Evolution Suffers Kansas Setback

BBC ^ | 9 Nov 2005 | Staff

[Our_Man_In_Gough_Island]

The US state of Kansas has approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on evolution. The Board of Education's vote, expected for months, approved the new language criticising evolution by 6-4.

Proponents of the change argue they are trying to expose students to legitimate scientific questions about evolution.

The Kansas decision came as voters in Pennsylvania replaced all eight school board members who approved a similar policy in some of the state's schools.

Since October 2004, schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, have been obliged to read out a prepared statement on intelligent design in biology classes.

Teachers have been ordered to tell pupils that Darwin's theory of evolution is unproven, and that the universe is so complex that it may have been created by a higher power.

Last month parents in Dover sued the school board, accusing it of introducing religion and creationism into schools, in breach of the US constitutional separation of church and state.

Definition of science

Tuesday's vote in Kansas was the third time in six years that the Kansas board has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue.

Current state standards treat evolution as well-established, a view held by national science groups.

We are all for intelligent design being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class

The new standards include several specific challenges, including statements that there is a lack of evidence or natural explanation for the genetic code, and charges that fossil records are inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

It also states that says certain evolutionary explanations "are not based on direct observations... and often reflect... inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence".

"This is a great day for education," board chairman Steve Abrams told the Reuters news agency.

Decisions about what is taught in Kansas classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but the new standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science.

Educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.

'Theory, not science'

In Dover, the first US district to introduce intelligent design into schools, new school board members are thought likely to repeal the policy.

"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class," said Judy McIlvaine, a new board member.

"It is not a science."

The case against the intelligent design policy was heard in a federal court case which ended last week.

A verdict is expected early next year.

[Junior]

Gracias.

[Junior]

The CrevoSci Archive Just one of the many services of Darwin Central "The Conspiracy that Cares"

• PatrickHenry's famous List-O-Links
• Webster's On-Line Dictionary:  Creationist

CrevoSci threads for the past week:

1. 2005-11-09 Dover CARES sweeps election (Intelligent Design loses big)
2. 2005-11-09 Evolution Suffers Kansas Setback
3. 2005-11-08 RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years (Evolution loses)
4. 2005-11-08 "The ""Vatican"" Endorses ""Darwin""? [""Vatican"" has done no such thing"
5. 2005-11-08 Kansas education board downplays evolution
6. 2005-11-08 Down for the Count (Sleep & Evolution)
7. 2005-11-08 Kansas State Board Approves Teaching Standards Skeptical of Evolution
8. 2005-11-08 Math problems too big for our brains
9. 2005-11-08 Bloodthirsty 'Vampire' Spider Found
10. 2005-11-08 Federal lawsuit could follow board vote [Evolution in Kansas & Dover]
11. 2005-11-07 [Kansas] Board Votes on Evolution (Tomorrow, NOV 8 - Teaching I.D. to be approved!)
12. 2005-11-07 An Evolutionist's Evolution [Huge exhibit at Museum of Nat. History, NYC]
13. 2005-11-07 Prehistoric skull found in dump may be missing common ancestor of apes & humans
14. 2005-11-07 Good genes beat good homes as guide to pupils’ school Success
15. 2005-11-07 Kennewick Man, Meet Your Distant Cousins
16. 2005-11-07 Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
17. 2005-11-07 A pope for our times: why Darwin is back on the agenda at the Vatican
18. 2005-11-06 Evolution Is in the Air
19. 2005-11-06 (Pennsylvania) Dover heads list of contested local races
20. 2005-11-06 African cousins behind extinction of Indians 70,000 years ago!
21. 2005-11-06 (Pennsylvania) Dover First Re-elect our school board
22. 2005-11-06 Intelligent Design or Mindless Evolution
23. 2005-11-06 Science as Kansas sees it
24. 2005-11-05 The Case of Behe vs. Darwin
25. 2005-11-05 Can biology do better than faith?
26. 2005-11-05 Do space aliens have souls? Inquiring minds can check Jesuit's book
27. 2005-11-05 Adult Stem Cells May Be Just Remnants Of Evolution
28. 2005-11-04 'Intelligent design' trial set to conclude [at last]
29. 2005-11-04 Is science driven by inspired guesswork?
30. 2005-11-04 Shaped from clay [origin of life]
31. 2005-11-03 Vatican Cardinal Says We Should Listen to Science
32. 2005-11-03 Science versus scientism
33. 2005-11-03 The Specter of Difference
34. 2005-11-03 Origin of board decision probed [Dover Evolution trial, 03 Nov]
35. 2005-11-03 Scientists See Light that May Be from First Objects in Universe
36. 2005-11-03 Bees solve complex colour puzzles (Bees solve puzzles computers can't - maybe they're designed!)

---

CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of November:
 

2000-11-10 AncientAirs 2000-11-21 AndrewC 1998-11-18 angelo 1999-11-22 Blood of Tyrants 2003-11-26 blowfish 2004-11-08 CarolinaGuitarman 1997-11-28 cd jones 2001-11-30 claptrap 2001-11-16 CobaltBlue 2002-11-21 DannyTN 2004-11-16 DaveLoneRanger 1997-11-30 Ditto 2001-11-16 dmz

2000-11-11 Ernest_at_the_Beach 2000-11-02 Exit 109 2000-11-22 FFIGHTER 2000-11-12 ForGod'sSake 2001-11-07 FourtySeven 2000-11-10 Godel 2004-11-06 GreenOgre 2000-11-04 harbinger of doom 2000-11-28 HiTech RedNeck 1999-11-05 Ichneumon 1998-11-13 jennyp 1998-11-25 Junior_G 2002-11-17 Just mythoughts

2004-11-11 kaotic133 2003-11-18 little jeremiah 1998-11-18 malakhi 2000-11-19 Mike Fieschko 2000-11-06 mrjeff 1999-11-05 muleskinner 2003-11-17 Nathan Zachary 2002-11-12 NCLaw441 1999-11-25 Nebullis 2000-11-13 NYer 2000-11-24 old-ager 2004-11-03 PajamaHadin 2000-11-10 Patriotic Teen

1998-11-01 Pharmboy 2000-11-11 P-Marlowe 2000-11-16 presidio9 2002-11-14 Remedy 2000-11-30 Right Wing Professor 2004-11-18 rightwinggoth 1998-11-15 rob777 1998-11-04 RobRoy 1999-11-16 TerP26 2000-11-04 TigerTale 2004-11-11 untrained skeptic 2000-11-05 will of the people 2003-11-29 woodb01

---

In Memoriam
Fallen CrevoSci Warriors:

---

ALS angelo Area Freeper Aric2000 Askel5 biblewonk bluepistolero churchillbuff claptrap codebreaker Con X-Poser ConservababeJen DittoJed2 dob

Ed Current f.Christian followerofchrist general_re goodseedhomeschool gopwinsin04 gore3000 IllumiNOTi JediGirl JesseShurun JethroHathaway jlogajan Justice Avenger Kevin Curry

kharaku knowquest Le-Roy malakhi Marathon medved metacognative Modernman n4sir NoKinToMonkeys Ogmios peg the prophet Phaedrus Phoroneus

pickemuphere ret_medic RickyJ SeaLion Selkie Shubi Tomax tpaine Truth666 twittle Unalienable WaveThatFlag xm177e2

---

Bring back Modernman and SeaLion!

---

Lost CrevoSci Battlefields (Pulled Threads)

• 2004-04-27 Stop Teaching Our Kids this Evolution Claptrap!
• 2003-10-29 The Mystery of the Missing Links (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution)
• 2003-10-27 Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution
• 2003-10-23 Gene Found for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
• 2003-10-21 Artificial Proteins Assembled from Scratch
• 2003-09-23 Solar System Formation Questions
• 2003-07-18 Unlikely Group May Revive Darwin Debate [Evolution v. Creationism]
• 2003-07-02 "Unlocking the Mystery of ""Unlocking the Mystery of Life"""
• 2003-06-26 Darwin Faces a New Rival
• 2003-06-06 Amazing Creatures
• 2002-09-13 Oldest Known Penis Is 100 Million Years Old
• 2002-04-10 (Creationists) CRSC Correction
• 2001-08-28 The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6th Revision]
• 2001-08-26 A Scientific Account of the Origin of Life on Earth [Thread I]
• 2001-01-13 A Christian Understanding of Intelligent Design
• 2000-10-10 Another Lost Generation?
• 2000-08-30 Evil-Ution
• 1999-11-14 Creationism's Success Past 5 Years: (Gallup: 1 in 10 hold secular evolutionist perspective)

---

Longest CrevoSci Thread Ever

• 2002-12-11 Evolution Disclaimer Supported (6,871 replies)

---

Glossary of Terms

Assumption: Premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Belief: Any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Crevo:  Creation vs. evolution
CrevoSci:  Creation vs. evolution/Science
CrevoSci Warriors:  Those who take part on CrevoSci threads
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Fact: When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Freepday:  The day a Freeper joined Free Republic
Hypothesis: A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Impression: A vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Law: A generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Observation: Any information collected with the senses
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

---

The
official beer
of Darwin Central

[Coyoteman]

Kansas has approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on evolution.

Corrected version:

Kansas has approved science standards for public schools that cast doubt on Kansas.

[orionblamblam]

> Attacking someone's credibility by attacking their character or questioning their intelligence, is no "proof" that they are wrong.

You know, the same thing is said every time a "Christian" coems on FR and declares that evolutionists are "God haters" or Liberals some such similar drivel.

> If science doesn't have a better defense than that, they are in trouble.

Who says science doesn't? The problem is that in this case, science is up against entreched dogma with easy answers. Sciecne has been up against such before, and has often temporarily lost. Science lost to the Greek Pythagorean mystics, to the early Church, to the Commies, to the Nazis, to the Muslims. Being factually right is no sure defense against being politically incorrect.

> Shouldn't they be using facts instead?

"They" are. Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting it, from physics to genetics to paleontology to even astronomy... and it has nothing standing against it except for religious faith.

But as the Parisians are discovering, religious faith often trumps reason.

[metmom]

Then what's the point of stating that Flat Earthers and Fundies are "nuts"? That's name calling. Why call them names?

[orionblamblam]

> Then what's the point of stating that Flat Earthers and Fundies are "nuts"?

Well... what would *you* call someone who looks at a square and declares that it's a circle? Even after a century and a half of piling up evidence from many fields that a square is in fact a square and not a circle?

[metmom]

"Wrong"

[Mogollon]

There was a time when there was no matter in the universe but there never was a time when there was nothing in the universe...otherwise nothing would exist now.

[orionblamblam]

There comes a point when someone transcends being merely wrogn to being crazy. Comign to an incorrect conclusion due to insufficient data is one thing. Insisting on an incorrect conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence is somethign else entirely.

[Psalm 73]

"OK, so you're an Athiest."
"Errr. WRONG."

Sooo, you believe in God, but that He is just not smart enough to design a human being?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Great! Another lawsuit about to begin.

[blowfish]

Sooo, you believe in God, but that He is just not smart enough to design a human being?

My god is smart enough to start the whole ball spinning and allow the galaxies, stars, chemicals and organisms to develop as a matter of course. Your god is a fussy tinkerer who couldn't get it right the first time and had to keep jumping in to fix things: a rib here, an apple there.

[Psalm 73]

"My god is smart enough to start the whole ball spinning...."

Ah yes - smart but not personal, one who cares not a whit about His creation?
And He created all of this for........?

[blowfish]

I don't presume to fully understand the Mind of God.

[metmom]

"And He created all of this for........?"

Because it was good. It says that in Genesis everytime He gets done creating something. And then when He gets done creating man; it's "very good". I don't believe that God went through all the effort to create and just abandon it. What would be the point in that? If He wasn't actively involved with His creation and didn't care about it, then why would He have gone to all the trouble of telling mankind about Himself by having it written down? That doesn't sound like not caring to me.

[orionblamblam]

> He is just not smart enough to design a human being?

Well, according to your thinking, apparently not. Since he went through many prototypes and then abandoned them.

Of course, a Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, or whatever) who didn't want to be an ill-educated boob would recognize that any deity smart/powerful enough to create a universe from scratch could order it via natural laws, and throw in evolutionary processes to make it a better and more beautiful place than some static painting. ANd given the evidence, that's certainly what appears to have happened.

So.

Are you one of those who believes that the evidence of genetics and paleontology and physics and astronomy are tricks that your God is playing on you?

[steve-b]

It also states that says certain evolutionary explanations "are not based on direct observations... and often reflect... inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence".

Yeah, that's the same reasoning the OJ Simpson jury used to reject the "indirect or circumstantial evidence" indicating his guilt.

[Psalm 73]

"....according to your thinking, apparently not. Since he went through many prototypes and then abandoned them."

No, God created man in His image.
Genetics gives evidence of a common ancestor for human beings.
Despite all of the science focused on this idea of evolution originating from a common inanimate object in the oceans - we have NEVER witnessed one species turning (or even beginning to turn) into something completely different.
All of the changes we can witness are WITHIN species.
You say that you believe in God? Well why not believe that God created us just as we are - seeing there is no hard evidence to support us comming from something else - (a jaw bone here, a femur there - and they deduce from that that hundreds of thousands of sub-humans roamed the earth?)
Oh, we could go on, but this gets so tedious - what whith those fragile secular egos and all......

[Coyoteman]

no hard evidence to support us comming from something else - (a jaw bone here, a femur there - and they deduce from that that hundreds of thousands of sub-humans roamed the earth?)

And these are just a few of the more photogenic specimens. Enjoy.

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

[orionblamblam]

> Genetics gives evidence of a common ancestor for human beings.

And chimps. And gorillas. And dogs, cats, rats, salamanders, fish, worms...

> Despite all of the science focused on this idea of evolution originating from a common inanimate object in the oceans - we have NEVER witnessed one species turning (or even beginning to turn) into something completely different.

Nice strawman.

> All of the changes we can witness are WITHIN species.

Factually inaccurate. Do a search on "observed speciation."

> You say that you believe in God?

Did I?

> Well why not believe that God created us just as we are

Because that's not what the evidence of the natural world shows. To believe what you suggest would mean that God is a liar and a scumbag trickster. Is that your God?