just thusfar unsupported.

[XemaSab]

53. "Fairies don't exist"

is the null hypothesis.

So far all the research has failed to reject the null hypothesis.

[realcountrymusic]

22. well said

Why is it that people cannot accept the reasonable answer "we have no freaking idea why?"

Once that has been established, can we then return to looking at facts in as unbiased a manner as possible in order to establish plausible explanations thereof, refute existing hypotheses, and refine our sense of the mystery of the universe? It's not that I don't care where it all started, but I'm humble enough to realize that this may not be knowable by minds as puny as ours.

In the meantime, evolution by natural selection is the most plausible and elegant explanation for the observed facts. We have observed it occurring. And if it's some intelligent mind's design, prove it.

The problem is the average American has such a pathetic scientific education that s/he will believe the best told tale. And there's a good reason the powers that be would like to keep it that way. Seriously, the most radical thing you can do in this world is make sure every kid you can influence has a basic scientific education.

Radicalize your kid. Explain the concept of a recessive trait; show her how statistics are used to solve everyday problems; teach her to program a computer instead of how to play stupid flash games on the disney site . . .

RCM

[struggle4progress]

38. The distinction between natural and supernatural is not "poorly defined"

[eallen]

46. Sigh. That's what KW said above.

We're still lacking a good definition of it, that doesn't circularly depend on science. But give it a shot, if you want.

[struggle4progress]

51. Natural phenomena are phenomena subject to "natural law" and

amenable to study by the method called "natural philosophy." The tools of natural philosophy are direct observation, with special emphasis on measurement (using tools such as yardsticks, teaspoons, and hourglasses -- or their more sophisticated cousins), and the "philosophical" side of natural philosophy is the effort to construct a computational theory, which can be used to predict effects correctly.

While it is true that not all of the "natural sciences" have attained the computational clarity and precision of modern physics or chemistry, the objective of the enterprise remains as I have described above, as you can see clearly in the gradual development of geology or biology into predictive quantitative sciences.

If "intelligent design" belongs to the "natural sciences," then the subject would study issues such as the size and shape of the designer and whether the designer were paramagnetic or diamagnetic, the exact manner and method of the design, the dates at which the design occurred and at which prototypes were built, the materials used to build prototypes, the scrap materials left over from the design activities and the building of prototypes, and other issues to which the measurement techniques of natural sciences could be applied. The origin of the designer, the species to which the designer belonged, its elemental composition, its reproductive habits, its history and culture of that species, as determined by its records, would all be suitable subjects of scientific inquiry.

On the other hand, a purely abstract argument for the existence of some unknown designer, which does not tend towards a computational theory and which is not based on "what, where, when, how" observations and cannot begin to address "what, where, when, how" questions is unlikely to be a natural theory. When there is no information about (say) the shape of, or size of, or electric charge of, the putative designer, we should begin to suspect the "intelligent design" argument is not a scientific argument.

There's a serious misunderstanding that lies behind all these endless debates. People who want to treat "intelligent design" and "evolution" as "alternatives" to "evolution" are not only intellectually immature, they are guilty of a sort of blasphemy. There's nothing wrong with "intelligent design" as an abstract philosophical argument, although perhaps it's really not a very interesting argument. Evolution is currently the best available scientific theory describing the biological world -- though we should all realize that scientific theories improve only by being constantly criticized and rebuilt, so that a living "science" cannot provide static articles of faith. It's simply idiotic to think that science could prove or disprove a religious thesis.

[TahitiNut]

10. When you START with the notion that Man was the sole objective of Creation

... (and everything else is mere 'supporting cast') you are required to reject the notion that mankind is evolving and the transient result of that evolution won't look (or act) like us in the (distant) future. Such a notion just isn't tolerable to the homo-narcissists who view themselves as the pinnacle of Creation.

[yellowcanine]

14. WP did a big old puff piece on Phillip Johnson (ID proponent)

this weekend. Didn't bother to point out his habit of misquoting real scientists and the fact that he has almost no scientific training himself and little understanding about how science works (Johnson's field is law).

On edit: link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[triguy46]

18. Yes, they challenge science

and declare themselves the winner, pat each other on the back and a 500 year leap backward. I guess theologian Newton was uninformed in such things as the scientific method, how remarkedly flawed it was. What a bunch of dorks.

[hatrack]

20. Holding a public debate to determine the validity of evolutionary theory

Yeah, right, OK.

It's kind of like deciding the World Series by having a contest to see which manager can hold his breath the longest, or awarding the Nobel Prize in Literature based on the results of the Sunny Acres Rest Home canasta tournament.

[drduffy]

21. I suggest the above debaters

look up words such as:
empirical
operationalism
falsification
hypothetico-deductive method
causality
epistemic requirements for explanations

I'm a little dated now since I did grad work in phil of science at Kent State in the late 60's/early 70's but I think most of it still applies.

Also see Ernest Nagel, The Structure of Science - Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation; Richard Braithwaite, Scientific Explanation, A Study of the Function of Theory, Probability and Law in Science.
--these may be a bit dated but they clearly exclude religion from being amenable to scientific examination.

and you'll find out why theism is not and cannot be science. It is simply belief.
And if we place the bible under the microscope of science we'll find it is simply a book. With some nice and some awfully crappy passages. And IMO, mostly without merit.
rw

[eallen]

26. I suggest you go back and reread those texts.

There is nothing about science that prevents it in principle from studying the gods. The only problem is a factual one: the gods, if any there are, keep themselves hidden from view. Or at least, so they have done where and since more scientific approaches have been undertaken.

If, tomorrow, Athena comes down from Olympus to give an interview to Diane Sawyer, Odin shows up on the White House lawn, and fairies start gamboling visibly in our backyards, scientists will start studying them. They will define terminology, propose theories, run experiments, refute some hypotheses while refining others, and do things along the lines that Popper, Kempel, Quine, et al described.

I will say it again. Science is a process. There is no subject matter that is a priori outside its purview of study. There are subjects for which there is a dearth of empirical evidence. There is no evidence that gods, fairies, and goblins exist. Absent evidence, there's not much to say about them. That's not because they are in principle off limits to scientific investigation, but for the more pedestrian reason that there is no evidence.

[K-W]

32. Theism is not science because it is irrational.

It is a rejection of science as the only rational way to obtain knowledge and an acceptance of at least one other method of obtaining knowledge as valid.

It isnt that science does not deal with it, it is that science rejects it as invalid on its face as a way of obtaining knowledge.

[drduffy]

34. Perhaps you should go back and review

No, I am not wrong. sorry. It depends upon what definition of god you wish to use. If you are talking about fairies and Odin and the like, then the argument is trivial because if they show up as material beings, capable of being quantified in some way, then they are simply objects or entities...perhaps with great powers, but simply entities. God is not the anthropomorphic guy in a white robe sitting on a throne somewhere passing down edicts and judgments.
Throughout the history of theology, GOD, has been variously defined as spirit, immaterial, without form or substance, ineffable (in principle unknowable by the finite mind), infinite (again, unknowable by the finite mind). He, she, it has also been defined with the following terms: “God is worthy of worship. He is Devine Perfection’; God is omnipotent (all powerful); God is omniscient (all knowing); God is omnibenevolent (all-loving); God is Incorporeal (mind without body); God is absolutely and perfectly free; God is Eternal (timeless vs everlasting); God is transcendent..and contradictorily, Immanent; God is Love; and the list goes on.
When God is defined as incorporeal (not matter), immaterial, spirit, ineffable (not knowable) and so on, then God is, a priori unable to examined by science which is empirical, relies upon measurement of the material (or operations purportedly reducible to material measurement). An immaterial or ineffable God cannot be known in the realm of science - because science does not deal with those sorts of ‘things’ that cannot be known given its reliance upon the empirical. The theories and knowledge of science does grow. This is a process, that is true. Paradigms shift, operations become more abstruce. But the requirements of science do not change. Theories must be falsifiable in principle. That which constitutes evidence must be, in essence, provable by demonstration. Demonstrations must be repeatable. Constructs (as in psychology, the construct ‘motivation’) need to be operationalizable, in some way related to measurable behaviors or actions to obtain meaning.
The other definitions of God noted above....infinite, ominiscient, eternal, transcendent, timeless, ‘absolutely and perfectly free’, again are, by definition, unknowable by finite science. And to say, for example, that ‘absolute perfection’ or ‘infinite’ may in some way, some day, somehow, be definable and provable by science simply because it does not involve a logical contradiction and is therefore not absurd … AND is therefore not to be excluded on a priori reasons...is 1) a trivial claim, 2) would require the measurer (scientist) to also be absolutely perfect, divine or infinite herself or himself. So, in other words, we have to BE God in order to prove God.
Now, I happen to be partial to mysticism etc. and believe one can ‘know’ God in the way a finite being tries to apprehend the infinite. But I don’t pretend that that is science. Go back and read some more.
rw

[eallen]

48. I agree partly...

That any notion that is contradictorily defined, or defined in a fashion so as to be inaccessible, is not subject to any kind of rational investigation. But now you're not discussing theologians and their irrationality, not gods and ghosts and goblins. There is an important difference between saying "science can't study what theologians write about, because we can't even make heads or tails of it," and saying that gods are a priori off the table.

[drduffy]

49. actually eallen

I really am inclined to mysticism and....I have long believed that any God that you can conceive is by definition not God. (I know this is a little digression). I believe that God is ineffable. Thinking that you know what god is or thinking you know what god looks like is, to me, a kind of mental idolatry. That is why it galls me when christian fundies express such certainty that They and only They know what god is and the rest of us are guilty of apostasy. What cretins!

OH, and perhaps I misunderstood the discussion. I would never never take priests, theologians, their idiocy (often)/irrationality,or 'gods', ghosts and goblins off the table. Except I have known some pretty sophisticated theologians (typically Episcopalians) and I am very impressed with Dr. David R. Griffin (stating the obvious: 'The New Pearl Harbor...')

oh and btw, I did very much like Willard Quine. But it has been thirty years.
cordially,
rw

[kodi]

42. add to the list Richard Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law."

i read Braithwaite's text years ago when i was in grad school....oddly enough, about the same time i was reading a lot of carlos castendas.

[kodi]

43. add to the list Richard Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law."

i read Braithwaite's text years ago when i was in grad school....oddly enough, about the same time i was reading a lot of carlos castendas.

[damntexdem]

23. That has been ID's intent all along.

That redefinition was in the 1999 Creationist standards that made Kansas a laughing stock. Those dogs can't learn any new tricks.

[Zhade]

29. In other words, a bible study plan is now "science".

The sheer arrogance and hubris (not to mention bliding stupidity) of these people is almost unbelievable.

[kodi]

36. The reality the Religious Right is not open to objective analysis

"The framework of reality from the Religious Right is not open to objective analysis."

"Religionists are demanding that secularists prove why it is necessary to keep religion out of secular society when it is really the case that the religionist have to show why it is necessary for it to be included.

"This push to codify religious doctrines (dogmas) into law is a response from some religious minded people to the disinclination of civil society itself to incorporate the incomprehensible "mysteries of faith" along with the comprehensible (materialism/rationalism) as necessary constituents of the world.

"And you know what happens next?

"When secularists demand to know from the religionists why the latter's incomprehensible religious "mysterious of faith" are necessary for secular society, the latter call the former "anti-religionist bigots."

The rest is linked here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/5/133840/3782

yeap, that's mine.

[drduffy]

39. nice article

nicely done, not that I am any judge. I have to admit that I just despise the evangelical fundamental religious right. Their arrogance is overwhelming. Their subjective certainty (a la Wittgenstein) is so great that, along with their arrogance, the feel the need to shove their bullshit down every body else's throats. And THAT pisses me off. If any of you recall Jacob Brownoski's Ascent of Man years ago, he stated that the true evil of the Nazis was their arrogance. Their insistence that they were right. And that then allowed them to murder millions of Jews, Gypsies, disabled persons and so on. The neocon facsist nazi brigade (per AAR) ....God I hate these people. (per Mike Malloy)

[kodi]

40. i remember where he stood as he spoke it, in ashen mud outside auschwitz

he stood ankle deep in the ash that was once a million people who were executed because their murderers were certain of their views. he picked up a handfull of that awful sludge and explained that this was what can happen when people are so absolutely certain they are right.

i have never forgotten how that affected me. several of my childhod friends have parents who survived those camps.

knowledge versus certainty is the battle humanity will fight long after people forget our names.

all we can do is try to build a world where it will be easier to be good.

[atommom]

41. Nice article! It's a scary situation.

I wouldn't be surprised if we're headed for a very unpleasant showdown.

[drduffy]

52. the fundies have said

that it is war against us. So if it war they want, at least from me, it is war they will get.
(sometimes my very great pissed-offedness overwhelms me.)

but i guess we have to keep in mind that there are a great many liberal, or at least fair, religious folks in this country who are in agreement with us. And who are also fighting the fundies of the far right.

[Scout1071]

44. This Kansan could not be more embarrassed for my state.

Utterly embarrassing.

As a side note, I've always found it humorous that Topeka's zip code is 666__.

[atommom]

47. I agree about the zip code. I know some great people in Topeka,

but the zip code still seems appropriate sometimes, for our legislature and other assorted wingnuts.

[drduffy]

54. ah Wichita...

did my clinical internship there at St. Joes and the VA. There was a great strip tease bar in South Wichita. Clearly all Kansans are not fundies. Well, maybe some are fundies slumming about.

btw on new scrolls analyzed they've determined the real number of the beast is 619. Not nearly so compelling as 666.

[atommom]

56. 619? Whose zip code is THAT?

[Fire Walk With Me]

57. Can't we just take the reddest state

...collect donations to support blue voters to move to the US destination of their choice, and allow all seriously-minded red types to seal the border and do all of the "now it's just us" celebrating they wish, so long as they stay within those borders?

If they had their own place, would they stop trying to force the rest of us out of ours?

[mcscajun]

58. "If they had their own place, would they stop trying...

...to force the rest of us out of ours?"

Extremely Doubtful. They won't be happy until the Inquisition returns.

[Fire Walk With Me]

59. Should I feel bad about being tolerant enough to live alongside

people like this, and to not need to exclude anyone (until force and true belligerence make themselves inescapable)?

I mean, I've got something they don't.. The ability to disagree with them, yet not have a problem with their mindset (until they try to force it upon me). Are they jealous of this, or do they not understand it?

I'm being facetious. I know that they can't be happy until they're the only ones left, which means that they're right.