Kansas State Board of Education Taking Up Evolution Debate

AP ^ | 4/26/05 | John Hanna

[Crackingham]

Students in Lisa Volland's advanced biology class examine flowers, lemons and corn under the microscope, pondering how the plants evolved over time to improve their chances of survival. The Topeka West High School teacher does not discuss the biblical story of creation or "intelligent design," just "the big e-word," as she jokingly calls it.

"I don't think you can talk about living organisms without talking about evolution," she said. "We don't talk about religion."

Classrooms like Volland's have come under scrutiny — again — in Kansas' seesawing battle between left and right over the teaching of evolution. The battle could heat up over the coming weeks, with Kansas' State Board of Education expected to revise its science standards in June.

In 1999, the board deleted most references to evolution in the standards, bringing international ridicule and wisecracks from the late-night comedians. Elections the next year made the board less conservative, resulting in the current standards describing evolution as a key concept for students to learn.

Last year's elections gave conservatives a majority again, 6-4. A subcommittee plans six days of hearings in May, and advocates of intelligent design plan to put nearly two dozen witnesses on the stand to critique evolution. National and state science organizations plan to boycott the hearings, contending they are going to be rigged in favor of intelligent design.

"We are concerned that the hearings will be an attempt to give scientific credibility to a nonscientific concept," said Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Evolution says species change in response to environmental and genetic factors over the course of many generations. Intelligent design — viewed by many scientists as merely repackaged creationism — holds there is evidence that the universe was designed by some kind of higher power. At a minimum, conservative groups like the Discovery Institute want to see science lessons in Kansas include more criticism of evolution.

"We don't think any textbook is good in presenting the scientific weaknesses," said John West of the Seattle-based organization.

[ndt]

Well, at least the students in the other 49 states pursuing careers biology and related sciences, won't have to worry about competing with the students in Kansas anymore.

....always look on the bright side of life, dum dum, dum dum, dum dum ditty dum....

[PatrickHenry]

What do y'all think?

[jess35]

This again????

Intelligent design is on par with man caused global warming when it comes to scientific evidence.

On second thought, the junk science of global warming is more credible than this crud.

[DrewsDad]

Teaching them the strengths and weaknesses of evolution instead of just accepting it without thinking will give them an advantage, not a disadvantage.

[microgood]

I don't think you can talk about living organisms without talking about evolution.

Sure you can. For a very long time.

At a minimum, conservative groups like the Discovery Institute want to see science lessons in Kansas include more criticism of evolution.

I agree. Macroevolution should not even be taught in school. They should stick to cutting up frogs.

[microgood]

OOPS. I meant high school.

[RantEng]

Hmmm, intelligent design = crud.

Look at it this way. If you reject an notion of God then evolution is your only choice for understanding your existence. Try doing a little research on what is required for life to exist at all. Mathematically speaking, it is a miracle that the universe isn't completely sterile. Believing in creation requires more faith than I have.

Conversely, If you don't reject any notion of God, then more possibilities are opened up. If you understood the complexity of your simplest cells, and if you reduce those biological mechanisms to their simplest functional components; you'll find that you just can't get there from a primordial soup.

Don't reject what you can't make a reasoned argument against. Scientific theories get revised as new data becomes available. That is unless, like the theory of evolution, it has evolved a political life of its own. I reject the evolution theory, as it is currently represented, because I can do the math. It doesn't work. Intelligent design is a variation of the theory that attempts to solve some of the problems with the original theory.

[ndt]

"Teaching them the strengths and weaknesses of evolution instead of just accepting it without thinking will give them an advantage, not a disadvantage."

No argument there. I agree that it should be covered much more in depth that it is, there is much debate on the specific details that is left out partially due to lack of time and partially due to lack of knowledge on the part of the educators. However, the overall concept of evolution (and yes I mean MACRO evolution) is so overwhelming supported by the evidence, there is little debate.

You don't hear talk about "intelligent design" in the lab at a pharmaceutical company, because staying in business requires that they go with the theories that actually accurately predict things and allow them to develop new drugs. What was the last drug that was created based on the theories of intelligent design?

If you come out of high school not having a strong understanding of this concept, you can kiss many careers goodbye.

[longshadow]

Classrooms like Volland's have come under scrutiny — again — in Kansas' seesawing battle between left and right over the teaching of evolution.

Here it is again; the implicit linkage of anti-evolutionism with the political right.

The far left, and their pals in the MSM, are going to hang this anti-evolutionary/anti-scientific nonsense around the neck of conservatives until the stench is unbearable. The consequence will be that many folks in the undecided middle of American politics will be needlessly scared away from Conservative candidates by this association with the intellectual Ludditism that is the heart and soul of anti-evolutionary hysteria.

[jess35]

Intelligent design presupposes the existence of a creator. That ain't science and that IS what we are talking about. If your faith does not allow the notion of anything contrary to the bible, stay out of the sciences.

[spinestein]

[At a minimum, conservative groups like the Discovery Institute want to see science lessons in Kansas include more criticism of evolution. "We don't think any textbook is good in presenting the scientific weaknesses," said John West of the Seattle-based organization.]




Really the science lessons in Kansas should include more criticism of "universal gravitation". I don't think the textbooks are good in presenting the scientific weaknesses of this "theory".



Examples of the flaws in the "theory" of universal gravitation:

1)Scientists today don't have a coherent explanation for universal gravitation that doesn't rely on invoking spurious "extra-dimensional" explanations which have never been observed.

2)Einstein understood the flaws in his own theory and even invoked an artificial "cosmological constant" in order to fudge the mathematics to obtain the right answer, and most scientists can't decide on competing theories of universal gravitation like "general relativity" or "super-strings".

3)The theory of universal gravitation lacks logical consistency; If everything in the universe is attracted to everything else in the universe gravitationally, then all matter would soon be occupying the exact same space, a clear impossibility!

4)Alternative theories such as "Benign Directed Stickiness" are not given fair treatment and should be given equal time in classrooms.


There are many more proofs that refute "universal gravitation" that can be seen at "John's House 'O' Conspiracy" Web Site, here: http://johnf-ingkerry.com/

[ndt]

"Mathematically speaking, it is a miracle that the universe isn't completely sterile."

Actually that would depend on the size of the universe. If you have a box of oranges, you can only rearrange them in so many ways. In the same way, within a finite space, matter can only exist in a finite number of arrangements.

If the universe is infinite (and I'm not saying it is) then at some point within that infinite space matter will take on every possible configuration, no matter how improbable. So in an infinite universe, if life is possible, it will exist, quietly scratching it's head thinking "I am, how odd".

"I reject the evolution theory, as it is currently represented, because I can do the math."

I think you may be making a very common error. The theory of evolution does not cover the topic "the origin of life", it only covers how life changes after the fact of origin / creation.

[Dust in the Wind]

bump

[microgood]

However, the overall concept of evolution (and yes I mean MACRO evolution) is so overwhelming supported by the evidence, there is little debate.

The only evidence for Macro evolution is fossil evidence and interpretation of that evidence. It is not testable or reproducible. The whole concept of common ancestry is a huge assumption and cannot be deduced logically.

If you come out of high school not having a strong understanding of this concept, you can kiss many careers goodbye.

I doubt that very seriously. At least in my high school, we only had one year of biology.

[Dust in the Wind]

bump

[ndt]

"needlessly scared away from Conservative candidates by this association with the intellectual Ludditism"

True, the fact that you and I are here proves that it is not part and parcel of a conservative ideology, but you have to admit that the vocal anti-evolution voices are in fact voting republicans. I have not seen any movement to introduce "aliens modified apes for use as cheap labor" theories into our schools coming out of the left. For the mean time I am afraid that the label of Ludditism accurately falls on the right.

[EdJay]

I don't see why evolution and the "rejection of the notion of God" have to go together. Why cannot God have operated through evolution?

I went all through Catholic school, taking several years of biology. We were taught evolutionary theory.

John Paul II himself said (in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996:

“[N]ew findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis.

In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

“A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.”

[ndt]

"The only evidence for Macro evolution is fossil evidence"

Actually stronger (albeit harder to explain in a short post) evidence can be found in comparative genomics (DNA).

"At least in my high school, we only had one year of biology."

Lack of understanding of evolution would not affect your ability to be an investment banker for example. What do you do for a living?

[microgood]

The far left, and their pals in the MSM, are going to hang this anti-evolutionary/anti-scientific nonsense around the neck of conservatives until the stench is unbearable. The consequence will be that many folks in the undecided middle of American politics will be needlessly scared away from Conservative candidates by this association with the intellectual Ludditism that is the heart and soul of anti-evolutionary hysteria.

You scientists may know a lot about dead bones but I think your political predictions are a bit hysterical. Less than .0001% of the population will even know about this event going on in Kansas.

And besides, it is only one branch of science they are attacking, and rightly so. The statements made by evolutionists concerning macroevolution go far beyond their ability to demonstrate their beliefs, unlike sciences like chemistry and physics, which can test their theories empirically using direct evidence.