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...

[ketsu]

Those in science and/or proclaim themselves to be scientists do more to damage and smear science than any of us ever could.

You're using the exception to prove the rule. Do holy wars and religious genocide damage and smear religion?

[valkyry1]

I have no dog in those statistics of MEN.

You could have simply parroted my words back to me and achieved the same point without going towards those directions.

[js1138]

You set the direction. Want more?

[valkyry1]

//Do holy wars and religious genocide damage and smear religion?Do holy wars and religious genocide damage and smear religion???

Well thats a new topic. I suggest we would have to look at it on a case by case basis.

[valkyry1]

Actually you have.

You dont need my permission, just start a new thread.

Regards,

[js1138]

You started the new topic in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2063792/posts?page=756#756 You weren't the first. Every time it becomes clear that the ID movement is vacuous, Hitler jumps out and shouts Boo! The problem is that Hitler wasn't a scientist and wasn;t interested in improving the genetic quality of Germans. If he had been he wouldn't have killed of the smartest and most productive segment of German society.

What Hitler wanted was marching morons.

My discussion of Stalin was quite different. Stalin actually conducted a large scale experiment on the validity of the heritability of acquired charistics. The results were negative. It cost a few million lives, but GGG still believes in it.

[valkyry1]

Dont read way to much into it like you did.

That was a quick and easy example of getting advanced degrees in bad science (politically motivated)

BTW overall and largely I agree with your vignette of Hitler.

[js1138]

I will try to get the thread back on track. For those of you wh believe in ID or creationism, I would like to know what you would teach in high school biology.

1. Concerning the age of the earth, I would like to know how would deal with the history of geology as a science, particularly with regard to Steno, William smith, Hutton and Lyelle.
2. Concerning the interpretation of geological strata, same question.
3. Concerning the interpretation of fossils, I would like to see some quantative theory of why smaller and lighter and "simpler" fossils are consistently found in older strata (see geology, above).
4. Concerning the interpretation of fossils, I would like to see some rationale for the fine gradation of many lineages. Yes, there are lineages with gaps, but there are quite a few in which the transitions are much finer than the transition between wolves and huskies.
5. Concerning the interpretation of DNA, what would you teach regarding the nested hierarchy of similarities and differences? What rationale would you present to explain the fact that Human genetic engineers do not respect this hierarchy, and transplant genes even across kingdoms. Why would the designer of life make the DNA evidence fit common descent, but not the work of designers that we can observe?

[allmendream]

That is not a Scientific theory, it isn’t even a Scientific hypothesis or conjecture. Duh.

[allmendream]

Are you going to try to tell me what my religion is GGG? I am a Christian, my faith is in Jesus the Christ. Darwin was just a man, but he was observed to be correct about selective pressure acting upon genetic variation.

[metmom]

You'll have to show me where professional scientists dismiss the idea of consensus.

Why, thank you.

Since professional scientists don't dismiss the idea of consensus, then we can logically conclude that all those frevos who beat the drum that science is not done by consensus are NOT professional scientists.

Since they are not professional scientists, then they have no credentials for telling us what is and is not science and cannot tell non-evos that they're wrong, because they have no basis to make that determination; they're not qualified to.

[metmom]

Not to mention that the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics is not exactly a high school textbook or a popular science article.

No, it isn't. Good for you.

Now you're not going to tell me that something out of MIT doesn't qualify as determining what real science is but something out of a high school text book or popular science journal does, are you?

That MIT does not rise to the level of scientific expertise as either of those?

[metmom]

A conflict between science and the Bible doesn't make the Bible wrong, it just makes it not a science book.

That's not a commonly held opinion by virtually all the frevos, yourself excluded.

[MrB]

How is acknowledging ID, not even teaching it mind you, but just telling kids there’s a book in the library in science class, establishment of religion btw?

Actually, what you're doing there is committing a heresy

AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED RELIGION

of Secular Humanism.

The anti-"establishment" argument from the left/SH crowd is a blatant lie. They have already established THEIR religion, and don't want any heresies to creep in.

[MrB]

oooh, hold on there wendy - “and above all, charity” 1 Peter 4:8

Now, I know that applies to the fellowship of Christians, but when we show it to others, it makes for a better witness.

The thing that I keep reminding MYself about these folks that are hardline anti-creationists and pro-evolutionists is that they have some sad deepseated reason to reject God, and it’s not the “intellectual” arguments that they use as an excuse.

At the end of their lives, though, you can be sure that God is not some “cosmic rapist” that will force them into His presence against their choice. God respects free will choices.

[MrB]

show me you can do the science

That's a bit of a spooky statement there, bordering on faith in the arcane.

Next, will we hear "my science is stronger than yours, on your knees!"

or, "your science is weak old man, I am the master now"

[tacticalogic]

That's a bit of a spooky statement there, bordering on faith in the arcane.

Would you be good with someone teaching a theology class who's never read the Bible?

[tpanther]

if it were about the science we’d not even see global warming get off the ground.

Or homosexual “normalcy”.

Or laws hijacked to prevent the science from being shown.

[tacticalogic]

if it were about the science we’d not even see global warming get off the ground.

If it wasn't about the science you wouldn't see any scientists presenting evidence that the global warming alarmists are wrong.

[tpanther]

Their evidence isn’t getting out. And again, it’s not the scientists that are the problem, it’s the fascist godless liberals who think they’ve somehow been appointed to be gatgekeepers of science.

I see they’re doing a piss-poor job at global warming...well just like everything they do!