Posted on 11/08/2005 4:17:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry
For the past six weeks, the debate over evolution and intelligent design has played out in a Pennsylvania courtroom.
Today, Kansas gets the national spotlight back — and with it, the possibility of a federal lawsuit here.
“What’s going on in Kansas,” said Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biologist, “is much more radical and much more dangerous to science education” than the contested decision in Dover, Pa., to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” in public school science classes.
Intelligent design speculates that the world is too complex to have evolved without the help of an unknown designer — an alien, perhaps, or God. Such teachings in public schools, the ACLU says, violate constitutional restrictions on the separation of church and state.
“Absolutely, absolutely,” said T. Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, when asked if the new science standards Kansas is expected to adopt today could be vulnerable to litigation.
An official with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which helped defend the Dover school board, said Kansas should be able to avoid legal scrutiny. Casey Luskin said the standards here critique evolution, but they don’t promote intelligent design.
“It’s definitely a different issue in Kansas” than in Pennsylvania, Luskin said.
‘More radical’
It’s a different battle, perhaps, but definitely the same war. Many of the participants in the Pennsylvania trial are veterans of the Kansas evolution debates, and are keeping a close eye on today’s meeting of the Kansas Board of Education.
Miller, for example, testified in the Pennsylvania trial against intelligent design. He came to Kansas in 2000 to campaign against conservative school board members the last time the evolution debate flared up here.
The new Kansas standards literally change the definition of science, he said, so that natural explanations aren’t necessary to explain natural phenomena. That opens the door, he said, for astrology to be taught in public school classrooms.
“Is this what proponents on the Kansas Board of Education have in mind?” Miller asked.
Michael Behe, a Lehigh University scientist, wrote “Darwin’s Black Box” — a touchstone text of the intelligent design movement. He testified in Pennsylvania, and before the Kansas Board of Education when it held hearings on the science standards.
“I think having students hear criticisms of any theory is a great idea,” Behe said. “I think in one respect, it’ll mean it’s permissible to question evolution. For odd historical reasons, questioning evolution has been put off-limits. If Kansas can do it, it can be done elsewhere.”
More evolution?
Luskin agreed.
“In contrast to what everybody has said, Kansas students will hear more about evolution and not less about evolution,” he said. “This is a victory for people who want students to learn critical thinking skills in science.”
But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life. The “handful” who don’t, he said, have resorted to making their case through politics instead of through traditional scientific methods.
“Do we teach both sides of the controversy on astrology in science class? Do we teach both sides of phrenology?” Gunn said. “This is not a scientific controversy, it’s a political controversy.”
Testimony in the Pennsylvania trial wrapped up on Friday. A ruling in that case is expected in January.
You get residue.
Yeh, that b_sharp has to clean up.
No, creativity is a kind of temperament. You can give creative people better tools, but you can't do much to change people's mode of working with the world.
Of course you can kill creative impulses. Perhaps that is what you have in mind as something to be avoided.
That's the way I have always felt. I am a natural gadfly, and every business meeting I have been in has been like the lake of fire. If I present my ideas they are shot down. I spend the rest of the meeting listening to people drone on about the most obvious things, usually winding up where they started.
As a programmer I have always been lazy, inclined to use the leverage of tools already developed to solve problems with the least effort. I have always been surrounded by people who want to start from scratch to make the new interface look like the old interface, maximizing the effort, the pain and the expense.
I'm not sure where Senor Gobucks was going with it, but it a topic of great interest to me. I'm sure he has other ideas.
I'm pretty sure he wants to raise the issue of stifling creativity by forcing kids to accept canned science instead of debating the origin of life in bull sessions.
This is a tough issue for me because I had a chemistry teacher in high school who beat the interest out of me with forced memorization and rote recitation. He said I had a cluttered mind, to which I responded better cluttered than empty.
I think the answer lies in better ways of presenting the arguments for evolution. The concept is very difficult an needs to be taught as a series of historical questions and approaches. Why was ID formulated in 1802 and why was it rejected. Maybe this needs to be offered outside the regular biology class.
I'm currently reading Complexity. It's not a recent book, but it's interesting. One of the things you realize when reading it is that the idea of evolution is resisted even by scientists when it impinges on their non-biological domains.
My reading has been pretty heavy duty lately and I could use a break. I'll check my library,
well, in our local school system, most teachers are teaching 4-5 periods a day out of 8. perish the thought that they not have 3-4 planning periods a day.
1. I'm sure you are aware that yours is not the only school district in the country?
2. Yes, it does take prep time to organize lessons, arrange presentation, create exams and grade papers. It's harder in high school than in college and harder in college than in grad school. I've done all of them. In grad school you're basically just an ambulatory textbook.
Then the weatherman who says "the sun set" must also believe in astronomy pre-Copernicus? Once again, it is merely describing how things looked from the observer's point of view. Due to that description you somehow get to what the writers of Joshua "must" have believed. Quite a leap. Reality trumps the vanity of people who think they are the only true interpreters.
Truth is absolute "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 3:18.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John14:6
We're not talking about some hack weatherman, Zorro. We're talking about the Bible. The word of God. Many people, none of whom could be considered evolutionists, believe it is to be taken literally. The Bible says the sun stood still. Ergo the Bible teaches us that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Or isn't that part of the Bible truth enough for you? And if that part isn't quite accurate then what other parts are in error?
Just now saw your post. Thank you very much! I know it can get bumpy, I've lurked for a long time.
[Chirping crickets]
Can't imagine why they wouldn't post here. (sarcasm)
Personally, I've been enjoying discussing this with my uncle and other qualified real scientists, and I'm glad I did.
I guess the difference is they're not closed minded bullies who keep saying the same crap over and over again when they're not name-calling or personally attacking.
Then again, maybe they're just more intelligent, which, judging from the posts on this thread isn't a high bar to jump.
I'm sorry that your uncle has forgotten what a scientific theory is (if he ever knew). Maybe he'll get better, given time.
Clearly discussing this stuff with your uncle and other like minds insulates you from having to think about the issues in a challenging way at all, which is probably for the best, given your tendency to engage in abuse if you feel pressured.
Perhaps you'll overcome your propensity towards name-calling and personal abuse. As you've recognised that you are a closed minded bully then perhaps you should try to change. It's never too late, and they say recognition is the first step towards cure.
I used to think that the weakest form of argument was arguing from one's own authority, but you've invented a whole new weaker category, that of arguing from the authority of a nameless relative; absolutely brilliant, I chuckle every time I think about it.
I'm sorry that your uncle has forgotten what a scientific theory is (if he ever knew). Maybe he'll get better, given time.
Clearly discussing this stuff with your uncle and other like minds insulates you from having to think about the issues in a challenging way at all, which is probably for the best, given your tendency to engage in abuse if you feel pressured.
Perhaps you'll overcome your propensity towards name-calling and personal abuse. As you've recognised that you are a closed minded bully then perhaps you should try to change. It's never too late, and they say recognition is the first step towards cure.
I used to think that the weakest form of argument was arguing from one's own authority, but you've invented a whole new weaker category, that of arguing from the authority of a nameless relative; absolutely brilliant, I chuckle every time I think about it.
Oops, my error.
I would love to debate this with you, as would many other people, which is obvious from the thread I referenced, which at least looks somewhat like a debate.
Best wishes on ramming your 'argument' down more people's throats.
Yes. And I happen to believe that creativity can itself indeed be taught. I don't think it is a 'temperament'. I think it is a mindset that is trained within an individual.
Some folks of course have more raw 'creative talent' than others, but the basics of being creative are available to be taught in my view.
Thanks for answering my question.
We'll put up a thousand bucks each, and we'll compare notes...the winner choses the charity that gets the dough.
Let's see...mine has state and national awards and recognition, served in the Reagan administration (actually I think it might have been Nixon, come to think of it) and retired a wealthy man on his strength as a scientist.
And you?
ANYTIME, BIG SHOT. Just write the check.
The reason I suggest charity is that I don't need the money...I retired at 35 on my strength as an innovator and entrepreneur. But that's another story. Yep, guess we're just a couple of idiots. And we're in good company.
And you?
What time do you get out of high school?
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.