Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State science standards in election spotlight (ID/Creation Kansans need to vote!)
The Wichita Eagle ^ | August 1, 2008 | LORI YOUNT

Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by 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...

(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: creation; crevo; education; election; elections; evolution; intelligentdesign; kansas; schoolboard; scienceeducation; wrongforum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,141-1,153 next last
To: tacticalogic
It's not possible that the Universe was designed so that under the right circumstances, life could arise and appear to be a result of random processes?

The most amazing thing is that the supposed designer made things look exactly as if they had arisen through evolution. No human engineer could make an interconnected system look more like it has arisen through small incremental steps.

Oddly enough, human engineers don't try. Human genetic engineers make things that don't fit a nested hierarchy. So the only actual samples of designed life where we are certain of the designer's identity and methods don't fit the evolution paradigm. The M.O. is wrong.

81 posted on 08/18/2008 12:34:43 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

==It’s not possible that the Universe was designed so that under the right circumstances, life could arise and appear to be a result of random processes?

If you insist on that possibility being covered, no problem. Since there would be no evidence for it one way or the other, it would take but a few seconds to mention it and move on.


82 posted on 08/18/2008 12:37:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
If you insist on that possibility being covered, no problem. Since there would be no evidence for it one way or the other, it would take but a few seconds to mention it and move on.

You don't have any problem with ID getting the same treatment?

83 posted on 08/18/2008 12:39:09 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
It's also curious that the people with the strongest religious faith are not at all threatened by science.

You're right. I would say my religious faith is pretty strong, and as a credentialed, practicing scientist, I do not feel the least bit threatened by science.

Evolution, on the other hand, I think is a bunch of unsubstantiated, circularly-reasoned hokum.

84 posted on 08/18/2008 12:40:17 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Here they come boys! As thick as grass, and as black as thunder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I see a bunch of humans trying to force a pre-conceived model onto a bunch of incomplete and unconnected data, then coming to the conclusion that a Creator isn’t necessary, and therefore doesn’t exist.

It all starts with your pre-suppositions, like looking through different colored lenses at the same picture and reporting different conclusions.


85 posted on 08/18/2008 12:41:12 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Oddly enough, human engineers don't try. Human genetic engineers make things that don't fit a nested hierarchy. So the only actual samples of designed life where we are certain of the designer's identity and methods don't fit the evolution paradigm. The M.O. is wrong.

People are impatient. They don't like to take 200 million years to do something.

86 posted on 08/18/2008 12:41:19 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It’s not a matter of like/dislike for the Creator -

it’s a matter of “not necessary” to take millions of years to create.


87 posted on 08/18/2008 12:43:00 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

==You don’t have any problem with ID getting the same treatment?

You don’t mind Darwin’s ToE getting the same treatment?


88 posted on 08/18/2008 12:46:15 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
You don’t mind Darwin’s ToE getting the same treatment?

Probably not. Geology, radiometrics and astrometrics are going to get contentious.

89 posted on 08/18/2008 12:55:27 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Geology, radiometrics and astrometrics are going to get contentious.

All of which are based on some assumptions that are based on the another assumption of timeframe.

IE, circular reasoning.

"It must have taken billions of years, so I'll make assumptions with this in mind when examining the evidence that proves billions of years."

90 posted on 08/18/2008 1:00:30 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
So basically you’re proposing they make the case there there really isn’t any such thing as a good science textbook, so there’s no basis to say ours is bad?

I'm saying only one error in scientific understanding is a vast improvement over the current high school science education.

91 posted on 08/18/2008 1:04:08 PM PDT by dan1123 (If you want to find a person's true religion, ask them what makes them a "good person".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

==Probably not. Geology, radiometrics and astrometrics are going to get contentious.

Then let both sides be taught, and let the scientific contest begin.


92 posted on 08/18/2008 1:07:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I see a bunch of humans trying to force a pre-conceived model onto a bunch of incomplete and unconnected data, then coming to the conclusion that a Creator isn’t necessary, and therefore doesn’t exist.

It might be classified as unconnected if it didn't lead to research and didn't predict things. What is your alternative scientific explanation for the ability to predict where to dig for intermediate fossils and to predict what will be found? What alternative scientific explanation predicts nested hierarchies in both the fossil record and in DNA? Why do living things that are known to be designed fall outside the nested hierarchies?

93 posted on 08/18/2008 1:11:23 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Then let both sides be taught, and let the scientific contest begin.

The debate has already been conducted. Your side lost.

You're just pulling an Al Gore now, trying silly lawyer tricks to sneak in the back door.

94 posted on 08/18/2008 1:14:14 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: js1138

“Intermediate fossils” - forcing the model on observation.

Yes, perhaps you’ll find certain fossils in certain places because that’s where those animals lived, but I must say, this is the first assertion of this “proof” that I’ve heard of.

“Nested hierarchies”? Wow, that sounds a lot like OOD, Object Oriented Design - definitely signs of an intelligence involved in the Creation.

“Know to be designed” - you mean, created by man.

This would be like wonder why a sculpture created by another sculpture didn’t have the same characteristics as the first sculpture.


95 posted on 08/18/2008 1:19:16 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
==You're just pulling an Al Gore now, trying silly lawyer tricks to sneak in the back door.

As usual you have it backwards, Wiley. Al Gore is dishonestly trying to convince the masses that the scientific debate is over and that his side already won....just like you're tying to do now with respect to Creation/ID vs. Evolution. You should give your hero Al Gore a call, I'm sure you two would make fast friends.

96 posted on 08/18/2008 1:30:32 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Then let both sides be taught, and let the scientific contest begin.

Who's going to teach YEC geology and radiometrics, and what do they have to present for evidence?

97 posted on 08/18/2008 1:47:45 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

C’mon, everybody knows the answer...it’s caused by the devil beating his wife...ain’t you got no learning boy??...sit down and let me explain this gravity thing to ya as well...you see, there are these angels...magritte :)


98 posted on 08/18/2008 1:55:20 PM PDT by magritte (If a problem comes along, you must whip it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Time to put solid conservatives back on the board who are willing to vote for curriculum that includes scientific evidence for and against Darwin's ToE. Get out the vote, Kansans!

You mean teach science as it's meant to be taught? That a theory is a theory and can be disproved any time the evidence is found to disprove it?

Horrors.

99 posted on 08/18/2008 1:57:20 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

==Who’s going to teach YEC geology and radiometrics, and what do they have to present for evidence?

That would have to be worked out. First, most Darwinian assumptions would have to be removed from science textbooks used in public schools, or they would have to present the arguments against said assumptions in each and every case. Second, curriculum would have to be developed that faithfully presents the strongest arguments on both sides on any given scientific issue. And elective classes should be offered for those who want to delve into the controversy even deeper.


100 posted on 08/18/2008 2:03:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,141-1,153 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson