Skip to comments.
New York Times Deceives Public About Kansas Definition of Science
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/kansas_definition_of_science_c.html#more ^
Posted on 11/17/2005 5:26:06 AM PST by truthfinder9
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: truthfinder9
Well of course the NYTs rats lie at the drop
of a beret, to protect their souless socialist
movement to rip the human spirit out of all
americans.
To: truthfinder9
NYT lied? Can it be? What's this world coming to?
3
posted on
11/17/2005 5:59:11 AM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: truthfinder9; PatrickHenry
So now we get our definitions of science from Jonathan Wells, Ph.D, and the Discovery Institute????
Gimmi a break!
4
posted on
11/17/2005 6:12:30 AM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: NickatNite2003
Kansas did, indeed redefine science.
Here's the original:
"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
And here's the new version:
"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."
That is called a change. The new version is different from the old version. The new version does not specify natural explanations.
To: From many - one.
It looks like it sure did meaningfully and purposefully change the definition.
And some of these other definitions are bizarre:
Utah: "Science is a way of knowing, a process for gaining knowledge and understanding of the natural world."
Just like Buddhism. Give me a break.
6
posted on
11/17/2005 6:22:01 AM PST
by
BikerNYC
(Modernman should not have been banned.)
To: Coyoteman
Thanks, but I don't think I should ping the list to what is, essentially, nothing more than a denial of reality from a creationist source.
Junior, archival ping.
7
posted on
11/17/2005 6:32:32 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
To: Junior
Ooops. I forgot to include you in #7.
8
posted on
11/17/2005 6:33:49 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
To: BikerNYC
Basically what happens when "educators" get anywhere near science.
At least most of the others do not have a malicious intent. The Kansas definion was changed specifically to allow ID.
To: From many - one.
Actually, I was taught the latter definition, over..
well lets just say "over 25 years" ago...and leave it
at that. In fact that was the way i was taught it, in
both a private and a public school. They used to call
it 'Scientific Method'...
To: truthfinder9
Jonathan Wells is a Butt buddy of the Reverand Moon.
11
posted on
11/17/2005 7:05:07 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: js1138
12
posted on
11/17/2005 7:07:09 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: truthfinder9
Interesting that Kansas would like to defend ID as science, even though it partakes of none of the activities listed in the various state definitions.
Not one hypothesis or test or piece of new data has originated with the ID movement.
13
posted on
11/17/2005 7:11:13 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: NickatNite2003
You do realize, I hope, that a word for word presaging on the Kansas rewrite is highly unlikely.
Do you have a written source to back up your memory?
To: js1138
ID is science, evolution is religion and a completely different definition is not a changed defintion.
Wonderland.
To: From many - one.
'Fraid not...that *was* a *long* time ago for me..
But i have no doubt that a search for the term
'Scientific Method' would result in some
corroborating info.
To: NickatNite2003
Nope, not scientific method.
That version misses the basic point of the answers needing to refer to the natural world.
That's one reason I doubt your memory.
To: From many - one.
At any rate, it's not the definition at the beginning of the standards that counts. It's the bogus undermining of evidence in the details. The assertion that the fossil record does not support evolution -- something denied by ID advocates Behe and Denton.
18
posted on
11/17/2005 8:17:18 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: js1138
You're right..there's a lot of stuff besides the new definiton that is dishonest and just plain wrong and definitely put there with an agenda
 |
The CrevoSci Archive Just one of the many services of Darwin Central "The Conspiracy that Cares" |
CrevoSci threads for the past week:
- 2005-11-17 New York Times Deceives Public About Kansas Definition of Science
- 2005-11-17 Prehistoric Lizard Called Historic Link
- 2005-11-16 Defense Attorney's Closing Argument in Dover Evolution Trial
- 2005-11-16 Federal Science-Education Framework Document Contains Scientific Errors
- 2005-11-16 NY museum says Darwin's theory never more relevant
- 2005-11-16 Ultra-sensitive microscope reveals DNA processes
- 2005-11-15 Biologically-Inspired Micro-Robots. Volume 1. Robots Based on Crickets
- 2005-11-15 Early Humans Settled India Before Europe, Study Suggests
- 2005-11-15 'Perception' gene tracked humanity's evolution, scientists say
- 2005-11-15 'Perception' gene tracked humanity's evolution, scientists say [Locked]
- 2005-11-15 Stanford Scientists' Discovery of Hormone Offers Hope For Obesity Drug
- 2005-11-15 The Intrinsic Evil of Evolutionary Humanism
- 2005-11-15 UW professors: Discovering life on other planets unlikely (Barf!)
- 2005-11-14 A column about Kansas Science Standards
- 2005-11-14 Darwin And The Origin Of
.The Racist?
- 2005-11-14 For Republicans, a debate over the party's design
- 2005-11-14 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EMBRACES EVOLUTION!!!!
- 2005-11-13 Intelligent Design Grounded in Science
- 2005-11-13 Intelligent Design, Part 1
- 2005-11-13 Pope states the universe is a product of an 'intelligent project'
- 2005-11-13 Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
- 2005-11-13 Vietnam study shows bird flu virus mutating - media
- 2005-11-12 [Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius criticizes State Board of Education's move [new science standards]
- 2005-11-12 ID [Intelligent Design] Opens Astronomers Mind to Universes Surprises
- 2005-11-11 A revolution for evolution - Intelligent design must not replace hard science in classrooms.
- 2005-11-11 Dover results disputed: School board candidate says machine was faulty
- 2005-11-11 FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?
- 2005-11-11 Potential Origins of Europeans Found
- 2005-11-11 The Real Evil of Evolutionary Humanism
CrevoSci Thread Count, 2005 YTD: 1111
On This Date in CrevoSci History
- 2004-11-17 Creation theory gets boost (Australia)
- 2004-11-17 Humans Were Born to Run, Scientists Say
- 2004-11-17 Intellectual Elitists See Red All Over
- 2004-11-17 Profs provide Darwin's defense in evolution case
- 2004-11-17 Scientists move closer to linking embryos of the Earth's first animals to adult form
- 2003-11-17 Ancient Hearths Test Carbon Dating (Humans In Brazil 56K+ Years Ago)
- 2003-11-17 Is there anybody out there? [Book review]
- 2003-11-17 Scientific American: Does Race Exist?
- 2003-11-17 The Irrational Atheist
- 2000-11-17 'The Evolution of Genocide' -- Darwin's Heart of Darkness
- 1999-11-17 Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism [Book Review]
Longest CrevoSci Thread Ever
Lost CrevoSci Battlefields (Pulled or Locked Threads)
- 2005-11-15 'Perception' gene tracked humanity's evolution, scientists say
- 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
- 2003-09-17 Agreement of the Willing - Free Republic Science Threads
- 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)
CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of November:
 In Memoriam Fallen CrevoSci Warriors:
1LongTimeLurker Ahriman ALS angelo Area Freeper Aric2000 Askel5 Asphalt biblewonk bluepistolero churchillbuff claptrap codebreaker Con X-Poser ConservababeJen Destro DittoJed2 |
dob Ed Current f.Christian followerofchrist general_re goodseedhomeschool gopwinsin04 gore3000 IllumiNOTi JediGirl JesseShurun JethroHathaway jlogajan Justice Avenger Kevin Curry kharaku |
knowquest Land of the Irish Le-Roy malakhi Marathon medved metacognative mikeharris65 missyme Modernman n4sir NoKinToMonkeys Ogmios peg the prophet Phaedrus Phoroneus |
pickemuphere ReasonedThought ret_medic RickyJ SeaLion Selkie Shubi SplashDog The Loan Arranger Tomax tpaine Truth666 twittle Unalienable WaveThatFlag xm177e2 |
|
|
 |
The official beer of Darwin Central |
|
|
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" |
|
|
20
posted on
11/17/2005 10:13:43 AM PST
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 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