Skip to comments.
[Kansas] Board Votes on Evolution (Tomorrow, NOV 8 - Teaching I.D. to be approved!)
WIBW ^
| 7 Nov 05
| Lisa Boschert
Posted on 11/07/2005 5:19:33 PM PST by gobucks
Evolution's fate in Kansas schools has been an ongoing controversy for six years.
Tomorrow Kansas Board of Education members will vote on new science standards that would allow for criticisms of evolution including the teaching of intelligent design.
The standards are expected to pass and that worries science teacher Lisa Volland, who says this could change the way she teaches science in the future, "For one thing the proposals that they're talking about are not scientific theories, they haven't been scientifically tested and for me as a teacher to just lean back on that and say well this is what people feel like is the explanation leaves me in a really strange and weird place."
Volland says she uses evolution in her biology class almost everyday and she hopes the standards are overturned before they make an impact.
The Board of Education is scheduled to vote around three tomorrow. There will be an open forum, for citizens to express their opinions at 10:30.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; goddoodit; intelligentdesign; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: Coyoteman
The net result would be a disaster for ID. Oh, really? I'd think a rational person like you would then be happy to help them meet their "disaster," no?
Does anyone anywhere believe that the CS/ID folks are going to all this trouble to promote science, or because they think aliens or panspermia or some such is the cause of life on Earth?
But I see that you're once again simply waving your arms at strawmen rather than actually trying to discuss some of the more interesting questions this topic brings up.
21
posted on
11/07/2005 8:07:25 PM PST
by
r9etb
To: ICE-FLYER
Smug, to be sure.
Absolutely. Because I can afford to be. You said to teach "other theories," I asked for one, and you typed a bunch of words but didn't answer my simple question.
Since you don't know what constitutes a theory, can I assume that in your imaginary classroom we can also teach the Navajo, Inuit, and Australian Aborigine creation myths as well? awesome!
22
posted on
11/07/2005 8:17:34 PM PST
by
whattajoke
(I'm back... kinda.)
To: The Red Zone
say, a documentary of the feeding habits of the canary, like an ornament? Nothing, mind you, to say how this evolution got the canary there, just the Ommmmmmmmm that it did.
I didn't see the documentary in question, but something tells me you weren't listening very well. I'm sure they discussed island biogeography, simple definitions of speciation, co-evolution of bird and plant species, etc. Maybe next time.
23
posted on
11/07/2005 8:19:56 PM PST
by
whattajoke
(I'm back... kinda.)
To: gobucks
If you are going to support ID, you should at least know what it teaches.
Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
24
posted on
11/07/2005 8:24:07 PM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: gobucks
Thank you so much for the encouragement and for the heads up to that section! I'm very pleased to see the wording.
To: whattajoke
No, typically the evo-plug appeared in a non sequitur role. It made no difference except to make sure the reader saw the statement of faith once more.
26
posted on
11/07/2005 8:32:36 PM PST
by
The Red Zone
(Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
To: js1138
He is emphasizing a "front loaded" model.
27
posted on
11/07/2005 8:34:44 PM PST
by
The Red Zone
(Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
To: r9etb
But I see that you're once again simply waving your arms at strawmen rather than actually trying to discuss some of the more interesting questions this topic brings up. OK, fair enough. Lets discuss these points.
From what I have seen on the web and on these threads, ID is a spin-off from CS, and was only invented following the Supreme Court case of the late 1980s. This led to The Wedge Strategy of the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (as if science needed renewal).
The testimony in the Dover case has done nothing to change my opinion. I have been following the case and reading the testimony. These are some of my favorite quotes, from the plaintiff's closing statement:
Many of the witnesses for the defendants did not tell the truth. They did not tell the truth at their depositions, and they have not told the truth in this courtroom. They are not telling the truth when they assert that only Intelligent Design, and not creationism were discussed at the June 2004 board meetings. They are not telling the truth when they place the "2000 years ago" statement at the meeting discussing the pledge rather than the June 14, 2004 meeting discussing the biology textbook. The did not tell the truth in their depositions, or for that matter to the citizens of Dover, about how the donation of the Pandas books came about. (p. 5) This board did not act to improve science education. It took one area of the science curriculum that has historically been the object of religiously motivated opposition, and they molded it to their particular religious viewpoint. You heard five board members testify in this court. (p. 17)
Your Honor, you may remember Cyndi Sneath's testimony about her seven year old son Griffin, who is fascinated by science. This board is telling Griffin that scientists are just tricking you. It's telling students like Griffin the same thing Mr. Buckingham told Max Pell. Don't go off to college where you will be " brainwashed." Don't research the theory of evolution. The board is delivering Michael Behe's message. Don't bother studying the development of the immune system - you're just doomed to failure. In science class, they are promoting the unchanging certainty of religion in place of the adventure of open ended scientific discovery that Jack Haught described. (p. 17)
I hope you agree that I am doing more than just "waving my arms at strawmen."
What did you think of the testimony of your side in the Dover case?
28
posted on
11/07/2005 8:36:14 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Coyoteman
"Your Honor, you may remember Cyndi Sneath's testimony about her seven year old son Griffin, who is fascinated by science. This board is telling Griffin that scientists are just tricking you. It's telling students like Griffin the same thing Mr. Buckingham told Max Pell. Don't go off to college where you will be " brainwashed." Don't research the theory of evolution. The board is delivering Michael Behe's message. Don't bother studying the development of the immune system - you're just doomed to failure."
This is extremely absurd, given what ID purports to do.
How many people have _not_ gone into science because scientists use it to advertise a secular worldview? ID is the opportunity for people who _do_ dissent with Darwin to get into science. Previously, it was mostly like "you don't like Darwin? You don't belong in science."
As for research into the theory of evolution, what they don't tell you is that the scientists supporting ID _have_ researched evolution, and they think it should be continued to be researched. What the evolutionists are saying is that this is a closed case, and that it is invalid to attempt to open the case back up. Now THAT is anti-science.
30
posted on
11/08/2005 3:59:32 AM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: Coyoteman
From what I have seen on the web and on these threads, ID is a spin-off from CS Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. As such, it would be wrong to make a sweeping generalization about what ID is supposed to be about. Not that that has stopped you from doing so now and in the past.
I hope you agree that I am doing more than just "waving my arms at strawmen."
Sorry, but you're not doing much more than waving your arms. People like Behe and Dembski raise some very interesting scientific questions that you seem bound and determined to dismiss according to your strawman.
31
posted on
11/08/2005 5:53:09 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: js1138
My concern is pretty simple: young kids are being taught that scientists do not have enough faith in the scientific method, which produced Darwinian Thought.
No, Darwinian thought needs a referee and enforcement: lawyers and judges. People who have not earned science degrees, who couldn't explain why ice floats. But scientists are relying on these people to defend science. Why is it that you find lawyers and judges and the ACLU so trustworthy?
And what does that example mean in the eyes of little kids? That scientists don't have what it takes ... but lawyers do. You don't seem to find that odd or offensive. Maybe it is because the lawyers are actually scientists, but the words are different? Or, better, maybe it is the other way around, and very few of us take the time to see it that way?
Darwinian Ideas are great ... but not strong enough on their own merits to withstand scrutiny by folks who ask questions like the I.D. folks are.
Thus, instead of relying on a science teacher to teach the FLAWS of I.D., and thus reveal just how robust Darwinian thought really is, instead, science teachers are being taught to censor critical thinking, and muzzle questioners.
Taught by attorneys and judges that is ...;
In short, I'm accusing Darwinian apologists of emasculating the minds of young kids, before kids even have a chance to understand the metaphor, via the use of censorship.
I have a science degree, undergraduate. I have masters degree in science, graduate. Both from top universities.
This training was powerful and useful ... but I noticed something: Scientists are no different than folks like Madonna or the head of Chevron. The paths to Glory are irresistable to most, and the common rule is 'you stay on your path to the light, I'll stay on mine'.
Another common rule is this: 'Stifle debate ... it is good for the institution's survival.'
Creativity first comes from a willingness to ask questions and reason through them.
But Darwinian apologists find certain questions verboten ... especially if adults set that example in front of little kids. That is what I find so utterly outrageous: instilling fear of asking questions in young kids.
The scientific method, as the dogmatic method of finding out truth as it is currently encased, and taught to little kids, is the distilled essence of 'in the box' thinking.
Through testing, using the kind of systemic testing I learned during my training in science classes, I have discovered that truth can be revealed outside the box. I just had to get over the fear of being laughed at for asking questions that were 'not allowed' to be asked.
You ... promoting creativity I have never seen that from you. Your posts are always polite. But they are consistent in what you never discuss.
What I don't understand is this: where did you learn this way of thought? Why was it taught to you this way? Why do you never question it?
Why is your trust within it so consistent? Doubt - your posts never reveal a hint of it. Where does such confidence come from? Are your children that well adjusted?
Did you avoid the pitfall of ADD and meds that so many other parents couldn't prevent their kids from falling into?
Did your kids somehow find that regular binge drinking was not that bright of an idea from watching you? And how did they learn that?
When you spend Thanksgiving with your family in a couple of weeks, do you look forward to it? Why? Are you aware of how many people dread the 4 week period known as the 'Holidays'? Their family dynamics are so utterly painful to them. But, Scientists have little to say about this ... they have the same 4 weeks to endure as well.
When your son got older, did he spend all his time in strip clubs ... or did he find a wife whom he loves ... and how did he learn that?
Especially such that when she is alone with her friends, she honestly can say she feels loved?
Are you aware of how many women are taking anti-depressents, as compared to men?
Why is not talking about 'how our world works' so off limits? For it is the scientists who created the gift of Prozac, yes? But talking about the ramifications of this gift ... always verboten. I'll give you a scientific way to test what is 'approved' and 'disapproved' for open discussion among ordinary people: watch Oprah. Oprah is the true bell weather or our nation. (Especially, watch the subjects that day, after day, never, ever get discussed. Those omissions are every bit the arbiters of what is cool as are those topics that are comissioned for discussion.)
Science, advirtised as the only way to find objective truth, doesn't seem to be up to the task of addressing these kinds of questions.
If you have young kids, you are well aware that in your average neighborhood, enormous fear of sexual predators is pervasive ... how is this 'truth' good for all of us?
But no ... you never see the formation of any group of degreed scientists like "Scientists Against Sexual Abuse of Young Girls by Step Fathers". That just doesn't happen. Why not? Maybe because they fear so greatly what they might lose by fighting for right? The esteem of their 'peers'?
Scientists don't talk about this stuff, and don't ask these questions. It is 'outside' science, but more importantly, they'll get laughed at by their 'peers' in the community if they do.
The private sphere is .... well ... it is sort of like the rule 'don't mix philosophy or religion into science class'. Evolution, for example, is just 'science', and has nothing to do with how kids will reason once they learn about evolution, and 'survival of the fittest'.
Somehow, this rule is seen as 'good' for kids. But why it is 'good' for kids ... that never gets discussed. Instead, it is an a priori argument that we must just swallow. But your posts consistently show you are comfortable with that. How did your thinking get to be this calloused?
Scientists set an example js1138, by what they say and do ... and what they don't say and do. Ditto for rationalists, and ditto for Freepers like us.
Omissions and comissions are equally present and both are equally available to being imitated - regardless of protestations to the contrary. When you post your various comments and thinking ... you are honestly giving an example to imitate. An example to me. You are, in truth, an evangelist, whether you admit it or not.
You, and folks you sound very much like you, I did imitate. For a long time. I watched what was said, and what was avoided. I imitated both. Both on the stage of academia, and 'off stage' at the keg get togethers. And later in other organizations.
But I ask more questions now. I'm not fearful of looking stupid while I ask them. I have learned some really interesting 'facts'. Stuff that is never discussed at the keg get togethers. Stuff like 'why does any man find it worthwhile to be sexually faithful to just one woman'.
That question is a fair question ... it is even rational. But at the keg get togethers ... oh woe unto your reputation should you be overheard uttering such.
I never see you ask questions, js, outside the evo/creo sphere...; I never see you ask questions period. Why is that?
I mean, all you really are doing with all your energy you spend in your posts is speaking this: "come inside! The box here is cozy, it is warm. We won't laugh at you, and it is comfortable. You'll be one of the team. And you don't ever have to ask questions that make someone else feel uncomfortable."
What I don't understand is this: how did you learn to be so comfortable in extending this steady, unrelenting, constant posture of invitation to this box? Who trained this rigidity into you? Why did your training convince you that 'out of the box' thinking is so dangerous?
And given that your conviction about how totally right you are seems to be so unyielding, why not provide the revelation regarding where others might go to receive that training? I mean, in short, we should all follow your example - right? Thus we need the training you received.
Thus even I need that training ... but I need to know where to go, who to talk to, to receive it.
Just think: once that happens ...
once I'm subject to that kind of training ....
why, I'll sound like you....
My posts will sound like yours and then we'll both be 'right', right? One less enemy of conservatism, one more enemy soldier off the streets, one more hand added to the true ship. Good help is hard to find.
That would be 'good', yes? I mean silencing folks like myself is good, for your side, granted. But converting folks like myself, to spend energy the way you spend energy ... that is better, for your side, yes?
So ... I'm willing to say you are right and I am wrong. It is possible. So, how do I become like you? I must be trained like you were trained is all I can conclude. I must unlearn the impact of bad training, and subject myself to 'good' training and learn what you learned. (I suspect it is not related to native intelligence ... no offense, but you don't sound like you are super intelligent. You sound like you have average intelligence ... sort of like me.)
All I ask is that you identify the trainers, and the training centers I have to attend. Is that a fair question?
It would be a good thing if I sounded more like you, and spent my time and energy the way you do ... yes? And then I could spend my time learning what ID actually teaches ... and then post it ... and then score the points that should be scored for the 'right' side .... that would be a good thing ....
right?
32
posted on
11/08/2005 6:18:40 AM PST
by
gobucks
(Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
To: johnnyb_61820
How many people have _not_ gone into science because scientists use it to advertise a secular worldview? ID is the opportunity for people who _do_ dissent with Darwin to get into science. Previously, it was mostly like "you don't like Darwin? You don't belong in science."As for research into the theory of evolution, what they don't tell you is that the scientists supporting ID _have_ researched evolution, and they think it should be continued to be researched. What the evolutionists are saying is that this is a closed case, and that it is invalid to attempt to open the case back up. Now THAT is anti-science.
Good points!
33
posted on
11/08/2005 6:19:32 AM PST
by
Michael_Michaelangelo
(The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory. Lots of links on my homepage...)
To: whattajoke
Absolutely. Because I can afford to be. You said to teach "other theories," I asked for one, and you typed a bunch of words but didn't answer my simple question. LOL!! I was just waiting for your obligation upon me. I can afford to be as smug as you.
Since you don't know what constitutes a theory, can I assume that in your imaginary classroom we can also teach the Navajo, Inuit, and Australian Aborigine creation myths as well? awesome!
And here we have the classic definition man/woman. You are now the universal standard. So your assertion is no other theory exist because of your definition of theory? You can not internalize that Intelligent Design is a theory as well? Here are your definitions
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
Keep on studying that flat earth stuff. all the rest of us "dummies" will just frustrate your advanced thinking ;)
34
posted on
11/08/2005 12:14:28 PM PST
by
ICE-FLYER
(God bless and keep the United States of America)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
