Posted on 10/22/2005 2:36:07 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Proposed Kansas science standards that detractors view as attacking evolution have been criticized by a nonprofit educational research firm for being confusing and poorly written in places.
A report from the Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning in Aurora, Colo., gave the Kansas standards good marks for being appropriate for all students, meeting testing criteria and challenging students to learn at a high level.
However, the report criticized the standards as unclear, especially in areas related to evolution and the study of life's origins. The review noted the state doesn't expect to test students on many key elements of evolution covered by language in the standards.
"These standards still need a lot of work, and there's still a lot of problems with them," said Steve Case, assistant director of the Center for Science Education at the University of Kansas.
Case is co-chairman of a committee of educators who proposed revising the state's existing science standards but continuing to treat evolution as solid science, crucial for students to learn. Kansas law requires the State Board of Education to update academic standards regularly.
The board could vote on the final version of the science standards later this year. The standards will be used to develop tests for students.
Intelligent-design advocates persuaded the state board's 6-4 conservative [Aaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!] majority to include language in the proposed standards indicating there's a controversy over evolutionary theory - drawing criticism from many scientists.
The state board ordered Mid-Continent's review, a standard practice when the board is revising academic standards. The board could order its staff or Case's committee to make further revisions in response.
But Case said his committee is unlikely to do more work, noting that much of the criticism in the Mid-Continent review arose from changes made by conservative board members.
Case said there's no excuse for anything but top scores from an outside review. However, Mid-Continent's criticisms - that parts of the proposed standards were poorly worded or unclear or that statements were not supported by scientists - are reason to continue working on the document, he said.
Yet the Mid-Continent report cited only 7 percent of the material in the standards as questionable. Much of that material reflected intelligent-design advocates' criticism of evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create the building blocks of life, that all life has a common origin and that man and apes share a common ancestor .
"I'm not sure the public understands the nature of this review," Case said. "What they will hear is that the standards are pretty solid."
John Calvert, a retired Lake Quivira attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said he expected criticism of the proposed standards.
But he noted that a board subcommittee had four days of hearings in May to examine questions about evolutionary theory. National and state science groups boycotted, viewing the hearings as rigged against evolution.
"I could have predicted the reviewers would not embrace these changes. I would not expect the reviewers to be jumping for joy," Calvert said.
Intelligent-design advocates argue some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause. Calvert said including language they seek in the standards gives teachers the freedom to consider other theories and to have a meaningful discussion of evolution.
Case said the proposed standards confuse the lines between good science and the supernatural. He added that an outside review isn't going to show much support for intelligent design or other ideas not accepted by scientists.
And Case said approval of new standards could be delayed if the national and international science groups balk at allowing their materials to be part of the Kansas standards.
In 1999, those organizations refused to grant copyright permission for changes in the Kansas standards that eliminated most references to evolution. Two years later, after elections, the board rewrote the standards again, making them evolution-friendly.
Calvert said it would be unfortunate to delay the process, but not unexpected if copyrights became a sticking point.
"If national organizations try to use that kind of strong-arm method, it's just another example of science interfering with education," Calvert said. [Unbelievable statement.]
The big duck is that you won't denounce ID. If someone were to ask me if I supported teaching school kids in the science class that God may be dead, I would say a big NO.
"Lying for Jay-us" placemark
The record shows that you have been engaged in several discussion with other posters over ID. In each case there may not have been overt support for ID but in each there was implied support and acceptance of ID and NEVER any criticism of ID. Now, given the facts, you are reluctant still to criticize ID. Why?
Why can't you just come out and say you cannot support any movement that requires that school children be taught that God may be dead?
Are you so simpleminded that you are unaware you just demonstrated my point?
Be careful the behavior you attribute to others in pursiut of an ideal, they may come for you next, and people like me won't be there to save your sorry ass.
Is it really that big of a problem for them?
Are you so simpleminded that you are unaware you just demonstrated my point? Be careful the behavior you attribute to others in pursiut of an ideal, they may come for you next, and people like me won't be there to save your sorry ass.
I take that to mean you won't denounce ID, evolution, that God may be dead and the teaching of same to the school children using your tax dollars.
Believe whatever you want. I've got better things to do than continue this nonsense....
Nonsense? Wow. Please tell that to your chums in church tomorrow. They will be proud of how you stood up for the right of a bunch of evolutionists (ID) to require teaching that God may be dead.
The language that this discussion has generated is another place where the misguided attacks on evolution is damaging to Christianity.
By definition God is the "supernatural". An entity that is not a part of the natural world. But by lumping Christianity into the "supernatural", it joins ESP, tarot cards, Voodoo, and all other discredited faiths.
The more Christians attack evolution, the more they shoot themselves in the foot.
bttt for later this morning. :-)
But on January 1, 2000, it became uncool.
Get some rest.
I agree.
These yahoos are loud enough, and sufficiently willing to bask in the media attention, to become the public face of conservatism.
So now conservatives are increasingly becoming seen as being against academic standards and in favor of replacing hard science with touchy-feely nonsense. The world has truly gone mad.
The creationist/ID alledged attacks (or alledged controversy) would be like someone who understands English only trying to critique Russian literature. You just can get there from here. Then when you point out that they basically aren't qualified (i.e. fluent in the language) they claim censorship or harrasment against their views. Even though those views are essentially nonsense because they cannot speak the language!
An that would be like putting a French linguist in charge of Russian Literature Studies.
Your analogy is inept. Whenever a given entity (in this instance, education, therefore science education) is surrendered to government financing, control will follow the financing. A governing board, elected either directly or indirectly by the people, will be put in authority. It is this board which will decide whether or not to put a French linguist in charge of Russian Literature Studies. The issue could present itself not as a choice of who to put in charge so much as a question of standards.
A more direct and definitive solution to this problem should present itself to mind. If you want politics left out of a particular issue, then leave the issue out of politics. Otherwise . . . what do you think will happen?
Not strong enough. It would be as if the new appointee not only didn't speak Russian, but he didn't believe that a language like Russian actually exists.
The problem is that the funding source (the politicians in government) aren't qualified to judge what is science and what isn't. THat's what scientists are for. They are the ones who best suited to set the standards. Otherwise, you wind up turning Kansas into a laughing stock. Scientists there have lost most of thier credibility because of the ignorance of the school board and the stupidity they are introducing as standards. Politicians may decide things, but science isn't a democracy and the results are not determined by popular demand. THe government can come in and change things, but they will, as they are in this case, make things worse. They are stuck on stupid and are letting it out.
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.