Kansas State Board Approves Teaching Standards Skeptical of Evolution

Fox News ^ | 11-08-05 | WestVirginiaRebel

[WestVirginiaRebel]

TOPEKA, Kan.-New science standards for Kansas' public schools, criticized for promoting creationism while treating evolution as a flawed theory, won approval Tuesday from the State Board of Education.

The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards and argued the changes would make teaching about evolution more balanced and expose studels teach science.

[jec41]

And frankly, I am starting to take this personally as an attack on my state...comments like yours saying Kansans are a bunch of intolerant morons.
It is starting to piss me off.

Well, in the first place you need to check your posts because I didn't say that. However you getting mad at me for something I didn't say might give the comment some merit. I don't care if you get pissed. In fact I don't think anybody in the world cares if you get pissed except you. If it makes you feel better riot, burn a car, choke some one, go on a crusade, and by all means be intolerant.

[pulaskibush]

Can you give an example where God is mentioned in the ID Theory?

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/index.htm

While your at it, can you give an example of any Founding Father banning religion in a public school?

[blowfish]

There is zero evidence on the face of the earth that evolution ever happened, and massive evidence that it didn't.

Next you'll be telling us that there's massive evidence that Pi = 3...

[Coyoteman]

Can you give an example where God is mentioned in the ID Theory?

Let me repeat from my post #216:

All of this effort is not about teaching Buddhism in schools, or Old Man Coyote, or Nordic creation stories. It is about teaching the biblical version of creation. If it was, do you think it would be starting in Kansas?

To this I can add, its not about teaching science, either. ID is not science.

It is about teaching religion--and a specific biblical version of religion, not just any one of the approximately 4,400 world religions.

And I still think ID is the spin-off of CS, started just after the Supreme Court case of the 1980s and advanced via the Wedge Strategy. There is a lot of evidence for this, and little if any opposed.

On the subject of Founding Fathers--sorry, out of my field. I deal with bones.

[pulaskibush]

It is, in effect, bringing religion--and a single, specific religion, into public schools in violation of the US constitution.

May want to check this website out before talking about the constitution. http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9

This is part of one paper about Intelligent Design. Try to explain how this is not science.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/idISsCIJHC.htm

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SCIENCE A Memorandum for Use by Kansas School Boards In Developing Science Curriculum Regarding Origins Issues John H. Calvert, Esq. May 22, 2000 It has been argued that Intelligent Design, although not a religion, may not be science. If it is not science, then perhaps it should be excluded from the science curriculum for Grades K-12 on that ground. The short answer is that ID is science. For logical, cultural and legal reasons it would be improper for a School District to censor evidence of design from those parts of the curriculum that discuss the cause life and its diversity. In discussing these issues I will address the following: • What is Intelligent Design? • Logical Inferences of Design Based on Scientific Observations of Data Occurring in Nature are within the realm of Science. • Design can not be censored without risking a violation of the Neutrality Required by the Establishment and Speech Clauses of the Constitution. • Suggestions for Including Design in a School Science Curriculum. I. What is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design holds that design is empirically detectable in nature, and particularly in living systems. A. What is a "design?" A Design is a Pattern of Events Arranged by Intent. A design (noun) is nothing more than a pattern of events arranged by intent or design (verb). An event is an occurrence or a happening. Each of the six letters in the word "Design" reflect a separate event. Events result from one of three causes: chance, necessity (the operation of physical or chemical laws) or intent/design. Intent is a state of MIND that directs action towards a particular object. A MIND is the part of an information processing system that PERCEIVES, THINKS, REASONS AND DECIDES OR FORMS CONCLUSIONS. Thus, when a bird builds a birds' nest it does so by processing information with its mind. The sticks and twigs that reflect the many events that make up the nest have not been arranged by any physical or chemical law, but rather by the information processing system that exists in the bird's head. The same is true for human minds which operate on a far more sophisticated level. Instead of building birds' nests, we build sky scrapers. Our minds arrange events in patterns which we call designs. This memo reflects a pattern of events arranged by intent. B. What are Causes of other Patterns of Events? Patterns of events not arranged by intent, have been arranged by chance, necessity or a combination of the two. Patterns of events can also be arranged by "necessity." A necessary event is one that is required to happen due to the laws of chemistry and physics. A salt crystal is an example of a pattern of events arranged only by chance and necessity without any direct input from a mind. When, by chance, sodium and chlorine ions are deposited into a body of water with no outlet the positively charged sodium ions will be attracted to the negatively charged chlorine ions to form a very regular three dimensional crystal lattice in the form of a cube. The mineral that is produced is called halite. Sandstones also reflect a pattern of events arranged by necessity. The size of the grains found in the rock will vary with the strength of the current. In this case the pattern reflects the operation of the law of gravity in an aquatic environment. Events can also occur by chance. A chance event is one that (a) can not be predicted, and (b) is not controlled by intent or necessity/law. We all know what chance events are if we have gone to a casino. Assume I have a bag of 26 scrabble pieces, each of which bears a different letter of the alphabet. What are my chances of spelling the word "DESIGN" by blindly putting my hand in the bag and pulling out the correct letters in the correct sequence (assuming that I put each piece back after I have noted the letter pulled)? The chance of pulling the D is 1/26, the chance of pulling D and E in that sequence is 1/26 x 1/26 or 1/676, etc. Thus the chance of spelling DESIGN in sequence is 1/26x1/26x1/26x1/26x1/26x1/26 = 1/308,915,776. Thus, as the complexity of the pattern increases, the probability of its occurrence by chance decreases. C. Intelligent Design Holds that Design is Empirically Detectable in Nature. Intelligent Design holds that design is empirically detectable in nature and particularly in living systems. Stated another way, Intelligent Design holds that we can look at a pattern of events and reliably infer from the arrangement of events constituting the pattern and surrounding circumstances whether the events have been arranged by intent through the use of a mind or whether the pattern is more likely the result of only chance and necessity. Thus, Intelligent Design is essentially nothing more than an inference. It is not a philosophy. It is not a religion. It is merely an inference based on observations of patterns of events that occur in nature. The word "intelligent" in the phrase "intelligent design" is perhaps even superfluous since any design necessarily implies a mind or some form of intelligence as the agent that causes the events to be arranged into a "design." D. Design Detection Involves Three Steps. Design detection involves three steps. • First: Find a pattern of events that is functional, carries a message or has some discernable structure - that reflects "specified complexity." • Second: Rule out Necessity as a cause of the pattern. • Third: Rule out Chance as a cause of the pattern.

[Lexinom]

Good. It's about time. The episcopacy of pseudoscience is finally going to be exposed to the light of truth from more than one direction. The dogma of evolution, itself untennable as evidenced by the multiple foundational changes in the last century and disagreement even today among leading evolutionists, will be shown to be held on faith and can eventually be discarded along with Ptolemy's spheres.

[Ichneumon]

Can you give an example where God is mentioned in the ID Theory?

Here you go:

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

First, there is no "theory of ID". "Holding" a given postulate does not constitute an actual theory.

Second, no positive evidence has ever been offered in support of this position.

Third, you know as well as I do that the "intelligent cause" that all the IDers have in mind is "God".

ID is thus a scientific disagreement

Nope. Try again.

with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

Evolutionary biology makes no such claim. Try again.

While your at it, can you give an example of any Founding Father banning religion in a public school?

Sure. Excerpt from a prior post of mine on the subject:

Madison and Jefferson both felt very strongly about the separation of church and state (even using that very term), and wrote of the importance of not using the public moneys or institutions to support one or more religions. In Madison's famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments", he wrote strenuously against using public money to underwrite in any degree the promulgation of religious teachings. In another opinion, he wrote:

A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. [...] On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.

In another essay, he wrote:

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

And:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. [...] If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience!

Writing of the success of the First Amendment's unique new approach to the age-old problem of religious/government entanglement, Madison wrote:

It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.

And in the same vein:

Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.

But hey, what would Madison know, he only *wrote* the First Amendment...

As for Jefferson, he also wrote favorably of "a wall of separation between church and state" on many occasions, for example:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Like Madison, Jefferson was likewise of the opinion that public schools should be secular. When the College of William and Mary wanted to become Virginia's state university, Jefferson would allow it only if that school divested itself of all ties with sectarian religion. The college declined, so Jefferson himself instead founded the first truly secular university, University of Virginia. Of his new University, Jefferson wrote:

A professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution.

And to teachers at his University, Jefferson said:

This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.

And from a famous earlier historian of the US:

... I questioned the faithful of all communions; I particularly sought the society of clergymen, who are the depositories of the various creeds and have a personal interest in their survival ... all thought the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state. I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that.
-- (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805-1859

The "complete separation of church and state" is no modern ACLU invention...

The modern court cases upholding this principle of keeping religious advocacy out of the schools merely uphold the original intent and meaning of the First Amendment, and indeed make explicit reference to Madison and Jefferson's writings on this matter:

As the momentum for popular education increased and in turn evoked strong claims for state support of religious education, contests not unlike that which in Virginia had produced Madison's Remonstrance appeared in various forms in other states. New York and Massachusetts provide famous chapters in the history that established dissociation of religious teaching from state-maintained schools. In New York, the rise of the common schools led, despite fierce sectarian opposition, to the barring of tax funds to church schools, and later to any school in which sectarian doctrine was taught.

[...]

The upshot of these controversies, often long and fierce, is fairly summarized by saying that long before the Fourteenth Amendment subjected the states to new limitations, the prohibition of furtherance by the state of religious instruction became the guiding principle, in law and in feeling, of the American people.

[...]

The preservation of the community from division conflicts, of government from irreconcilable pressures by religious groups, of religion from censorship and coercion however subtly exercised, requires strict confinement of the state to instruction other than religious, leaving to the individual's church and home, indoctrination in the faith of his choice. [...] The extent to which this principle was deemed a presupposition of our Constitutional system is strikingly illustrated by the fact that every state admitted into the Union since 1876 was compelled by Congress to write into its constitution a requirement that it maintain a school system "free from sectarian control".

[...]

We find that the basic Constitutional principle of absolute separation was violated when the State of Illinois, speaking through its Supreme Court, sustained the school authorities of Champaign in sponsoring and effectively furthering religious beliefs by its educational arrangement. Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between church and state speaks of a "wall of separation," not of a fine line easily overstepped. The public school is at once the symbol of our democracy and the most pervasive means for promoting our common destiny. In no activity of the state is it more vital to keep out divisive forces than in its schools, to avoid confusing, not to say fusing, what the Constitution sought to keep strictly apart. "The great American principle of eternal separation"--Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition--is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. We renew our conviction that "we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion."

-- Justice Felix Frankfurter, U. S. Supreme Court, in McCollum v. Board of Education, the 1948 decision that forbid public schools in Illinois from commingling sectarian and secular instruction

So yes, just as I said, attempts to get religious views taught in public schools, whether overt or thinly disguised, are a violation of the First Amendment -- not just the modern view of the First Amendment, but the original intent as well.

[Ichneumon]

This is part of one paper about Intelligent Design. Try to explain how this is not science.

Okay, glad to be of service.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS SCIENCE A Memorandum for Use by Kansas School Boards In Developing Science Curriculum Regarding Origins Issues John H. Calvert, Esq. May 22, 2000 It has been argued that Intelligent Design, although not a religion, may not be science.

That's right, it's not.

If it is not science, then perhaps it should be excluded from the science curriculum for Grades K-12 on that ground.

Bingo.

The short answer is that ID is science.

No, it isn't.

For logical, cultural and legal reasons it would be improper for a School District to censor evidence of design from those parts of the curriculum that discuss the cause life and its diversity.

...except that there isn't any such "evidence of design".

I. What is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design holds that design is empirically detectable in nature, and particularly in living systems.

He can "hold" any notion he wants, but that doesn't make it science.

A. What is a "design?" A Design is a Pattern of Events Arranged by Intent. A design (noun) is nothing more than a pattern of events arranged by intent or design (verb). An event is an occurrence or a happening.

Picking your own definitions doesn't make your word science.

Each of the six letters in the word "Design" reflect a separate event.

Ooookay...

Events result from one of three causes: chance, necessity (the operation of physical or chemical laws) or intent/design.

False trichotomy.

Intent is a state of MIND that directs action towards a particular object. A MIND is the part of an information processing system that PERCEIVES, THINKS, REASONS AND DECIDES OR FORMS CONCLUSIONS. Thus, when a bird builds a birds' nest it does so by processing information with its mind. The sticks and twigs that reflect the many events that make up the nest have not been arranged by any physical or chemical law, but rather by the information processing system that exists in the bird's head.

...which works by "phsyical and chemical laws". The author is attempting to make a false disjunction.

The same is true for human minds which operate on a far more sophisticated level. Instead of building birds' nests, we build sky scrapers. Our minds arrange events in patterns which we call designs. This memo reflects a pattern of events arranged by intent.

Blah, blah, blah. Where's the part where he explains how ID is actually an alleged science?

B. What are Causes of other Patterns of Events? Patterns of events not arranged by intent, have been arranged by chance, necessity or a combination of the two.

Again, false trichotomy and false disjunction.

Patterns of events can also be arranged by "necessity." A necessary event is one that is required to happen due to the laws of chemistry and physics. A salt crystal is an example of a pattern of events arranged only by chance and necessity without any direct input from a mind. When, by chance, sodium and chlorine ions are deposited into a body of water with no outlet the positively charged sodium ions will be attracted to the negatively charged chlorine ions to form a very regular three dimensional crystal lattice in the form of a cube. The mineral that is produced is called halite. Sandstones also reflect a pattern of events arranged by necessity. The size of the grains found in the rock will vary with the strength of the current. In this case the pattern reflects the operation of the law of gravity in an aquatic environment. Events can also occur by chance. A chance event is one that (a) can not be predicted, and (b) is not controlled by intent or necessity/law. We all know what chance events are if we have gone to a casino. Assume I have a bag of 26 scrabble pieces, each of which bears a different letter of the alphabet. What are my chances of spelling the word "DESIGN" by blindly putting my hand in the bag and pulling out the correct letters in the correct sequence (assuming that I put each piece back after I have noted the letter pulled)? The chance of pulling the D is 1/26, the chance of pulling D and E in that sequence is 1/26 x 1/26 or 1/676, etc. Thus the chance of spelling DESIGN in sequence is 1/26x1/26x1/26x1/26x1/26x1/26 = 1/308,915,776. Thus, as the complexity of the pattern increases, the probability of its occurrence by chance decreases.

Again, blah blah blah. None of this shows that "ID" is developed via the scientific method.

C. Intelligent Design Holds that Design is Empirically Detectable in Nature. Intelligent Design holds that design is empirically detectable in nature and particularly in living systems.

Again, he can "hold" any proposition he wants, but that doesn't make it a science -- or even necessarily a true statement.

Stated another way, Intelligent Design holds that we can look at a pattern of events and reliably infer from the arrangement of events constituting the pattern and surrounding circumstances whether the events have been arranged by intent through the use of a mind or whether the pattern is more likely the result of only chance and necessity. Thus, Intelligent Design is essentially nothing more than an inference. It is not a philosophy. It is not a religion. It is merely an inference based on observations of patterns of events that occur in nature.

Things that are "nothing more than an inference" -- as the author himself labels ID -- do not rise to the level of a science. The author has just torpedoed his own thesis.

The word "intelligent" in the phrase "intelligent design" is perhaps even superfluous since any design necessarily implies a mind or some form of intelligence as the agent that causes the events to be arranged into a "design."

Where's the "science" part, please?

D. Design Detection Involves Three Steps. Design detection involves three steps. • First: Find a pattern of events that is functional, carries a message or has some discernable structure - that reflects "specified complexity." • Second: Rule out Necessity as a cause of the pattern. • Third: Rule out Chance as a cause of the pattern.

Can't prove a negative in the first place, and again the author relies on a false trichotomy of his own choosing.

Fallacious reasoning from top to bottom, and *still* none of this describes any methodology which makes ID a science.

Care to try again?

Hint: Before the IDers can hope to make an actual science out of their religiously-based view, it might help if they had the *first* clue about what science actually consists of. This sort of blather just reveals, yet again, that they don't.

[mlc9852]

My tax dollars go to maintain roads I don't drive on. How is that fair? And my tax dollars support many other things I derive no benefit from yet I still have to pay taxes. Specious argument.

[Non-Sequitur]

I have no problem with paying taxes. They're there and they have to be paid. However, it is wrong to be forced to support something I do not use and will see no gain from.

I sat through a miserable year of geometry in high school and I don't recall using it once in my adult life. Should we do away with it?

[Hacksaw]

The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards and argued the changes would make teaching about evolution more balanced and expose studels teach science.

And another purple rage from the cultural Marxists ensues...

[anthraciterabbit]

The people have spoken and have said NO to commies, athiests and monkey worshippers!

And science, don't forget that. They said "No" to science, too.

Evolution isn't "science". The people have said no to a bunch of effete losers who think they have some God-given right to impose their own particular brand of junk science and ideology on their (the people's) children in public schools at public expense. That's entirely legit.

[Non-Sequitur]

Evolution isn't "science".

Well...um...yes it is.

The people have said no to a bunch of effete losers who think they have some God-given right to impose their own particular brand of junk science and ideology on their (the people's) children in public schools at public expense.

And if you wish to replace science with theology then by all means home school them in any subject you wish. But I would prefer that my child be exposed to solid science and not theology masquerading as biology.

[durasell]

You miss the point. This is a decision that will be known in every board room of every corporation looking to relocate. It'll be known to every grant committee, both private and public, with money to give away. And it'll be known to every science teacher with an advanced degree looking for work.

The right or wrong of it only matters up to a certain point. The long term effects will be based on perception.

[Non-Sequitur]

This is a decision that will be known in every board room of every corporation looking to relocate. It'll be known to every grant committee, both private and public, with money to give away. And it'll be known to every science teacher with an advanced degree looking for work.

And I predict they'll never be enacted. The standards don't go into effect until 2007. In 2006 half the board is up for reelection, and 3 of the 4 voted for the new standards. I wouldn't surprise me in the least if two were defeated. We went through this a couple of years ago.

[durasell]

How did it play out where you are?

[Non-Sequitur]

How did it play out where you are?

Well, on a plus side I haven't heard a Wizard of Oz crack in months.

Most people I know are shrugging it off as yet another 'revenge of the rural yahoos' against the suburban Kansas City residents. I've spoken to my daughter's biology teacher and he doesn't think it will make a big difference to the way he teaches his subject. It makes us the butt of late night humor, but won't do a lot of real damage. Especially if the voices of reason take back the board next year. You have to remember that the board only controls K-12. They can't mess with the universities.

I'm more concerned with other things the board has done or proposed. They hired a right wing lobbiest without any education background at all to run the schools from the state level. They're targeting other things like 'sex education', you'd think that it was a year long class the way that they talk about it. They're hell-bent on vouchers. Stuff like that is where they can do the real damage, not only to public schools but to the private schools as well.

[Aquinasfan]

Best news I've heard in a long time!

Congratulations to Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, William Dembski, and all the other people who have worked so hard, have taken so much criticism, and have suffered professionally, for standing up for the truth.

[Kimball]

Best news I've heard in a long time! Congratulations to Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, Michael Denton, William Dembski, and all the other people who have worked so hard, have taken so much criticism, and have suffered professionally, for standing up for the truth.

I think you mean "Truth", which belongs with "belief" (ID)

As opposed to "fact", which belongs with "theory" (evolution)

[Liberal Classic]

Jees, please don't tell me you are a scientist! Hypotheses are assumptions to be shown false, Theories are "Proven" Hypotheses, Laws are indisputable Theories.

I'm sorry, but again you're incorrect. Not only are you wrong that theories are proven hypotheses, but you're also wrong that laws are promoted theories.

I Present the Theory of Intelligent Design. Please demonstrate it to be false though experiment and observation.

The burden of proof is on the supporter of a hypothesis not only to explain how his hypothesis may be disproved, but to actually carry out the experiment as well as to demonstrate through experiment how the currently prevailing model is incorrect.

It seems to me that many supporters of the intelligent design conjecture have their own incorrectly pre-conceived notions about what science is and how it works. If supporters of intelligent design would education themselves about how science conducts research, they might come to the realization that intelligent design is a philosophical premise and not something that is scientifically falsifiable. If supporters of intelligent design put as much effort and creativity into getting classes on ethics and morality taught in schools as they do trying to pass off a philosophy as science, students would be much better off, and this artificial conflict would wither away.