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.

[trebb]

It's not a "pet theory." It's good, hard science.,p>Then it will stand and they don't have to go nuts if there's no threat...Yet they do go nuts despite their 'scientific" minds. Go figure.

[longshadow]

"Blessed are they who have been touched by His Noodly Appendage."

[PatrickHenry]

Those who have been touched by your Noodly Appendage sometimes don't feel so blessed.

[Antonello]

I find it telling whom you decided to scathe with the snappy "classic ad hominem". None of that childishness from the "scientific" community, now is there?

I beg your pardon, but you are going to have to do better than simply accuse me of 'childishness' by virtue of the reputation, whatever it may be, of whoever it was that I identified as using an ad hominem fallacy. I stand behind my claim. The post my comment was aimed at didn't refute the statements presented in the links in question, but rather the individuals who made the statements. What is your definition of ad hominem?

[longshadow]

Those who have been touched by your Noodly Appendage sometimes don't feel so blessed.

Appendage envy, platypus breath?

[bluepistolero]

In the end it's just a theory, which equals "opinion", which equals philosophy.

bluepistolero

[Antonello]

Then it will stand and they don't have to go nuts if there's no threat...Yet they do go nuts despite their 'scientific" minds. Go figure.

Would you feel the same way if it was proposed that we should teach young children Islam in the interests of presenting a competing theory of religion?

[Antonello]

In the end it's just a theory, which equals "opinion", which equals philosophy.

No, in the end it is a scientific theory. That means it meets a higher standard than just imagining it is true, which would be philosophy, or simply hoping it is true, as is the case with ID.

[PatrickHenry]

In the end it's just a theory, which equals "opinion", which equals philosophy.

What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

[bluepistolero]

No, that is just semantics. Evolution draws conclusions that are impossible to prove, and as such, cannot meet the experiment criteria, and so therefore, must ever remain just opinion, or philosophy.

bluepistolero

[darbymcgill]

What is your definition of ad hominem?

Believe me, my dear Antonello, I've read and received enough posts by the "scientists" and the "educated" on these EVO threads to have a firm grasp on the use of "ad hominem" arguments against those with whom they disagree.

[bluepistolero]

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

bluepistolero

[BikerNYC]

Evolution draws conclusions that are impossible to prove...

No it doesn't. It predicts, for example, that you should not see mammal fossils in a layer of earth which corresponds to a time period before mammals evolved. You find such a fossil and you will throw a huge wrench into evolution.

[Dinsdale]

Even during the "recession," the unemployment was pretty good.

It's just the employment that sucks.

[bluepistolero]

Yet that "prediction", (guessing) is no proof of evolution.

bluepistolero

[Antonello]

No, that is just semantics. Evolution draws conclusions that are impossible to prove, and as such, cannot meet the experiment criteria, and so therefore, must ever remain just opinion, or philosophy.

No, it is not 'just semantics'. The common use of the word 'theory' is not the same as the scientific use. I suggest you take advantage of the link provided in post #109 above and educate yourself on the difference.

Thanks for the timely link, PatrickHenry.

[bluepistolero]

Yet, for everything, evolution cannot meet the scientific test of experimentation. There has been some fruitfly genetic manipulation and some pepper moths nonsense, which in the end were still fruitflies and peppermoths, so yes, it is just semantics and philosophy, not proper science.

bluepistolero

[Amish with an attitude]

"On behalf of the Grand Master, I am,"

Passed the "delusions of grandeur" test.

[daysailor]

"Yet that "prediction", (guessing) is no proof of evolution."

No, but it is just another bit of "evidence" in support of the theory of evolution.

You do know that scientific theories are never "proven", don't you?

[bluepistolero]

Well if "guessing" is what you would call "scientific" evidence, I guess no one can feel sorry for the innocents on deathrow. It's just too bad for them. After all, that's the best method that we got!

bluepistolero