A column about Kansas Science Standards

EducationNews.org ^ | November 14, 2005 | State Board Chairman Steve Abrams, DVM

[Exigence]

By throwing the issue to "local control" the state board leaves teachers much more vulnerable to complaints by parents or administrators eager to avoid controversy.

Well, of course you would be against local control. What would the world come to if Freepers believed they should have local control of their government bodies and taxes? Perish the thought. /sarc

[TheForceOfOne]

Please remove me from your ping list, thanks.

[Physicist]

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.

The word "quantity" comes to mind.

[Exigence]

Translation: We wanted to insert into science class a bogus distinction made only in creationist talking points and not by real scientists in the peer-reviewed literature.

There are real scientists holding real doctrates from real universities who are endorsing these standards. Just because someone disagrees with the god of naturalism does not make them "unreal" scientists to the intellectually honest parties in a debate. That is an ad hominem attack, but, unfortunately, par for the course...

[orionblamblam]

> Well, of course you would be against local control.

In some things, yes. The Constitution lays out some things as absolutes regardless of locality. The state school board sets standards. Abdicating responsibilities here has led to a hodge-podge of unConstitutional local gun laws as well as allowing schools to become urban cesspits of crime and stupidity in some places and rural cesspits of superstition and stupidity in others.

[orionblamblam]

> Just because someone disagrees with the god of naturalism ...

Do you understand how silly that makes you look?

[MeanWestTexan]

Not sure what you mean, but if the population of a single species gets seperated (say by geology -- earthquake or flood or something), and are seperated long enough with no cross-breeding, the seperated species often eventually change into two species.

This can be chance --- like, say if the population was 50% black and 50% white --- then the "event" (say flood with a new river) occurs, and you end up with a population that is 60% white on one side and 60% black on the other --- you'd generally get two distinct populations of black and white whatevers.

(They recently found a population of frogs where this happened that recently go re-mixed --- they generally don't cross breed, although physically very similar, apparently b/c cross-bred offspring are not very viable -- croaks being the only ready distinction)

Or, to use the more typical form of evolition, if one type of predator is one one side and not on the other, that population would start to pre-dispose whatever trait helped avoid that preditor (assuming any live, that is).

As far as "how far can they go" and not be the same species? (which I think is the question) --- the answer is, it depends.

The simplified definition of a species is usually: can they have viable children?

And the answer to that is: just depends on how far the DNA changes, on a case-by-case basis.

[sumocide]

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 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.

This micro/macro evolution distinction has zero scientific backing. The dear Chairman let his agenda show.

[From many - one.]

Here's one.

Let's look at that "harmless" science standard.

"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."

...."more adequate... is not the same as scientific and leaves the door open to supernatural explanations.

That's what's wrong.

[Exigence]

Can you figure out the distinction?

Got it. You said there were no criticisms and now you're backpeddaling and trying to blame me for your previous misstep. I see the distinction. It's called: CYA on your part. lol

[VadeRetro]

it is about the last 5 words of indicator 7… “scientific criticisms of those explanations.”

If you have to go outside the scientific literature to get the "scientific criticisms," then this is indeed the mislabeling its critics attack it as being. Hint: if your scientific criticisms are compiled by Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, Philip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, or a quote salad compiled by any of the preceding, they don't belong in biology class.

I have never seen an attempted collection of "scientific criticisms of those explanations" which would be anything more than what we have in creation/ID presentations on FR, an exercize in playing "find the gimmick." We shouldn't ask the ninth-graders to play that and win with their education on the line.

[AntiGuv]

It never ceases to amaze me what some people try to pass off as rational thought. Just an idle observation!

[Exigence]

This micro/macro evolution distinction has zero scientific backing.

Really? My staunch "evolution explains everything" prof for my undergrad evolutionary biology course said there was a distinction. Even he was intellectually honest enough to admit that -- and to cover the same criticisms of evolution in our course that Kansas science teachers were previously forbidden to utter. Very curious...

[wyattearp]

Has anybody here actually seen the new science standards? The closest that I have come is a copy of the docs for the meeting where they were adopted. I don't want to comment on these standards until I have actually read them. I don't care what the NYT says that they say, I don't care what this guy says that they say, I want to read them for myself. Why wont they publish them? I assumed that they had. I can't find them. Has anybody actually seen them?

[Exigence]

Just an idle observation!

I agree... it's a very "idle" observation... *g*

[AntiGuv]

Don't forget the Right Reverend William Paley!

[From many - one.]

Here I am again.

Note the following from the article:

"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."

A thoroughly dishonest representation of most scientists' views on evolution and no attribution given.

[Exigence]

Has anybody here actually seen the new science standards?

Maybe if you read the article I posted. The one above with the link to the standards that Abrams is urging everyone to read before they begin discussing the same.

[VadeRetro]

There are real scientists holding real doctrates from real universities who are endorsing these standards.

Gish has a degree in engineering. Behe is a real biochemist. Wow! That's one. Wells got some sort of biology degree to help Papa Sun Myung Moon destroy Darwinism from within. That's two. Johnson is a lawyer.

Yeah. Just call them the experts and ignore the world.

[Chiapet]

There are real scientists holding real doctrates [sic] from real universities who are endorsing these standards. Just because someone disagrees with the god of naturalism does not make them "unreal" scientists to the intellectually honest parties in a debate. That is an ad hominem attack, but, unfortunately, par for the course...

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "ad hominem." The sentence that you were responding to is not an ad hominem attack, but actually addresses a substantive issue. Hint: ad hominem is a personal attack to distract from the substance of the topic being argued.

And before you say it, yes, I realize that the sentence implied a distinction between "real scientists" and the advocates of the KSB standards. However, this is, in fact, one of the substantive issues in this context.