You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.
Posted on 07/09/2006 3:41:26 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
There is a concerted effort underway in Kansas to censor science and undermine the strong science standards adopted there last year. In 2005 the Kansas state board of education (KSBOE) courageously voted to adopt science standards that require students to learn all about evolution, including both the scientific evidence and for and against the theory. That's it. The Board didn't require any alternative theories be taught, just the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.
However there are a number of groups both inside and outside of Kansas that are seeking to stifle discussion in Kansas classrooms of anything critical of Darwinian evolution. Chief among them is "Kansas Citizens for Science" (KCFS). Not content with simply complaining about the Kansas science standards, KCFS is now belligerently telling schools and teachers to disobey the state-sanctioned standards. Officials of KCFS are waging a campaign of misinformation and scare tactics in an effort to make sure that Kansas students never hear about any of the serious scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution.
Here are a few of the phony reasons why KCFS encourages local school districts to adopt its own recommended standards rather than the official state-approved standards:
• Kansas students should be taught science that corresponds to the consensus view of the community of scientists. They should not be taught assertions from the creationist anti-evolutionists that are held by the scientific community to be incorrect.Contrary to this misinformation put out by KCFS, the official Kansas science standards do call for students to be "taught science that corresponds to the consensus view" of scientists. But the standards also require students to learn about continuing scientific controversies over Darwinian theory's key claims--scientific controversies that many evolutionists themselves acknowledge when writing to each other in their science journals. If scientists can debate about such issues as the "Cambrian Explosion" in their peer-reviewed journals, why can't students learn about these debates in their science classes?
• Kansas schools should not be used to promote one particular view of religion. Presenting religious arguments in the guise of science does harm not only to our students, but also to religious communities.Contrary to this misinformation put out by KCFS, no one is suggesting that any religious views be presented. The Kansas science standards call for students to learn about scientific challenges to biological and chemical evolution straight out of mainstream science literature. The standards have nothing to say about religion and do not call for the teaching of any religiously-based information.
• Kansas science teachers are already under pressure to teach bad science or to omit "controversial" science. School districts need to send their teachers a clear message that they support the teaching of mainstream science.Now this is irony. This claim comes from KCFS, the organization that is aggressively waging a campaign to censor science, to stifle any dissent from Darwinian evolution. These are the people who want students to be taught only some of the information about evolution. It is the KCFS and their partners who are trying to "omit" material from the curriculum. Their idea of good standards would severely limit the amount of science teachers would be allowed to present in the classroom.
• Districts using the state standards may leave themselves open to costly lawsuits, such as the one in Dover, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit over their Intelligent Design-inspired standards cost the Dover district over a million dollars. Should such a lawsuit occur in Kansas, it is not the state that will be sued – it is the local district that will be sued.KCFS officials are trying to frighten school districts with the ominous specter of a lawsuit over intelligent design. What they fail to mention is that the Kansas state science standards don't have anything to say about intelligent design. What is it about this sentence that the KCFS doesn't get? "We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design" -- quoted straight from the KSBOE's own rationale for adoption of the state science standards.
It's time for people to stand up for science, stand up to Darwinist censors and bullies, and defend good science standards such as those in Kansas.
Fortunately, Kansas is not alone. Just last month South Carolina followed Kansas' lead and adopted similar standards that require students to learn the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. New Mexico, Minnesota and Pennsylvania also have such standards already in place. So, there are other states besides Kansas that are standing up for "full disclosure" when it comes to teaching Darwin's theory.
For a clear and succinct summary of what the Kansas state science standards do and do not call for download this FAQ.
Funny how these "scientists" take on the tacticts of commies and other socialists isn't it? Can't have critical thoughts now can we? Shut up and tow the line!
TOTALLY off-topic; I've seen your expression "tow the line" spelled "toe the line" also. But I would think that "tow" is more correct. Any idea what the difference is?
Oh my gosh, DaveLoneRanger. When you posted this false claim before, I posted a link correcting it. You never replied to my correction. Now you have posted the same false claim again.
I am starting to have doubts about your ethics.
They are following the rules when they point out that there is no serious scientific opposition to the theory of evolution. No matter what ideologues say.
Any reasonable critical evaluation would point out how extraordinarliy well the theory has worked out and use Darwin as an example of a meticlulous worker.
This is nothing more than an ill-conceived attempt to water down the science curriculum to satisfy those who cannot accept their religion on faith, as they should.
Scientists do research. Google has plenty of sources to get you started in learning where "Toe the line came from.
I know because I just checked.
YEC SPOTREP
Scientists accept that idea; that's why they use the words "theory" and "evidence" instead of "proof."
It is hard to be humble and admit that your idea is wrong, even in the face of over whelming evidence.
Yes, it's very hard for young earth creationists to admit they are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Ping for archive or whatever
Archive
Biology teachers in South Carolina public high schools should engage in class discussions that also question the theory of evolution. The state’s new teaching standard encourages them.Did you want to hear it from a source that you know will be sweet to you? I can do that too. NCSE: Evolution standard approved after 7-month delay
The Education Oversight Committee on Monday unanimously signed off on language that adds the phrase “critically analyze” to guidelines for teaching evolution. That phrase modifies the state’s nationally recognized biology standards.
...
In some scientific circles, “critically analyze” is viewed as synonymous with teaching either creationism — the explanation of how life came into being according to the Bible — or intelligent design — a theory that incorporates both religion and evolution.
The State Board of Education approved a new version of statewide academic standards last November, including the evolution standard and its seven indicators, one of which involves "critical analysis."NCSE also notes:
Since its approval on June 12, the indicator within the evolution standard has been subject to differing interpretations. An article in The State (June 13) quotes Department of Education spokesman Jim Foster as saying that the indicator “...does not require students to study alternatives to evolution..." In a report in the The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC, June 12) Martha Fout, a science specialist who helped write the standards, commented, "It's not as if members of the scientific community do not want the students to think critically. We want them to think critically everywhere."The AP corrected their original story to say it DID include critical analysis. Perhaps if you're inclined to trust "Al-AP", then I could see where you got confused. Or perhaps you're following an oldMSNBC story, or the misreporting in The Post and Courier.
Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.The link you sent me to says the following:
This says that students should summarize ways that scientists criticize aspects of the theory… not that the student actually criticizes the theory.Right. And the 2004 election was a moral victory as well, I suppose. What do these people think students do? Each conduct the research and write an original, scientific, analytically critical thesis to criticize certain aspects of the evolutionary model? Students basically learn to repeat what they've learned. At the end, they are tested and asked to summarize the materials they've learned correctly. These are called "exams."
Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory. These curriculum standards reflect the Board’s objective of: 1) to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence, and 3) to ensure that science education in our state is “secular, neutral, and non-ideological.”
Q: Why do we get conflicting reports about the changes to the standards?
A: Organizations that oppose the changes are unwilling to publicly debate evolution because they falsely claim it is not scientifically controversial. To avoid a discussion of the real controversy they unfairly demean those who seek it. See www.KansasScience2005.com for an explanation of the strategy of the media and public relations officer of Kansas Citizens for Science: our "strategy is to portray" those who seek an objective discussion of evolution "in the harshest possible light, as ignoramuses, religious activists, unprincipled bullies, etc." The boycott of hearings that discussed the key issues of science and education is an example of this strategy - to demean rather than to discuss.
Dave is busy.
Fight me Highlander.
I am so wicked into tearing new assholes.
Re-read, please, for content.
I assume you are not willfully misrepresenting what I posted, since it is there for all to see.
Like the YEC who in the 21st still believe that a world wide flood actually happened 4000 years ago because a bunch of bronze age goat herders wrote a story.
Example: Doctors of the 1800's not believing that germs could be carried from one patient to another.
As opposed to the Bible where diseases were caused by demons
That using cow pox a lesser form of small pox would help to prevent the patient from getting the if not deadly severely scaring small pox.
In which fundamentalist Christians opposed such a treatment because it was going against God's will
As recent as the 1980's they were teaching that Mars was a flat desert of a planet.
It is a desert, but as opposed to the Bible where stars are just little lights on a celestial sphere which could fall down to earth and be stamped on
Yes, I am starting to doubt your ethics. I do not do that easily. If you do not have time to read rebuttals to your posts, perhaps you are posting too much. Nothing in the South Carolina state standards requires students to learn the 'strengths and weaknesses of evolution' which your link states. It says they are to critically analyze evolution. As Ms. Martha Fout, who helped write the standards, said "It's not as if members of the scientific community do not want the students to think critically. We want them to think critically everywhere." You linked to that story.
That does not include teaching 'weaknesses' if there are no weaknesses. It is not valid to teach negative things about something if the negative things do not exist. So, the statement you posted is not truthful.
Dude! I appreciate the help, but can we steer clear of the language?
This story is summarizing the standard's enforcement of critical analysis as learning strengths and weaknesses. What are the students going out and finding that scientists are critical of? Strengths? You don't pick on strengths. If I don't like President Bush, I'm not going to pick on his strengths to be critical. I'm going to pick on his weaknesses.
So you're just saying you disagree with the particular interpretation. That's fine, but leave the worthless accusations out of it.
What about small earth creationists? Are they unwilling to accept a large earth in the face of overwhelming evidence? My point is, in view of the fact science has not yet ascertained what exactly constitutes time, how is one capable of determining what constitutes "young" or "old?" Those who apply the word "old" to the age of the earth subscribe to the assumption that processes we observe today take place at the same rate they always have. Science does not know how old matter is, and can only indirectly, incompletely, and imprecisely ascertain the age of its various forms.
The claims of either side involve interpretations and extrapolations based upon present observations. They are not subject to direct testing and are thus unfalsifiable.
A critical analysis does not have to find weakness. It could find the theory explains the data well and does not have any conflicts with the data. Any theory has strengths, else it would have no point to it. But it does not have to have weaknesses. So what you posted is not an accurate description.
Like the YEC who in the 21st still believe that a world wide flood actually happened 4000 years ago because a bunch of bronze age goat herders wrote a story.Belief in the flood is based on far more than just the Bible (the authors of which included royalty, doctors, merchants and military leaders...not just goat-herders).
As opposed to the Bible where diseases were caused by demonsScience sees only naturalistic explanations for everything. Which, I suppose, means love is only the result of chemical reactions in the brain.
In which fundamentalist Christians opposed such a treatment because it was going against God's willSource?
It is a desert, but as opposed to the Bible where stars are just little lights on a celestial sphere which could fall down to earth and be stamped onCitation?
Funny, when state ed guidelines are mandating things like condom training and multiculturalism, the Creationists have got no problem with heroic intellectual resistance against The Man. It's only when state guidelines are protecting their carefully nurtured pet idiocy that suddently it's really awful to oppose government guidelines.
Another freaking crevo thread? Do you people ever sleep? Go to the bathroom? Eat? Work? Mow the lawn?
Anything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age
The Bronze Age in the Near East is divided into three main periods (the dates are very approximate): * EBA - Early Bronze Age (c.3500-2000 BC) * MBA - Middle Bronze Age (c.2000-1600 BC) * LBA - Late Bronze Age (c.1600-1200 BC)
OK, so then by that reasoning, ANYTHING written during the period between 3500 BC and 1200 BC, not just any Scripture, should be discounted as stories because, after all, they were just written by a bunch of bronze age goat herders. That would include any intellectual advances made by the Babylonians or Egyptians, and the social system and system of government set up in Hammurabi's Code. Any other historical documents and accounts of that time should be completely suspect and also considered unreliable.
Since the Near East Bronze age only went until 1200 BC, that criticism cannot extend to Scripture documents written after that time so they are exempt from that criticism. The entire NT was written well after that.
So why all the scorn of *bronze age goat herders*? What's the point?
As opposed to the Bible where diseases were caused by demons
Please cite some references that show that the Bible teaches that demons are the source of disease. Besides, that does not address the fact that as late as the 1800's doctors still did not believe that germs caused disease. How is it possible to criticize the Bible for not teaching that germs cause disease when for so long, medical science didn't teach it either. At least the Bible taught better hygiene for thousands of years before Semmelweis came along; and his contemporaries mocked him for it. Looks like those goat herders had it over medical science for a long time.
In which fundamentalist Christians opposed such a treatment because it was going against God's will
Which *fundamentalist Christians* are those? Please be specific as to which groups you are referring to.
Sorry about that.
All qaml referred to were the authors of the flood myth—people who probably were not royalty, doctors, merchants, or military leaders.
"Science sees only naturalistic explanations for everything. Which, I suppose, means love is only the result of chemical reactions in the brain."
What do you think should be the scientific explanation? The interactions of magic spirits? Anyway, the way you pose the question it could also be said that Italy's World Cup victory yesterday was "only" the result of a force applied to a spherical object.
"Source?"
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitem10.html
"Citation?"
Revelation 12:4
If we are to accept your fallacy, then calling Hillary Clinton a shrill liberal is tantamount to calling all of her contemporaries shrill liberals; obviously, this is an invalid argument.
See also post #34.
Yes. All at once. Balancing a laptop and a hogey on my lap while mowing gets trickey, though, especially while asleep and going to the bathroom, so I advise working your way up.
Converse copycat alert. The point I was making is about how the evolutionists are content with state standards until THEY disagree with them. Now you're just trying to say the same thing back.
That's the best you can do? Why is it a fallacy? Why would the books of the Bible then be the only documents from that time period to which those standards be applied? Why single out those documents and yet accept anything else from that time period? Why the prejudice against them?
RE:post 34: All qaml referred to were the authors of the flood myth—people who probably were not royalty, doctors, merchants, or military leaders.
*Probably not* doesn't cut it. On what do you base that conclusion that the people were uneducated? Why do you consider the Flood a myth? What evidence do you have that it never occurred? Why then, do cultures around the world which had no contact with each other for thousands of years have similar Flood accounts? Do you have something to back either of those things up?
Are you under the impression that we accept, say, Egyptian mythology as true? If not, there is no conflict.
Why scrutinize only the books of the Bible with that criteria and not anything else? If that criteria is applied to Scripture simply because of the time period in which it is written, then it should be applied equitably, across the board to all writings from that time.
I'm still not sure what your gripe is. It is widely known that ancient historical documents are not always thoroughly correct, in fact they are often more incorrect than not. Ancient historians tended to make up things to fill the gaps and exaggerate to make their accounts more dramatic (army sizes were regularly listed at ten times what was actually possible). The truth can only be determined by comparing multiple sources. The Bible is not being held to some different type of standard.
Mostly what people have talked about being unreliable are the mythological aspects of the biblical account, such as Creation and the Flood. Many people hold these accounts to be just as imaginary as any other culture's myths. The Bible's accuracy as a historical document has not really been mentioned, but it's probably comparable to most other sources. You seem to think that if we accept some historical account from another culture as accurate than we must accept all Biblical myths as actual events. Comparing history and law accounts to mythology is really inappropriate as they are nothing alike.
How do you determine, then, what is a Biblical *myth* and what is not? Jesus Himself said God's word is truth. How is man to determine that any of it is myth?
You are using a double standard yourself. How do you know the story of baby Hercules strangling two giant serpents is myth? What about Perseus slaying Medusa? The only reason you are unable to distinguish myth from fact with biblical myth is because you have faith in it in the first place because it's your religion. Others who don't share your bias see no reason to treat biblical myth any differently from the myths of other cultures.
All that doesn't answer the question. How do you determine what parts of the Bible are *myth*?
The ones that look like myths. How do you determine that Hercules was mythical?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.