CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS
I believe the proper spelling of this is, "Fuhgeddaboudit".
Thanks, I didn't know there was a proper spelling!
Regarding my claim that the liklihood of my correspondent being "the greatest mathematician of all time" was comparable to encountering a particle in the vacuum of space, I stand corrected on this observation of the not so vacuous nature of space (although this fellow's brain appears to be anyway), a reader sent me this:
According to
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,120717+1,00.html
"This apparent unimaginable void of space, however, is not empty. Throughout these vast reaches, matter (largely hydrogen) is scattered at the extremely low density of perhaps 100 particles per cubic centimetre in interplanetary space and 10 particles per cubic centimetre in interstellar space."
The immaculate conception was Mary's conception, not Jesus's... the Catholics felt that she had to be free of original sin so as not to pass it on to Jesus. (Though if she could be immaculately conceived, why couldn't Jesus also?)
FYI, this is a terrible misrepresentation of how it is usually done among 'traditional' polygamists. (The acts of the families that are covering up child abuse by calling it polygamy is a different story entirely, and is also far from uncommon.) I know a primary researcher on polygamy (Irwin Altman, University of Utah; he's not polygamous or in any way Mormon, nor am I) and he paints a very different picture. While there is great variablity in how wives are selected, this is one of the more common procedures that Dr. Altman outlined in a presentation on the matter some years back, and is found in his book on the topic cited below.
1) The church leadership (keeping in mind that even traditional polygamists are not part of the mainstream LDS church, but are renegade offshoots) decides that a particular man is worthy of another wife. The man's social standing, religious standing, financial standing are all components of this decision. But, it is not uncommon for polygamous families to be nearly destitute and on public assistance.
2) The existing wives decide who to bring into the family. It is not strictly the man's decision because this will be an addition to not only his life but to the existing wives' lives also. Often the subsequent wives are sisters or other relations to the first wife. Parents of the prospective wife or other elder family members may be part of the decision making.
3) Dating doesn't always occur in the cases where a church prophet simply mandates a marriage will take place. But it does occur in less restrictive groups and often includes not only the man but also his wives and other family members. Any of these have the power to veto the prospective marriage.
4) If the dates go well and all the existing wives agree with the marriage going forward, the wedding takes place and the new couple leave for a very subdued honeymoon.
Notice that in traditional polygamy, the families are very much involved in the choice. While the LDS theology is unambiguously patriarchical, this particular aspect of it, once approved by the male church leadership, is completely in the hands of the women.
An excellent reference for polygamy is Irwin Altman and Joseph Ginat's (University of Haifa) book, Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
In limited defense of 19th-century polygamy: these were times when, other than prostitution and domestic service, there were virtually no jobs for women. Among the pioneers who went to Utah (I'm thinking especially of emigrants from England and Denmark) women outnumbered the men. Most of these people were very poor and many of the girls were teenagers. There most definitely were instances of young women being saved from destitution by entering into plural marriage. Most plural marriages were with rather affluent men. (Who else could afford multiple wives?!!) It is estimated that only perhaps 5% (and some say fewer than that) of the men in Utah had plural wives, before it was banned by the Edmonds Act around 1890.
Besides saving some women from destitution, having two women in the same household provided COMPANY for farm wives that the women farther east on the prairies lacked. They had enough problems surviving in early Utah without being all alone for weeks while Pa went huntin' fer deer to feed his brood or up a canyon to cut logs.
Finally, it is also known that in certain instances of polygamy, particularly when a very affluent man would have a WHOLE LOT of wives, he didn't even have sex with some of them. He just took care of them. (Of course, he still had sex with a BUNCH!)
When you're part of a group which is determined to develop a land into farming communities for families, what better way to get a jump start on the population necessary to raise the food than for some of the men to produce a gazillion kids! Consider that it was the stronger and more successful men who had most of this progeny. Genetically, maybe it made sense, too.
I have known quite a few people whose ancestors lived in plural marriage. Some marriages evidently worked quite well; others were not so great. I do know that some very smart men have more descendants than they would have it they'd only had one woman.
But 20th century polygamy? That's a lot of horny old fanatics!! I don't think any self-respecting woman would let herself in for that. The need for it is passed; the LDS church has changed the rules. It's illegal. (Although according to their belief, a man can have multiple wives in the afterlife.)
In my defense of all of the above clarifications and corrections, please remember that this hotline posts are a form of VERY casual social commentary and, occasionally, social satire. I am very aware of the cultural complexities of polygamy and was only trying to have a little fun by imagining what would happen if I yanked the idea out of its cultural context and dropped it into my own. How would MY wife react? Ah! Of course, were she and I raised in that environment it probably wouldn't seem THAT ridiculous.
One more point: As most of you know who have read my books, I generally do try to follow Spinoza's dictim: "I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." Of course, the counter to this, what I'll here call Gardner's Guide (to the perplexed), is: "One good horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms." I don't know if Martin created this or just quoted it, but it is true in some cases and appropriate for certain venues. I think the internet lends itself to more casual commentary. No ridicule, bewailing, or scorning intended.
Kansas Citizens For Science
"Bringing the Enlightenment Back to Kansas"
Who are Kansas Citizens For Science?
We are a growing group of educators, parents, scientists and other Kansans who are concerned with raising the quality of science education in our state.
How did Kansas Citizens For Science get Started? The formation of this group was triggered by the Kansas State Board of Education's (SBOE) recent adoption of public school science standards that remove key aspects of the theory of evolution, a cornerstone of modern biology, and other critical standards such as the big bang theory and the geologic time-scale, from the concepts on which students will be tested.
What's so important about that?
Against the recommendations of science and curriculum experts, including the National Science Foundation, the SBOE rejected standards developed by a 27-member writing committee composed of educators and scientists. The "religious right social conservatives" on the SBOE essentially gutted the writing committee's recommendation and created a document that accommodates a narrow fundamentalist religious belief. In their version, scientific principles have taken a back seat to religious and political ideology. This action challenges the Constitutional separation of church and state, and deprives the children of Kansas of a quality science program.
What do Kansas Citizens For Science intend to do?
Our children's science education should not be dictated by religious or political agendas. We are committed to seeing the State Board's "substandards" for science education overturned and a scientifically sound set of standards instituted. We also are committed to educating the public about this issue, so this kind of threat to quality education can never happen again.
What can I do to help Kansas Citizens For Science? Join our statewide citizen network. We are in the process of building this Website where we will be able to keep members informed of activities and news, and where members can send ideas and news to us. The site also will include FAQs about science, links, and other resources for parents, teachers and students interested in good science education. We are also pursuing public education opportunities, bringing in nationally recognized speakers, and much more. Check out Up-coming events
Okay, how do I join KCFS? Please give us your name, address, phone number(s) and e-mail address. We will contact you soon with membership information. In the meantime, bookmark this page and return periodically as this site continues to develop more content.
Thank you for your interest and your dedication to sound science education and the future of our children and our state. There is much to be done, and YOU can make a difference! Together, WE can turn the tide.
E-mail: kcfs@kcfs.org
By KATE BEEM - The Kansas City Star
Date: 11/06/99 22:15
Kansans overwhelmingly say they believe in God, but a majority also thinks evolution should be taught in public schools, according to a Kansas City Star-Wichita Eagle poll.
Fifty-two percent of those polled said they disagreed with the Kansas Board of Education's August decision to adopt science standards that played down evolution -- the theory that living things share common ancestors but have changed over time. The standards are guidelines for what public school students in the state should learn and be tested on.
Thirty-two percent said they strongly or somewhat agreed with the board's decision; the rest were neutral or unsure.
The poll was conducted Oct. 22-26 by The Star's marketing research department, which questioned 604 Kansans by telephone. The poll has a margin of error of four percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level. That means that if the study were repeated 20 times, the results would be within four percentage points 19 of the 20 times.
Mirroring results from a nationwide Gallup Poll released in August, the survey showed that 45 percent of the Kansans polled believe that God created humans as they are within the last 10,000 years, contrary to evolutionary theory. (Forty-nine percent said they believed humans evolved, with the vast majority of those saying God guided the process.)
But 81 percent of respondents said they thought dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, and 65 percent said they thought fossils indicated that some sea creatures had developed into land animals. Both statements reflect the consensus of proponents of evolution.
Those answers are not surprising, given how religious Kansans say they are, said Mark Frankel of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a group of more than 148,000 scientists. The group has criticized the Kansas board for its action on evolution.
Still, the poll shows that while Kansans believe God had a role in human development, a majority accepts that evolution is an important concept in science, Frankel said.
The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and the results show that, said Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist who has written books and articles on evolution.
"Whatever position they have about God, that certainly shouldn't in any sense impact their view about evolution," Gould said.
John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, said the poll responses clarified what he and others had been saying since August: Most people do not understand exactly what the Kansas board did or why.
Morris, a geologist, speculated that numbers showing Kansans disagreeing with the state board might indicate that people failed to understand the action the board took -- thinking that the state board banned the teaching of evolution or mandated that creationism be taught in public schools.
Neither is true. The board's 6-4 vote leaves the decision on whether to teach macroevolution -- change from one species to another -- to local school districts, and it takes the theory out of the state's testing program.
"As a strong creationist, if all I knew about what's gone on there I read in the paper, it would color my view a great deal," Morris said.
Linda Holloway of Shawnee, the chairwoman of the state board, agreed. She said she did not think that newspaper and television accounts of the controversy had focused much on the standards written by a 27-member committee of science teachers and professors. Those standards, which would have stated that evolution is a cornerstone of science, were rewritten by three state board members shortly before the August vote.
"The approach of the writing committee went along with this very narrow view of evolution," Holloway said.
Yet the incongruity between the answers to questions about how animals evolved and whether humans did is not difficult to explain, Morris said.
"When it gets personal, the answers change a bit," he said.
The poll also found that:
* Seventy-three percent are certain God exists, and an additional 12 percent believe in God but have some doubts.
* Of those with children under 18 in the home, 48 percent disagreed with the state board, 38 percent agreed and the rest were unsure. Of those without children at home, 55 percent disagreed with the state board, 35 percent agreed and the rest were unsure.
* Fifty-two percent said the Kansas board's decision on evolution would make them more likely to vote in the next board election; 64 percent of those who disagreed with the board said its decision had made them more likely to vote.
Poll respondents represented each of Kansas' four congressional districts. Respondents in the 3rd and the 4th districts tended to disagree with the board more than those in the 1st and the 2nd districts.
The 3rd District includes Johnson and Wyandotte counties and Lawrence; the 4th District includes Wichita. The 1st District includes western Kansas, and the 2nd District includes Topeka and southeastern Kansas.
State board member Bill Wagnon, a moderate from Topeka, voted against the new standards. He said the poll results validated what he had thought all along: People are able to segregate issues of faith from what should be taught in public schools.
"That's exactly what we want to happen, I think," Wagnon said.
The majority's disagreement with the board's decision shows that Kansans are worried about allowing local districts to decide whether to teach evolution, he said. He thinks the move will create disparities in the state's educational system because some students will learn cutting-edge science and others won't.
Yet the poll also indicates that many people do not believe humans evolved from lower life forms. That hit home for board member Harold Voth of Haven, a moderate who voted with the five conservatives for the new science standards.
"This has sure been a contentious issue, much more than I thought it would be," Voth said. "I've seen overwhelming support, but I know that people tend to respond to the people they agree with. That's not a very scientific measure. It looks like this (poll) is fairly consistent with what I felt."
But Voth said the poll should be considered only a gauge of public opinion, because not every Kansan was questioned.
Mary Douglass Brown, a conservative state board member from Wichita who voted for the standards, said the poll confirmed her vote, showing that Kansans were split on evolution.
"We now have principals going down to the science department and saying, `What are you teaching and how are you teaching it?' This is one of the pluses," she said.
Poll participant Carolyn Beaton, 48, of Kansas City, Kan., would agree. She said evolution had never made sense to her, from the moment she first encountered it in the seventh grade.
She says the theory, which she characterizes as "life came from nothing," is destroying the public schools. None of her four children attends public schools. Beaton supported the board's decision to allow districts the option not to teach evolution.
"I don't believe that evolution is how we came into being," Beaton said. "Evolution is a theory. The schools teach it as true science. It's the only thing ever taught."
But Beaton seems to be in the minority of Kansans. According to the poll, more agree with respondents Donna Saylor of Sabetha and Joyce Brooks of Norton.
Although Saylor said she did not think humans evolved from lower life forms, she wanted her four children to learn about the theory of evolution in school.
Saylor, 52, considers herself conservative. She thinks the state is, too. But the state board's August decision went too far, she said.
"I don't think it was a wise decision, because I think information needs to be presented to the young people, and they can make their own decision."
Brooks, 43, the mother of four, wants evolution taught in schools so students can be exposed to the possibilities. She believes God might have used evolution to create the universe and everything in it.
"No one's proven there isn't a God, but no one's proven that there is," said Brooks, who lives in northwest Kansas. "There may be more there. And if you don't keep studying and researching, how will you ever know?"