A column about Kansas Science Standards

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

[Exigence]

I think that the Kansas state board has drafts posted on their website. Try google.

Or, perhaps, try the URL in the article I posted. I'm beginning to think no one reads before they comment. *g*

[VadeRetro]

I was wrong. Gish has degrees in chemistry and biochemistry. Show to go ya that faith in things unseen isn't good for everybody.

[Exigence]

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.

Ah, yes, a real conservative. We should shut down private schools and home schools, too, eh? Pardon, but your rampant liberalism is peeking through... Don't you hate that when that happens? lol

[Quark2005]

I think you might be confusing Gish with Henry Morris - he's a hydraulic engineer, I believe.

[Exigence]

Yet another example of a creationist trying to insult evolution by calling it a religion. Tells you a lot about them....

Yes, it does. Thank you. *g*

[js1138]

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

The "five words" bit is also a thoroughly dishonest representation of the changes made to the Kansas standards. There's also a bit tossed in asserting that the fossil record does not support evolution.

This might surprise Behe, who is on record in "Darwin's Black Box" and under oath in court saying that the fossil record does support evolution.

[Exigence]

Mr Abrams's claim is vacuous.

I believe that is "Dr." Abrams to you... but, why bother with facts. *g*

[Exigence]

I'm aware of none that exists supporting ID or creationism.

Ah, the old bait and switch. I was talking about evolution and criticism thereof. What are you talking about? It seems some agenda, because the focus keeps slipping.

[Dimensio]

Except in Kansas... or at least, except in Kansas until the Board wisely amended our standards to allow such criticism. The old standards forbade it... which one should know before launching criticism at the new standards.

This is a lie. The old standards allowed criticism. The new standards redefine science to allow irrational conjecture to be considered on equal footing with actual science.

[VadeRetro]

It's also interesting how foreign science journals are more honest about printing research that might chip away at evolution.

The foreign journals are just as atheistic, materialist, Satanic, blah! blah! blah! as those with their HQs in the US. If there was a body of "foreign" research contradicting the preponderance of opinion in US science, it would be all over these threads and we'd have been talking about it for years now.

Yes, you named no one, but I am familiar with the antievolution arguments and who makes them. And the preponderance of opinion in science is not anything you want it to be. That and not the personal attachments of state or local school board members should be reflected in the preparation of educational materials.

[Exigence]

Then put it as a link, jackass. Do it right or shut up.

I see... well, glad to see that you're man enough to admit you hadn't read the article and can't see the URL unless it's linked. That certainly warrants some name calling, doesn't it? Well, then, back to talking to the reasonable and intelligent... lol

BTW, is school out today?

[The_Reader_David]

Okay, is that what this row was all about? A clause in science standards mandating criticism of origin-of-life theories? Any of the Kansans are yahoos (in Swift's sense, not subscribers to a certain on-line company) crowd have some missing quotations from the Kansas BOR standards to show otherwise?

Origin of life theories are so far from being settled science that any teaching of them without criticisms would be an erosion of science education.

[Exigence]

This is a lie. The old standards allowed criticism.

I beg to differ, but those who toss the word "lie" around so casually can probably substantiate their claims, right?

[Exigence]

Origin of life theories are so far from being settled science that any teaching of them without criticisms would be an erosion of science education.

Precisely.

[VadeRetro]

Him too, but Dr. Walt Brown's mechanical engineering degree from MIT had somehow attached itself to Gish for the moment.

[VadeRetro]

If you're offended, Dr. Gish, at least I correct my mistakes. This is what happens from falling into a bad crowd and becoming the Boss.

It was early in October
When I was far from sober
And hauling home a load with manly pride,
When my feet began to stutter,
So I tumbled in the gutter
And soon a pig was seated by my side.

Then I warbled "It's fair weather
When good fellows get together,"
'Till a lady passing by was heard to say,
"You can tell a man who boozes
By the company he chooses."
And the pig got up and slowly walked away.

[Quark2005]

Ah, the old bait and switch. I was talking about evolution and criticism thereof.

No bait and switch. I was asking for citations for peer-reviewed literature that criticize the general validity of evolution. You still haven't provided any.

Till then, I see no reason to introduce scientific critiques that don't exist into a school curriculum...

[orionblamblam]

> I see the distinction.

Clearly you do not. Please return to grade school for a refresher course.

[Doctor Stochastic]

OK. Dr Abrahms's claim is vacuous.

...why bother with facts....

Dr Abrahms didn't in the article posted.