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.

[ml1954]

Non-sequitor: If your faith teaches you that one race is superior to another [...] should the schools alter their curriculum to 'respect' those theories?

You: Science shows clearly that races differ in their abilities and character.

I'd say that's over the line. I didn't know science showed that some races are superior to others. You assert it does. Where's your evidence for this vile assertion.

[TheHound]

I am going to try this one more time. Evolution was not science and it is not pure science. It cannot be proven, it can only be inferred. Darwinism was the first example of historical observation and it's inference to be called science. Now people can generate terabytes of anecdotal evidence for evolution but no one can show you one proven example (search fruit fly).

It is like astrophysics can describe what happen down to the first millisecond of the "Big Bang", but cannot tell you what Gravity is. No one knows why masses attract each other.

Read some Scientific Americans on what was believed 50, 100 and 150 years ago and project how stupid we will be 100 years from now.

I am not so stupid as to reject intelligent design, because I have insufficient evidence to rule it out and it can explain some incomprensibles (the list is many: from the importance of irrational numbers, the magic proportion .618...., gravity etc etc).

So maybe 100 years from now I will be the idiot or you might be.

[Liberal Classic]

Most students also wish they had the choice to not have to read about math. I, for one, am opposed to giving them that choice.

[AndrewC]

So which race is superior?

Do men and women differ?

[A. Pole]

What's refusing to believe in science called?

A good sense. Believing in science in ANTI-scientific. Believing in science is as scientific as cargo cult.

Still there is a key religious aspect at the foundation of science. It is a strong belief that the universe is not arbitrary or random but it was designed and created by God in orderly manner according the laws of nature laid by Him. This belief in intelligent design taught in medieval universities made the science possible!

[js1138]

You left out a step. You also have to rule out natural selection, which is neither chance nor necessity.

[Non-Sequitur]

Do men and women differ?

Which sex is superior?

[Coyoteman]

I wish I had the choice to not have read about evolution.

You would prefer pictures, then? Glad to oblige.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[AndrewC]

I'd say that's over the line. I didn't know science showed that some races are superior to others. You assert it does. Where's your evidence for this vile assertion.

Looks like you're the one making the argument. Different is not a ranking.

[pulaskibush]

Math is needed to succeed in life. The theory of evolution is not. As I recall, there was the study of biology before the theory evolution.

[Non-Sequitur]

It is a strong belief that the universe is not arbitrary or random but it was designed and created by God in orderly manner according the laws of nature laid by Him.

Wouldn't that be faith and not science?

[AndrewC]

Which sex is superior?

I see a glimmer in your light bulb. Cogitate a little more and you might come up with the answer(neither).

[ml1954]

Read the rest of #66.

[js1138]

As I recall, there was the study of biology before the theory evolution.

Stamp collecting. Without an organizing theory, biology is just stamp collecting.

[ml1954]

Correction. Read the rest of #75. The implication is clear.

[Non-Sequitur]

I see a glimmer in your light bulb. Cogitate a little more and you might come up with the answer(neither).

Then your posts are meaningless. Nobody is saying the sexes aren't different or that there aren't differences between the races. But what if your religion believes one race is superior, should that be taught in schools out of 'respect' for your sensibilities?

[AndrewC]

Read the rest of #66.

Yeah, so? That is non-sequitur's post.

[Liberal Classic]

Evolution was not science and it is not pure science. It cannot be proven, it can only be inferred...

<Broken record mode>

Scientific theories aren't proven. They are demonstrated to be false through experiment and observation.

</Broken record mode>

No one knows why masses attract each other.

No, but we have a theory, which is our best educated guess. Einstein's theory of general relativity is our theory of gravitation. It postulates that massive objects curve space, causing the forces we observe. As it is a theory, like evolution, and cannot be proved. Like Newton's Universal Gravitation, it may only be demonstrated as being false. Einstein's theories supplanted Newton's Universal Gravitation because Newtonian physics couldn't explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Einstein showed that Newtonian gravity was only an approximation that because inaccurate in the presence of strong gravitational fields.

[ml1954]

Sorry. Read the rest of #75. The implication is clear.

[Kimball]

IMHO, fans of intelligent design seem to assume that what is mysterious today will always be so, and that we are better off invoking a supernatural explanation. This is defeatist, and no better for religion than for science. Basing a spiritual faith on the inadequacies of present-day science leaves believers with nothing more than a God of the Gaps, and even if those gaps are never eradicated, science will continue to close old ones and open new ones. Follow this path and you have a nomadic designer armed with suspiciously shifting powers of influence, almost a trickster of sorts. Personally, I don't believe that's what God is all about.