Posted on 10/28/2005 2:36:03 PM PDT by scientificbeliever
3. Kansas Biology Teacher On the front lines of science's devolution "The evolution debate is consuming almost everything we do," says Brad Williamson, a 30-year science veteran at suburban Olathe East High School and a past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers. "It's politicized the classroom. Parents will say their child can't be in class during any discussion of evolution, and students will say things like 'My grandfather wasn't a monkey!'"
First, a history lesson. In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state's classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again last November. This year Intelligent Design (ID) theory is their anti-evolution tool of choice.
At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world—the human eye, say—are "irreducibly complex" and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).
The problem for teachers is that ID can't be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science. That's because underpinning ID is religious belief. In science class, Williamson says, "students have to trust that I'm just dealing with science."
Alas, for Kansas's educational reputation, the damage may be done. "We've heard anecdotally that our students are getting much more scrutiny at places like medical schools. I get calls from teachers in other states who say things like 'You rubes!'" Williamson says. "But this is happening across the country. It's not just Kansas anymore."
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
There you have the advantage of me, because I've learned expect nothing more than this.
I live less than 100 miles from the Kansas border, I've been following the doings of the Kansas school board in detail, I've read in detail both the transcripts of the 'hearings' and the draft standards.
But, then, according to you, we're all a bunch of unsophisticated hicks from the sticks...
Some of you are, for sure.
I said check the facts -- in this case that would be the draft science standards -- not the opinions of your friends.
Anyone who believes in the God of the Old Testament believes in a god that makes Allah/Islam look downright merciful.
Anyone who believes in the God of the Old Testament believes in a god that makes Allah/Islam look downright merciful
I prefer to view it as "God with attitude."
>>2: The holes in the fossil record present no difficulty for the theory of evolution, anymore than a lack of photos of Pluto's position yesterday show that Keplers laws of planetary motion are in jeopardy of being overthrown.
> How curious. My evolutionary biology professor taught me in a seminar on evolution that I took as an undergrad taht there were such gaps.
Just a suggestion: work on your reading comprehension. I never said there were no gaps in the fossil record... I said that the gaps that are there provide no more of a threat to the theory of evolution than the lack of a complete photographic record of Pluto's position poses a threat to Kepler.
> But, of course, he probably knows nothing compared to you.
If he's stupid enough to believe that a few gaps equals a threat to the theory... then, yes, quite possibly.
>>Are they forbidden to discuss scientific questions within evolution
>Yes... that is what I said, isn't it?
I thought you were discussing ID, which is not scientific.
"If anything is statistically unpredictable then it is beyond the capacity of science to explain it."
An ensemble of statistical unpredictable individuals may have a statistically determinist behavior.
Of course you are right. The particular rejoinder I was trying to cover myself against with the use of the word "statistical" was a poster responding that (for example) individual nuclear decay events are unpredictable. I was trying to include the concept that such events are still statistically predictable in their probability over time, and hence their study is still scientific.
"Chaotic systems and emergent phenomena are taken to be the sum result of a myriad of individually predictable actions."
Don't you mean "individually unpredictable actions"?
No but again I didn't explain the context that was in my mind when I wrote that sentence. If we take the neurons making up our brains, we could in principal describe in detail their individual responses to stimuli, according to reasonably well understood physical law and theory. They are "individually predictable". However their mass action gives rise to consciousness, memory, free will, etc, and this emergent phenomenon is not obviously predictable from physical law, despite that fact that it results from the sum of all the individual predictable behaviours.
Language seems a poor tool to handle such concepts, particularly in the hands of a buffoon.
Placemarker.
At what point during this thread have I ever mentioned ID? I haven't, you are jumping to conclusions... again.
I also read the transcripts -- both times this issue has come up over the past few years.
I'm very sorry your life is one that radiates such hostility. Very telling, IMHO.
What do you mean by criticise? And what controversy is there within the community of biologists that could be understood by high school students?
> At what point during this thread have I ever mentioned ID?
"The point is that science teachers are prohibited from uttering anything that might critcize evolution."
Since the only thing being described as criticizing evolution is ID, what else was a guy to think you were talking about? There are no scientific criticisms of evolution at this point, just ID and similar religious beliefs.
I'm very sorry your life is one that radiates such hostility. Very telling, IMHO.
I fail to see how I've been hostile. What is wrong with your life that you have to manufacture victimhood?
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.