Skip to comments.Evolution Suffers Kansas Setback
Posted on 11/09/2005 6:32:26 AM PST by Our_Man_In_Gough_Island
The US state of Kansas has approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on evolution. The Board of Education's vote, expected for months, approved the new language criticising evolution by 6-4.
Proponents of the change argue they are trying to expose students to legitimate scientific questions about evolution.
The Kansas decision came as voters in Pennsylvania replaced all eight school board members who approved a similar policy in some of the state's schools.
Since October 2004, schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, have been obliged to read out a prepared statement on intelligent design in biology classes.
Teachers have been ordered to tell pupils that Darwin's theory of evolution is unproven, and that the universe is so complex that it may have been created by a higher power.
Last month parents in Dover sued the school board, accusing it of introducing religion and creationism into schools, in breach of the US constitutional separation of church and state.
Definition of science
Tuesday's vote in Kansas was the third time in six years that the Kansas board has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue.
Current state standards treat evolution as well-established, a view held by national science groups.
We are all for intelligent design being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class
The new standards include several specific challenges, including statements that there is a lack of evidence or natural explanation for the genetic code, and charges that fossil records are inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
It also states that says certain evolutionary explanations "are not based on direct observations... and often reflect... inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence".
"This is a great day for education," board chairman Steve Abrams told the Reuters news agency.
Decisions about what is taught in Kansas classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but the new standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science.
Educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.
'Theory, not science'
In Dover, the first US district to introduce intelligent design into schools, new school board members are thought likely to repeal the policy.
"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class," said Judy McIlvaine, a new board member.
"It is not a science."
The case against the intelligent design policy was heard in a federal court case which ended last week.
A verdict is expected early next year.
Yeah, for the education of the countries that are competing agaisnt us on the world stage it sure is.
Kansas, home to the three most mis-named towns. Garden City, Goodland and Liberal.
The sad thing is that a that so called learning institutions have to be ordered to even consider all options
That a ludicrous but predictable response from the usual suspects
> That a ludicrous but predictable response
Perhaps you'de prefer the teaching of "Welcome to the Matrix Theory?"
Seems to me that I did learn about that stuff when I was in school, along with alchemy. But I was also taught why it was no longer believed and given the scientific proofs for it. Same can be done here.
"Why don't they teach about the Flat Earth Theory?"
I wouldn't mind that at all, as long as they are showing just what kind of 'nuts' the Flat Earthers are.
Kids are not stupid. No matter what you try to feed them.
> But I was also taught why it was no longer believed and given the scientific proofs for it. Same can be done here.
*Can*, yes. *Will* they teach why science has long since rejected the silliness of Creationism? Given that the explicit purpose behind these shenanigans is to wedge religion into the classroom... I rather doubt it.
By not covering creationism in schools, it appears that they can't prove it's wrong. Nobody is expecting creation to be taught as science, but it is going to come up in class anyway. Even if the teachers don't address it, the students probably will. Everyone knows about the controversy and science's best defense would be to have some good answers.
You post 965.25 KB worth of crap and I'm supposed bow to your intellect? Go Big bang yourself.
Attacking someone's credibility by attacking their character or questioning their intelligence, is no "proof" that they are wrong. If science doesn't have a better defense than that, they are in trouble. Shouldn't they be using facts instead?
> OK, so you're an Athiest.
Errr. WRONG. Thanks for sharing.
|The CrevoSci Archive
Just one of the many services of Darwin Central
"The Conspiracy that Cares"
CrevoSci threads for the past week:
1999-11-22 Blood of Tyrants
1997-11-28 cd jones
2000-11-02 Exit 109
2000-11-04 harbinger of doom
2000-11-28 HiTech RedNeck
2002-11-17 Just mythoughts
2003-11-18 little jeremiah
2000-11-19 Mike Fieschko
2003-11-17 Nathan Zachary
2000-11-10 Patriotic Teen
2000-11-30 Right Wing Professor
2004-11-11 untrained skeptic
2000-11-05 will of the people
Lost CrevoSci Battlefields (Pulled Threads)
Glossary of Terms
Assumption: Premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Belief: Any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Crevo: Creation vs. evolution
CrevoSci: Creation vs. evolution/Science
CrevoSci Warriors: Those who take part on CrevoSci threads
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Fact: When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Freepday: The day a Freeper joined Free Republic
Hypothesis: A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Impression: A vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Law: A generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Observation: Any information collected with the senses
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
of Darwin Central
Kansas has approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on Kansas.
> Attacking someone's credibility by attacking their character or questioning their intelligence, is no "proof" that they are wrong.
You know, the same thing is said every time a "Christian" coems on FR and declares that evolutionists are "God haters" or Liberals some such similar drivel.
> If science doesn't have a better defense than that, they are in trouble.
Who says science doesn't? The problem is that in this case, science is up against entreched dogma with easy answers. Sciecne has been up against such before, and has often temporarily lost. Science lost to the Greek Pythagorean mystics, to the early Church, to the Commies, to the Nazis, to the Muslims. Being factually right is no sure defense against being politically incorrect.
> Shouldn't they be using facts instead?
"They" are. Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting it, from physics to genetics to paleontology to even astronomy... and it has nothing standing against it except for religious faith.
But as the Parisians are discovering, religious faith often trumps reason.
Then what's the point of stating that Flat Earthers and Fundies are "nuts"? That's name calling. Why call them names?
> Then what's the point of stating that Flat Earthers and Fundies are "nuts"?
Well... what would *you* call someone who looks at a square and declares that it's a circle? Even after a century and a half of piling up evidence from many fields that a square is in fact a square and not a circle?
There was a time when there was no matter in the universe but there never was a time when there was nothing in the universe...otherwise nothing would exist now.
There comes a point when someone transcends being merely wrogn to being crazy. Comign to an incorrect conclusion due to insufficient data is one thing. Insisting on an incorrect conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence is somethign else entirely.
Sooo, you believe in God, but that He is just not smart enough to design a human being?
Great! Another lawsuit about to begin.
My god is smart enough to start the whole ball spinning and allow the galaxies, stars, chemicals and organisms to develop as a matter of course. Your god is a fussy tinkerer who couldn't get it right the first time and had to keep jumping in to fix things: a rib here, an apple there.
Ah yes - smart but not personal, one who cares not a whit about His creation?
And He created all of this for........?
I don't presume to fully understand the Mind of God.
"And He created all of this for........?"
Because it was good. It says that in Genesis everytime He gets done creating something. And then when He gets done creating man; it's "very good". I don't believe that God went through all the effort to create and just abandon it. What would be the point in that? If He wasn't actively involved with His creation and didn't care about it, then why would He have gone to all the trouble of telling mankind about Himself by having it written down? That doesn't sound like not caring to me.
> He is just not smart enough to design a human being?
Well, according to your thinking, apparently not. Since he went through many prototypes and then abandoned them.
Of course, a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, or whatever) who didn't want to be an ill-educated boob would recognize that any deity smart/powerful enough to create a universe from scratch could order it via natural laws, and throw in evolutionary processes to make it a better and more beautiful place than some static painting. ANd given the evidence, that's certainly what appears to have happened.
Are you one of those who believes that the evidence of genetics and paleontology and physics and astronomy are tricks that your God is playing on you?
Yeah, that's the same reasoning the OJ Simpson jury used to reject the "indirect or circumstantial evidence" indicating his guilt.
No, God created man in His image.
Genetics gives evidence of a common ancestor for human beings.
Despite all of the science focused on this idea of evolution originating from a common inanimate object in the oceans - we have NEVER witnessed one species turning (or even beginning to turn) into something completely different.
All of the changes we can witness are WITHIN species.
You say that you believe in God? Well why not believe that God created us just as we are - seeing there is no hard evidence to support us comming from something else - (a jaw bone here, a femur there - and they deduce from that that hundreds of thousands of sub-humans roamed the earth?)
Oh, we could go on, but this gets so tedious - what whith those fragile secular egos and all......
And these are just a few of the more photogenic specimens. Enjoy.
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
> Genetics gives evidence of a common ancestor for human beings.
And chimps. And gorillas. And dogs, cats, rats, salamanders, fish, worms...
> Despite all of the science focused on this idea of evolution originating from a common inanimate object in the oceans - we have NEVER witnessed one species turning (or even beginning to turn) into something completely different.
> All of the changes we can witness are WITHIN species.
Factually inaccurate. Do a search on "observed speciation."
> You say that you believe in God?
> Well why not believe that God created us just as we are
Because that's not what the evidence of the natural world shows. To believe what you suggest would mean that God is a liar and a scumbag trickster. Is that your God?
And they KNOW that we are directly descended from them because?
They are all positively linked in a chain because?
I think there are a LOT of assumptions going on here - and perhaps a little wishfull thinking.
"You say that you believe in God?"
Um, well the opposite of not believing is believing, (the exchange went like this): :
"...so you're an Athiest.[?]"
"To believe what you suggest would mean that God is a liar and a scumbag trickster."
You are WAY too insulting and nasty to try and have a civil discussion with - are you like this with all who disagree with you?
It's certainly ONE way to end a discussion.
Well, first of all, I'm glad someone on the creationism side has dropped the ridiculous fig leaf of a term known as "ID" and decided to be up front about what she wants taught in the schools. That's refreshing, and at least it weeds out the Xenu fans and those who claim a role for Galactus in world events.
Second of all, however, one must ask, what theoretical framework do creationists espouse that would result in falsifiability criteria? If your "theory's" sole answer to every inquiry is that "well, it's that way because God did it and it's a miracle and we can't know the mind of God" then of course no one can prove the theory wrong.
I'm sorry that you are confounded by someone who defeats your false dichotomy worldview.
>>"To believe what you suggest would mean that God is a liar and a scumbag trickster."
>You are WAY too insulting and nasty to try and have a civil discussion with
No, I'm not... I'm just honest. In your worldview, God set up the world specifically to look old and life to look evolved. This is trickery.