State science standards in election spotlight (ID/Creation Kansans need to vote!)

The Wichita Eagle ^ | August 1, 2008 | LORI YOUNT

[GodGunsGuts]

With five seats on the State Board of Education up for grabs this year, education advocates say how children learn about evolution hangs in the balance -- and who voters choose could affect Kansas' national reputation.

A frequent flip-flop between moderate and conservative majorities on the 10-member board has resulted in the state changing its science standards four times in the past eight years.

Conservatives have pushed for standards casting doubt on evolution, and moderates have said intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.

In 2007, a new 6-4 moderate majority removed standards that called evolution into question.

This year, none of the three moderates whose seats are up for election are running again. Only one of the two conservative incumbents is running for re-election...

[Coyoteman]

More to the point, science ignores religion. All of them. They have nothing to offer because the need for evidence is not consistent with faith.

What you perceive as hostility is simply indifference.

There are thousands of conflicting religions.

The number of world religions currently is estimated at about 4,300. Source

But:

34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations." Source

Freedom in education cannot possibly mean teaching every creation story as an alternative to science in science classes.

I want this one taught! There is just as much evidence for this one as any of the others (i.e., none).

The Creation of Men and Women

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.

If the findings of science are intolerable to you, avoid science classes. But you are not going to change the nature of science or its findings.

That is the goal of creation "science." They can't win in the battle of scientific ideas, so they have to change science in the minds of the undereducated and the true believers. That's where we get "Teach the controversy" and "Its only a theory" and all the rest of the nonsense that we see so often.

But they have to go a far piece to beat the poster on this website who referred to the "second law of thermal documents!"

[js1138]

Do you agree with Coyote’s list? Are those valid hypothesis to you?

Stop repeating yourself and pay attention. Do you have a possible beginning of life that isn't on the list?

[Dagny&Hank]

There are thousands of conflicting religions. Freedom in education cannot possibly mean teaching every creation story as an alternative to science in science classes.

Or at least teaching the the most interesting several or so versions of Creation. Specifically...
Asatru
Judeo/Christian/Islam
Hindu
Buddhism
Shinto
Greek/Roman
Zoroastrianism

[valkyry1]

You are flailing now Coyote.

[valkyry1]

I was to nice, I could have let coyote walk right into his own intellectual mess, but I gave him a clue.

How about if you answer the question. Do you agree with Coyote’s list? Are those valid hypothesis to you?

I know that none of you do want to answer it. Anyone can see how absurd and goofy it is.

And he ends with ‘The theory of evolution works just fine with any of those’.

I want to see how many evos actually get behind that, or all of you going to throw coyote under the bus?

[js1138]

But that isn’t what is being requested. What is being requested is that all religions will have equal time. That would include Scientology, an officially recognized religion.

My point is that religion, by its nature, does not intersect with the methods of science.

Let’s ask a simple question about the nature of American law and the nature of evidence. Would you, as a prosecutor, put a witness on the stand who says he didn’t see the crime, but God told him that Joe did it.?

If not, why not?

Science is very much like a court of law. It doesn’t seek TRVTH, but it does seek findings that are beyond reasonable doubt. For this it relies on evidence, and for the methods of finding and validation evidence it relies on centuries of experience. Courts make mistakes and science sometimes goes down blind alleys.

But unlike court decisions, scientific conclusions are continually under appeal. And unlike most courts, scientific perjurers receive instant professional death sentences, carried out immediately.

[js1138]

I agree with his list of possible origins of life. Do you have a ppossibility that isn’t on the list?

[js1138]

In Origin of species, Darwin speaks of the first living thing being created. Do you disagree?

[GodGunsGuts]

‘What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?’

Dawkins: ‘I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.’”

[metmom]

Hmmm... I've lived in a place that received around 500 inches of snow per year. If that snow did not melt (it did where I lived, thankfully) and if compressed to 10 percent of its original depth to account for lost interstitial volume, we arrive at an ice depth of around 4 feet. At four feet of accumulation per year for the intervening 60 or so years, the resulting figure is quite close to the 250 feet you've mentioned. I guess I've missed your point.

You've missed the point alright. Show us where Greenland gets 500" of snow a year, especially at the exact spot where the planes landed.

Then perhaps, you could explain why they traveled a mile from their original location.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Where in that article is that analysis?

Did you finally read it? Or are you just as ignorant of what it says as the last time you replied to me?

[tacticalogic]

It says the evidence is so hopelessly contaminated and damaged that it’s impossible to draw any conclusions from it.

[utford]

I’ve always wondered about the “age” of rocks. Serious question - if matter can be neither created nor destroyed, how can some rocks be one age and other rocks another age? Wouldn’t they all have been here when the earth was formed?

[GodGunsGuts]

Thought you might be interested in the VERY revealing quote in #229.

[valkyry1]

Darwinian natural selection by random mutation

Thats their idol, or one of them.

[js1138]

if matter can be neither created nor destroyed, how can some rocks be one age and other rocks another age?

That's the first time I've seen this question phased with such refreshing clarity. Before I respond, I have my own question for you.

Do you doubt that scientists have asked this question and formulated a well reasoned explanation?

[metmom]

No one suggested that Coyote’s list was “scientific.” It was provided as an exhaustive list of the possible ways for life to start.

So what is the scientific alternative then? What's the scientific theory concerning abiogenesis?

[metmom]

valkyry1: Do you agree with Coyote’s list? Are those valid hypothesis to you?

js: Stop repeating yourself and pay attention. Do you have a possible beginning of life that isn't on the list?

Why are you changing the subject instead of answering the question? Your attempts to avoid answering are blindingly obvious.

[GodGunsGuts]

Still haven’t read the whole thing, have you. When you can tell me why the author thinks the available evidence supports recent catastrophism, we will have a basis for further discussion. Until then-—GGG

[js1138]

What's the scientific theory concerning abiogenesis?

There is no such theory and never has been. Except in the mind of creationists.

There are many conjectures and many lines of research, and many of them are productive.

Impatience is the lot of non-scientists. It has been 400 years since Galileo started investigating gravity and we still don't have a complete theory of gravity. But it's a pretty safe bet that NASA can use incomplete theories of gravity to launch interplanetary probes.

Incompleteness does not mean that magic is a reasonable alternative.