Posted on 11/10/2005 4:22:26 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Pennsylvania school rejects intelligent design, just as Kansas embraces it.
Despite fierce opposition from scientists and teachers, the Kansas State Board of Education has adopted teaching standards that support intelligent design, the idea that an intelligent creator shaped the course of evolution.
"This is just the latest in a series of troubling decisions by the board," Kathleen Sebelius, the Democratic governor of Kansas, said in a statement. "If we're going to continue to bring high-tech jobs to Kansas and move our state forward, we need to strengthen science standards, not weaken them."
At the same time, things have moved in the opposite direction in Dover, Pennsylvania, which is home to the highest profile court case against intelligent design.
The Dover school board has been in court since September (see 'School board in court over bid to teach intelligent design'), after adopting standards that criticize evolution and, say parents, violate the separation of church and state.
On 8 November, eight of the nine members of the school board were voted out by the community. They were replaced by people who oppose the teaching of intelligent design in science class.
Critical assessment
In Kansas, this is the second time in six years that there has been a vote to change education standards in favour of what scientists see as a pro-religion agenda. In 1999, the school board voted to eliminate teaching evolution, cosmology, and some aspects of geology (see 'Kansas kicks evolution out of the classroom').
The following year, a vigorous campaign by scientists and teachers cost conservatives a majority on the elected board and led to the standards being overturned.
But now the new standards, adopted by a six to four vote on 8 November, require the teaching of specific criticisms of evolution in high school classrooms. These talk about a lack of evidence for a "primordial soup" in which life originated and "a lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code".
"This is a huge victory for students in Kansas," says Casey Luskin, a programme officer in policy and legal affairs at the Discovery Institute, an intelligent-design think-tank in Seattle.
Luskin says that the standards will help students to recognize legitimate scientific criticisms of evolution. He notes that they make no direct reference to intelligent design: "Critics say that the school board is bringing religion into the classroom, but they're not."
Open door
Not so, says Jack Krebs, vice-president of Kansas Citizens for Science, which opposes the new standards. Krebs fears that the standards will embolden teachers in conservative schools across the state to begin teaching intelligent design. "This decision is going to open the door for anyone who's leaning towards creationism," he says.
The decision had long been expected, and some scientific groups have already stated their opposition to the changes (see 'Kansas backs lessons critical of evolution').
The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association recently withheld the copyright for the national science standards on which Kansas' standards are based, as a protest against the changes.
Krebs says he hopes that still more support will be rallied in the months ahead. "I think it will be critical to get the religious and academic communities aroused and involved," he says.
Meanwhile the trial in Dover awaits a decision. Although the ruling, expected in December or January, may no longer have a direct effect on the school that started the case, the legal precedent it sets could influence the way schools teach evolution nationwide.
|
hrmn. thanks.
oops, it says that in the body of the thread...sorry
The Brits have always had a unique perspective on this. When visiting Westminster Abbey for the first time back in the '70s, I was amazed to find a particular within in the floor in a prominant position in England's National Church. It was Charles Darwin.
And some creationist type will come along and claim that the Church of England is Apostate or isn't really Christian, hence the explanation for finding a positive Chruch-Darwin connection.
Definitely could happen. And I unfortunately left out the word "grave" from my original post.
Everyone knows that anyone who doesn't believe a 6-day creation in Genesis and a 6000 year-old universe isn't a Christian and, in fact, is an atheist.
I've been there, and I've seen it. I think (but don't really know) that Darwin always regarded himself as Christian. He studied for the ministry, and was certainly devout as a young man. He did seem to have some doubts late in life.
Those who are always popping into these threads to babble that eeee-villl-uuuuu-shun is the direct road to atheism, sodomy, mass murder, communism, etc. can never quite deal with the exemplary life of Darwin. Or the thousands of biology teachers, scientists, etc. who don't exhibit the "inevitable" consequences that the anti-evos imagine will follow from learning science.
Not that such things are evidence for or against Darwin's work. A scientific theory stands or falls on the evidence for or against the theory. Darwin's biography is irrelevant. But he seems to have been a worthy gentleman of his generation.
Indeed...well stated. And, if I remember correctly, Charles' dad was an important clergyman in the COE.
There's something about this country that makes every guy with a Bible think that he is an expert on Scripture.
Witness how American churches have historically splintered along minor points of theology.
More established, sober churches, don't seem to have much of a problem with many scientific theories, such as evolution. It seems like it's only the Churches of "Me and you, and I'm not so sure about you" that are up in arms against science.
A weak faith, in my opinion. You don't see the Pope freaking out over the TOE, for example.
Part of it might be that they would rather focus on fighting a scientific theory, than going out and doing the hard work associated with Christianity, such as feeding the poor, caring for the sick etc.
I wonder, would Jesus be spending his time fighting to get intelligent design into schools, or would he be down at the homeless shelter caring for society's worst-off?
That could be true...dont know.
What constitutes being a christian vs being a Christian is totally different though.
Mat 7:13
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
There will be many christians going to hell someday.
Thanks for the ping!
The CrevoSci Archive Just one of the many services of Darwin Central "The Conspiracy that Cares" |
CrevoSci threads for the past week:
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 2004-11-21 VictoryGal 2000-11-05 will of the people 2003-11-29 woodb01 |
In Memoriam
|
Lost CrevoSci Battlefields (Pulled Threads)
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
1.The Evolutionary Biology of Plants, by Karl J. Niklas, 1997. I bought this book because plants receive short shrift in most evolution books and are almost unmentioned in the Creo literature. This book is not too expensive, if you buy a used one, and has a lot of great information in it not available in other texts. He spends a lot of time on "Adaptive Walks" which was both interesting and a little too much. But his chapters on the emergence of plants onto land are quite good. Niklas' style is a bit thick, so it is not easy to read. I would recommend this book if you have an interest in plants, but not as a primary book.
2.Molecular Evolution by Wen-Hsiung Li, 1997. This book is very expensive (close to $200), so I borrowed it through my local library. Physically it is shoddy and there is nothing in it that justifies such a high price. The first third of the book is a review of molecular biology and population genetics and other related subjects. When Li does get into examples they are both overwhelming and very good. His description of the human apolipoproteins is perfect, but it his own work. He has few examples, but they are all very good ones and described in great detail. This is also a weakness - there are few examples and many others are not mentioned. In addition, this book is now old. Most information in it is now 10-15 years old and he has missed the great pile of new stuff that has come out since this was written. I recommend it if you can get it free or real cheap. I hope a new edition comes out, but it would have to be completely rewritten since the amount of new data is overwhelming. Somewhat of a disappointment to me.
3.Lehninger, Principles of Biochemistry, by D.L. Nelson and M.M. Cox, 2005. Since Lehninger is no longer personally involved in book writing, the task has been taken over by Nelson and Cox. They have kept what made the old Lehninger's so powerful and added a big pile of new stuff, especially 3D models of proteins. They have done a great job. This book is expensive (over $100), but I managed to get one for about $50 that was almost like new. While evolution is only treated in passing, the evidence in this book buttresses evolutionary theory in a powerful way. You can also get a lot of peripheral stuff that I think is probably superfluous. Highly recommended.
4. Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas Futuyma, 1998, 3rd edition. This is the classic Evolution book. Every person on both sides should read it. I got an almost new one for about $40, so it's not too expensive. It does need updating since the information is now 10 years old, but the examples are very good and he covers all aspects of evolution. He spreads his examples out over many groups and, as a result, the detail is not that good. He even has an appendix "Contending with Creationism". It could have come right from a CREVO thread here at FR. In addition he discusses "optimal design" periodically (p.5) "The respiratory pathway crosses the path that food follows from pharynx to esophagus. This is not an optimal design [choking hazard]; it makes sense only in light of a history in which the nares of primitive fishes were recruited for breathing". Highly recommended for both evo types and Creationoids who want to make sense and not look silly.
I have two other books I am in the process of digesting Biology of the Prokaryotes and Molecular Genetics of Bacteria that I will review later if I think people may be interested.
The problem with science has always been that as soon as a book is published it is out of date by a few years. And in the rapidly moving areas of molecular biology those few years can be big. These books can help interested people a great deal, but keeping up to date will have to be done in a high tech library, if you have one available.
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.