Skip to comments.
A column about Kansas Science Standards
EducationNews.org ^
| November 14, 2005
| State Board Chairman Steve Abrams, DVM
Posted on 11/14/2005 8:06:26 AM PST by Exigence
A column about Kansas Science Standards
Monday, November 14, 2005
By Steve Abrams, chairman, Kansas State Board of Education
Evolution. Creation. Intelligent Design. Is there any truth or facts that can come out of what has been bandied about in the media in the last few days?
Let me first comment a little about what my critics claim. Some of my critics claim it is nothing short of trying to insert the supernatural into the Science classroom. Others claim I am trying to insert creation into the Science classroom via the backdoor. A few claim that I know nothing about science and that my Doctorate must have come from a mail order catalog.
The critics also claim that in the scientific community, there is no controversy about evolution. They then proceed to explain that I ought to understand something about this, because surely I can see that over a period of time, over many generations, a pair of dogs will “evolve”. There is a high likelihood that the progeny several generations down the line will not look like the original pair of dogs. And then some of the critics will claim that this proves that all living creatures came from some original set of cells.
Obviously, that is one of the reasons that we tried to further define evolution. We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature. We want to provide more clarity to this inflamed issue and we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding, but they prefer to misinform the media and assassinate the character of qualified scientists who are willing to shed some light. In our Science Curriculum Standards, we called this micro-evolution and macro-evolution… changes within kinds and changing from one kind to another. Again, as previously stated, evolutionists want nothing to do with trying to clarify terms and meanings.
Most of the critics that send me email send 4 basic comments: they claim that we are sending Kansas back to the Dark Ages, or that we are making a mockery of science, or that we are morons for putting Intelligent Design into the Science Standards or that they also are Christian and believe in evolution.
There are a few critics that want to present an intellectual argument about why Intelligent Design should not be included in the Science Curriculum Standards. They claim that ID is not good science. From the aspect that Intelligent Design is not a full fledged developed discipline, I would agree. But, if one takes the time to read the Science Curriculum Standards, they would see that Intelligent Design is not included.
So, what are a couple of the main areas that our critics take issue?
It seems that instead of making it a “he said”, and then “she said”, and then “he said” and so on and on, it would make sense to go to the document about which everyone is supposedly commenting about: The Kansas Science Curriculum Standards.
The critics claim that we have redefined science to include a backdoor to Biblical creation or the super-natural.
From Science Curriculum Standards, page ix:
Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.
Where does that say the field of science is destroyed and the back door opened to bring Biblical creation into the science classroom?
Another claim that our critics promote through the media is that we are inserting Intelligent Design. Again, if we go to the Science Curriculum Standards, Standard 3 Benchmark 3 Indicators 1-7 (pg 75-77). This is the heart of the “evolution” area. Only 7 indicators…
1) understands biological evolution, descent with modification, is a scientific explanation for the history of the diversification of organisms from common ancestors.
2) understands populations of organisms may adapt to environmental challenges and changes as a result of natural selection, genetic drift, and various mechanisms of genetic change.
3) understands biological evolution is used to explain the earth’s present day biodiversity: the number, variety and variability of organisms.
4) understands organisms vary widely within and between populations. Variation allows for natural selection to occur.
5) understands that the primary mechanism of evolutionary change (acting on variation) is natural selection.
6) understands biological evolution is used as a broad, unifying theoretical framework for biology.
7) explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations.
As anyone can see, Intelligent Design is not included. But many of our critics already know this. This is not about Biblical creation or Intelligent Design… it is about the last 5 words of indicator 7… “scientific criticisms of those explanations.”
Evolutionists do not want students to know about or in any way to think about scientific criticisms of evolution. Evolutionists are the ones minimizing open scientific inquiry from their explanation of the origin of life. They do not want students to know that peer reviewed journals, articles and books have scientific criticisms of evolution.
So instead of participating in the Science hearings before the State Board Sub-Committee and presenting testimony about evolution, they stand out in the hall and talk to the media about how the PhD scientists that are presenting testimony about the criticisms “aren’t really scientists”… “they really don’t know anything”… “they obviously are in the minority and any real scientist knows there is not a controversy about evolution.”
Instead of discussing the issues of evolution, noisy critics go into attack mode and do a character assassination of anyone that happens to believe that evolution should actually be subject critical analysis.
In spite of the fact that the State Board approved Science Curriculum Standards that endorses critical analysis of evolution (supported by unrefuted testimony from many credentialed scientists at the Science Hearings) and does NOT include Intelligent Design, and add to that, the fact that scientific polls indicate that a large percentage of parents do not want evolution taught as dogma in the science classroom… what is the response from some of the Superintendents around Kansas? They seem to indicate that, “We don’t care what the State Board does, and we don’t care what parents want, we are going to continue teaching evolution just as we have been doing.”
But I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, because Superintendents and local boards of education in some districts continue to promulgate pornography as “literature”, even though many parents have petitioned the local boards to remove the porn. Obviously that is a different issue than the Science Standards, but it still points out the lack of commitment on the part of administration in some districts to allow parents to control the education for their own children.
I have repeatedly stated this is not about Biblical creation or Intelligent Design… this is about what constitutes good science standards for the students of the state of Kansas. I would encourage those who believe we are promoting a back door to creation or Intelligent Design to actually do your homework… READ and investigate the Science Curriculum Standards (www.ksde.org) and base your comments on them and not on the misinformation critics have been plastering the print and clogging the airways with… unless of course, your only defense really is baseless character assassination.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: buffoonery; clowntown; crevolist; evolution; goddoodit; idiocy; ignoranceisstrength; kansas; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 281 next last
To: Exigence
> We should shut down private schools and home schools, too, eh? Pardon, but your rampant liberalism is peeking through...
Again, seek help on obtaining at least a minimal education. You are embarassing yourself. You can't even do a decent ad hominem attack.
81
posted on
11/14/2005 9:26:48 AM PST
by
orionblamblam
("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
To: The_Reader_David
Origin of life is not evolution.
To: Quark2005; Exigence
There are real discussions in science about details of mechanism and history. Can variation be nonrandom? How large is the role of genetic drift? How large is the role of parapatric speciation? Is this or that taxon monophyletic or was it built in part by convergence? What exact selection pressures were operating to produce this or that? Discussions of that sort will go on indefinitely.
Only the whack jobs are still contesting common descent and whether evolution happens at all. The Kansas Board is in this latter territory.
83
posted on
11/14/2005 9:28:19 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: Doctor Stochastic
Can two members of the opposite sex was implied, obviously.
84
posted on
11/14/2005 9:28:24 AM PST
by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: bobhoskins
It is the same mentality that would pictures the start of a marthon, the middle, and the end just see a bunch of steps and no journey.
85
posted on
11/14/2005 9:29:57 AM PST
by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
86
posted on
11/14/2005 9:30:09 AM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: Exigence
It's also interesting how foreign science journals are more honest about printing research that might chip away at evolution. Citations?
87
posted on
11/14/2005 9:31:40 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Exigence
No, I am sying "you are hardly a neutral source"
You suggested that reading the article which contained a link would be sufficient.
If you had said "go to the link" I would not have had to point out that you are hardly a neutral source.
To: MeanWestTexan
It is the same mentality that would pictures the start of a marthon, the middle, and the end just see a bunch of steps and no journey. I'm not following what you mean by this ... could you clarify your statement?
To: blowfish
To: Doctor Stochastic
Try the Soviet biology journals of the 1950's. <g>
To: Exigence
Precisely irrelevant.
Origin of life is not evolution.
To: MeanWestTexan
Actually "another" might be better than opposite. Some critters have breeding strains that function about the same way as sexes. Schizophyllum commune, a fungus, has 28,000.
To: bobhoskins
Basically, this guy is preaching "micro-evolution" because all he sees is a single step, and intentionally refuses to see the evidence of a series of "steps."
He doesn't have (or refuses to use, more likely) the mental ability to see how multiple small changes can accumulate to create something completely different.
It is akin to seeing hand drawn animation frames not running through the projector and not seeing how one can have motion --- just a bunch of pictures, each slightly different.
94
posted on
11/14/2005 9:43:18 AM PST
by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: MeanWestTexan
Okay, thanks ... I keep hoping for explanations from "the other side" though ...
To: From many - one.
We're keeping it simple. Think vertibrates.
96
posted on
11/14/2005 9:46:00 AM PST
by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: MeanWestTexan
Spoilsport.
I like fungi. They're not mentioned in Genesis. That might mean they don't exist.
To: VadeRetro
...Gish has degrees in chemistry and biochemistry....But, we can be sure it's not "REAL" (wink, wink) chemistry and biochemistry...right?...
98
posted on
11/14/2005 9:49:46 AM PST
by
KMJames
To: KMJames
But, we can be sure it's not "REAL" (wink, wink) chemistry and biochemistry...right?... I'm sure Gish did the chemistry and biochemistry to get his degree (from Berkeley, I believe), and probably did very good work as a graduate student.
What peer-reviewed work has he published since then, is the real question. I'd be glad to give the man credit for any work he has done that has been published in referred journals - that's how scientific credibility works. As far as his rants about evolution, they really don't have much scientific relevance if they don't directly reflect actual accomplishments in science.
99
posted on
11/14/2005 9:59:53 AM PST
by
Quark2005
(Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
To: bobhoskins
I'm curious, what are the uppoer/lower bounds of permitted gentic change in a species? What happens when it reaches the maximum allowed changes in that species? Well it works like this. First you decide you don't like the idea of one type of animal turning into another type. Then you decide to draw the line at species because...well because you have heard the word species and that sounds like it will do.
That's it - sorry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 281 next 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
