Evolution Criticism Gets Nod from Kansas School Board

ECT News Network ^ | 10 August 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

The Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 yesterday to include greater criticism of evolution in its school science standards, but it decided to send the standards to an outside academic for review before taking a final vote.

The Kansas school system was ridiculed around the country in 1999 when the board deleted most references to evolution. The system later reversed course, but the language favored by the board yesterday comes from advocates of intelligent design.

The intelligent design concept holds that some features of the natural world are best explained by an unspecified intelligent cause. Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over millions of years through natural selection.

The standards are used in developing state tests for fourth, seventh and 10th-graders, though local schools have the final say on what is taught in their classrooms. Students will be tested on the new standards in the 2007-08 school year.

The board is expected to vote on final approval of the standards in October.

Kathy Martin and Connie Morris
Two members of the Board who want ID in the schools.

[darbymcgill]

Since we're on the topic of definitions and educating ourelves, maybe now would be a good time for me to present for peer review something I've been working on for a couple days. Although there are many of us who are frequently flamed for being ignorant of the scientific method / theory, we are quickly becoming all to familiar with the "scientist's methods" used by many of the "elites" on these threads.

Please feel free to add to or enhance the "method" as you deem necessary.

Some Scientist's Methods

1. First make the obligatory comment that the un-washed obviously are not aware of the scientific method.

2. In your most condescending tone respond to the un-washed using demeaning phases like "you obviously are not up to speed on blah blah" or "anyone who ever studied 8th grade blah blah should know that", etc.

3. If the un-washed dares to continue the futile inquiry, simply respond with a terse, "The theory never said that" or "what is your source for that misguided statement".

4. If the first 3 steps fail to convince the un-washed they are out of their league, ping 50 or so of your distinguished scientist buddies and have them join the thread. The shear number of insults should begin to discourage the provocateur and others.

5. Make cute little insulting comments on the open forum to your pinger buddies so the unwashed can see how clever you are behind their backs.

6. If an un-washed requests sources. Send them a link which contains no useful information, but does allow them to easily purchase books authored by you and your buddies.

7. Are they still out there? If so it's time to impress them with all the letters you have following your name and all the places you went to school. Challenge them to attend 14 years of grad school so they can be as smart and broke as you are. That should convince them.

8. For the really difficult cases just to prove how smart you are and how dumb they are, without responding to their inquiries or arguments, start listing all the words they misspell.

9. If you are asked a question you don't know the answer to or if proved you've made an error in a response. Do not acknowledge the error. Challenge the grammar and intellect of the un-washed. Try to convince them that if they weren't so dumb and illiterate they would have phrased the question properly. Upon understanding the issue you would have obviously provided them proper enlightenment.

10. And finally, remember how we handle issues of discord in our peer reviews and seminars. When a colleague dares to challenge your findings (like that would ever happen) start sounding righteously indignant and throw some swear words and bad names their way. And make sure your pinger buddies throw some in as well.

[PatrickHenry]

Once again, a creationist is claiming that there is no evidence for evolution. So once again ...

TONS OF EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics. Anatomic similarities are confirmed by DNA similarities and copying errors.
Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions. There really is evidence out there.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. Yes, transitional fossils exist.
8,000+ papers on vertabrate evolution. National Academy of Sciences.
Fossil whale with legs. Land animal to whale transitional fossil.
Feathered Dinosaurs.
Archaeopteryx. Reptile-to- bird transitional fossil.
Archaeopteryx: FAQS . A true transitional fossil
All About Archaeopteryx.
Evidence for Evolution . Compilation of links.
Human Ancestors.
The Evidence for Human Evolution. For those who claim there isn't any evidence.
Comparison of all Hominid skulls.

[darbymcgill]

ourelves.... hee hee... that will come back to haunt me..

= ourselves..

[Junior]

They're going nuts because a bunch of scientifically-illiterate yahoos are going to introduce legislation that will further lower scientific literacy in Kansas. Real science doesn't stand a chance against collective stupidity.

[qam1]

Thank You Kansas,

From the parents of these children

Who will be competing against yours in the future

Good job!!!!

[Junior]

Actually, it's a fairly nice place. The grounds are a little rocky and overgrown for my taste, but the board of directors insists on maintaining the natural habitat for the various tortoises, finches and iguanas.

[Junior]

ourelves.... hee hee... that will come back to haunt me..

Well, I have heard you hang around with "the little people."

[darbymcgill]

correct.... excellant catch.. and you, my friend are showing your age...

[Junior]

I'm only 40. I do remember The Wonderful World of Disney on Sunday nights, though.

[Down South P.E.]

You have posted this lengthy diatribe at least 5 times in the last week. Please learn to link to previous posts, rather than spamming the website.

Actually I appreciate the direct post instead of a link - easier reading. I hadn't seen it before. Also, I do seem to recall repeat posts from both sides of the argument.

[Down South P.E.]

Thanks for the information.

[b_sharp]

Splitter..we must worship the gourd.

[Gumlegs]

Matchett's posts have been demonstrated to be somewhat less than reliable.

[b_sharp]

"If you'd lubricate your clocks with oil instead of old Maple Syrup, you wouldn't have that problem!

;-)

Why would I want to do that? Unlike some others around here I'm a sweet guy who has taste. ;-)

[b_sharp]

"Yeah, we in Sprague Nebraska are just inundated with former Angelinos, who love the tasty sushi at the Sprague Bar and Grill, the gentle pitter patter of our January ice-storms, our temperate Augusts of 100 degree days punctuated by thunderstorms carrying baseball-sized hail and the odd tornado, and the sweet scent of the local hog-confinement facility on a sultry summer evening. "

Damn, sounds like you live up here in S'katchewan.

[b_sharp]

"I imagine "Darwin Central" to be much like the land of the teletubbies. LaLa land and Po land. Would that be correct?"

Considering the people we try to educate, I'd agree with that.

[BikerNYC]

There in never "proof" of a scientific theory. It is always a matter of which theory best explains the evidence.

A competing theory to evolution has to explain why fossils are found in the layers in which they are found, and why no mammals are found in early layers.

[b_sharp]

New here? Welcome aboard. Don't forget to familiarize yourself with PatrickHenry's 'List-O-Links'. Just click on his name in any post he's included in.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - reason reigns

[Doctor Stochastic]

But, it's the highest quality Maple Syrup!