[Exigence]

For all of those Freepers who, themselves, continue to misrepresent what the new Kansas science standards are actually doing.

[zerosix]

Way to go, Steve Abrams and KS Board of Education!

[mlc9852]

"unless of course, your only defense really is baseless character assassination."

Now we all know evos would never stoop to something like this, don't we?

[doc30]

pigning PH

[TravisBickle]

Wait a minute, that's not fair. You actually expect people to read something before they criticize it? </sarc>

[orionblamblam]

"Evolutionists do not want students to know about or in any way to think about scientific criticisms of evolution."

This is the most damning thing Abrams could ahve possibly said. However, it damns *himself,* as it is an astonishingly blatant LIE.

"Evolutionists" are *constantly* publicizing scientific criticisms of various aspects of evolution. And if some good science came along that criticised evolution itself, that would get openly debated as well.

[bobhoskins]

We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature.

I'm curious, what are the uppoer/lower bounds of permitted gentic change in a species? What happens when it reaches the maximum allowed changes in that species? Does some flag get set off that says, "Woah there! You can't have any less body hair than that!" Or, "You can't have teeth any sharper than that ... no meat-eating scavenging for you!" At what point do non-harmful mutations somehow get edited out as being too far beyond a (man-made) "species" delimiter?

I mean this to be a legitimate question ... I'm curious as to the answers ...

[VadeRetro]

Obviously, that is one of the reasons that we tried to further define evolution. We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature.

Translation: We wanted to insert into science class a bogus distinction made only in creationist talking points and not by real scientists in the peer-reviewed literature.

[VadeRetro]

We want to provide more clarity to this inflamed issue and we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding...

Not that we're creationists or anything...

[orionblamblam]

From: http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/miller1.html

"In the last turn of events, 3 members of the Board rewrote the standards to produce a "compromise" document. While not including the more objectionable parts of the alternate proposal, it still eliminated the theory of evolution as a model for understanding the history and diversity of life. Furthermore it does not mention cosmology (Big Bang) or the Age of the Earth. It also includes errors of fact and misrepresentations of scientific methodology and content. This version passed the Board on August 12th by a 6 to 4 vote. The original standards document written and unanimously endorsed by the appointed committee was not even brought to a vote. This decision was made in opposition to the recommendations of virtually every scientific and educational body in the state. The Governor of Kansas and all of the presidents of the regents institutions (state universities) appealed to the Board to reject the alternate document. The academic and educational communities are very irritated by the current situation.

"The new science standards do not require or mandate teachers to teach anything. They certainly do not mandate the inclusion of creationism. What they do is establish the content of statewide assessment tests, and thus serve as recommendations for which topics and principles should be emphasized at each grade level from K-12. Teachers and local school boards are free to establish their own curricula. However the exclusion of evolutionary theory as an explanatory framework for the history of life and as a unifying concept in the biological sciences, the exclusion of theories of the origin of the universe (Big Bang model of cosmology), and the removal of references to a very ancient Earth history from the standards have significant implications. These omissions are critical, and remove the core unifying concepts from the sciences of biology, geology, and astronomy. Since they will not be subject to state assessment tests, these concepts are much less likely to be taught in districts where there is vocal opposition. By throwing the issue to "local control" the state board leaves teachers much more vulnerable to complaints by parents or administrators eager to avoid controversy. Furthermore, the decision is already having an impact on textbook publishers. Since the decision, one publisher has removed an introductory chapter on the geologic history of Kansas from a history textbook for fear that it would limit sales."

Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University

[Physicist]

We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature.

The word "quantity" comes to mind.

[sumocide]

We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature. We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature. We want to provide more clarity to this inflamed issue and we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding, but they prefer to misinform the media and assassinate the character of qualified scientists who are willing to shed some light.

This micro/macro evolution distinction has zero scientific backing. The dear Chairman let his agenda show.

[VadeRetro]

it is about the last 5 words of indicator 7… “scientific criticisms of those explanations.”

If you have to go outside the scientific literature to get the "scientific criticisms," then this is indeed the mislabeling its critics attack it as being. Hint: if your scientific criticisms are compiled by Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, Philip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, or a quote salad compiled by any of the preceding, they don't belong in biology class.

I have never seen an attempted collection of "scientific criticisms of those explanations" which would be anything more than what we have in creation/ID presentations on FR, an exercize in playing "find the gimmick." We shouldn't ask the ninth-graders to play that and win with their education on the line.

[wyattearp]

Has anybody here actually seen the new science standards? The closest that I have come is a copy of the docs for the meeting where they were adopted. I don't want to comment on these standards until I have actually read them. I don't care what the NYT says that they say, I don't care what this guy says that they say, I want to read them for myself. Why wont they publish them? I assumed that they had. I can't find them. Has anybody actually seen them?

[Doctor Stochastic]

... we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding, ...

There is nothing being hidden. This is one of the facets of scientific inquiry; it's all published (unless The Government suppress things about weapons or something.) Mr Abrams's claim is vacuous. If he wants to make claims of things hidden, he can publish his research on the topics.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

BTTT.

[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.

[Junior]

The CrevoSci Archive Just one of the many services of Darwin Central "The Conspiracy that Cares"

• PatrickHenry's famous List-O-Links
• Webster's On-Line Dictionary:  Creationist

CrevoSci threads for the past week:

1. 2005-11-14 A column about Kansas Science Standards
2. 2005-11-14 THE CATHOLIC CHURCH EMBRACES EVOLUTION!!!!
3. 2005-11-13 Intelligent Design Grounded in Science
4. 2005-11-13 Intelligent Design, Part 1
5. 2005-11-13 Pope states the universe is a product of an 'intelligent project'
6. 2005-11-13 Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom
7. 2005-11-12 [Kansas Gov. Kathleen] Sebelius criticizes State Board of Education's move [new science standards]
8. 2005-11-12 ID [Intelligent Design] Opens Astronomer’s Mind to Universe’s Surprises
9. 2005-11-11 A revolution for evolution - Intelligent design must not replace hard science in classrooms.
10. 2005-11-11 Dover results disputed: School board candidate says machine was faulty
11. 2005-11-11 FR Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Birth Defects, Can They Be Reconciled?
12. 2005-11-11 Potential Origins of Europeans Found
13. 2005-11-11 The Real Evil of Evolutionary Humanism
14. 2005-11-10 Culture War Briefing, weekday news guide
15. 2005-11-10 Fossils of fierce-looking dinosaur found in Argentina (Godzilla)
16. 2005-11-10 Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?
17. 2005-11-10 Kansas educators clear way for evolution criticism
18. 2005-11-10 Pat Robertson has a message for Dover, PA: Don't ask God to help.
19. 2005-11-10 Pat Robertson Warns Pa. Town of Disaster
20. 2005-11-10 US states divide over creationism [the view from the UK]
21. 2005-11-10 Why the conspiracy theorizing about theories? (Freeper op-ed)
22. 2005-11-09 Anti-Evolution School Board Ousted
23. 2005-11-09 Dover CARES sweeps election (Intelligent Design loses big)
24. 2005-11-09 Evolution Suffers Kansas Setback
25. 2005-11-09 Gigantic Apes Coexisted With Early Humans, Study Finds
26. 2005-11-09 'Intelligent Design' Wins In Kansas
27. 2005-11-09 Patent issued for anti-gravity device
28. 2005-11-09 Science to ride gravitational waves
29. 2005-11-09 Shifting Icebergs May Have Forced Penguin Evolution
30. 2005-11-09 Shifting Icebergs May Have Forced Penguin Evolution
31. 2005-11-08 Bloodthirsty 'Vampire' Spider Found
32. 2005-11-08 Down for the Count (Sleep & Evolution)
33. 2005-11-08 Federal lawsuit could follow board vote [Evolution in Kansas & Dover]
34. 2005-11-08 Kansas education board downplays evolution
35. 2005-11-08 Kansas State Board Approves Teaching Standards Skeptical of Evolution
36. 2005-11-08 Math problems too big for our brains
37. 2005-11-08 RATE research reveals remarkable results—a fatal blow to billions of years (Evolution loses)
38. 2005-11-08 The 'Vatican' Endorses 'Darwin'? ['Vatican' has done no such thing

CrevoSci Thread Count, 2005 YTD:  1094

---

CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of November:
 

2000-11-29 An.American.Expatriate 2000-11-10 AncientAirs 2000-11-21 AndrewC 1998-11-18 angelo 2000-11-10 beavus 1999-11-22 Blood of Tyrants 2003-11-26 blowfish 2004-11-08 CarolinaGuitarman 1997-11-28 cd jones 2001-11-30 claptrap 2001-11-16 CobaltBlue 2005-11-10 culturewars 2002-11-21 DannyTN 2004-11-16 DaveLoneRanger 1997-11-30 Ditto 2001-11-16 dmz 2000-11-11 Ernest_at_the_Beach

2000-11-02 Exigence 2000-11-02 Exit 109 2004-11-05 FeeinTennessee 2000-11-22 FFIGHTER 2000-11-12 ForGod'sSake 2001-11-07 FourtySeven 2000-11-15 freespirited 2000-11-10 Godel 2004-11-06 GreenOgre 2004-11-03 Grey Rabbit 2000-11-04 harbinger of doom 2000-11-28 HiTech RedNeck 1999-11-05 Ichneumon 1998-11-13 jennyp 2005-11-10 jodiluvshoes 1998-11-25 Junior_G 2002-11-17 Just mythoughts

2004-11-11 kaotic133 2003-11-18 little jeremiah 1998-11-18 malakhi 2000-11-19 Mike Fieschko 2004-11-24 mista science 2003-11-09 MplsSteve 2000-11-06 mrjeff 1999-11-05 muleskinner 2003-11-17 Nathan Zachary 2002-11-12 NCLaw441 1999-11-25 Nebullis 2000-11-13 NYer 2000-11-24 old-ager 2004-11-03 PajamaHadin 2000-11-10 Patriotic Teen 1998-11-01 Pharmboy 2000-11-11 P-Marlowe

2000-11-16 presidio9 1999-11-08 Pyro7480 2002-11-14 Remedy 2000-11-30 Right Wing Professor 2004-11-18 rightwinggoth 1998-11-15 rob777 1998-11-04 RobRoy 2004-11-01 SeasideSparrow 2004-11-05 shadowfighter 1999-11-16 TerP26 2004-11-13 This Just In 2000-11-04 TigerTale 2004-11-11 untrained skeptic 2004-11-21 VictoryGal 2001-11-25 Vote 4 Nixon 2000-11-05 will of the people 2003-11-29 woodb01

---

In Memoriam
Fallen CrevoSci Warriors:

---

1LongTimeLurker ALS angelo Area Freeper Aric2000 Askel5 Asphalt biblewonk bluepistolero churchillbuff claptrap codebreaker Con X-Poser ConservababeJen 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

---

Bring back Modernman and SeaLion!

---

Lost CrevoSci Battlefields (Pulled Threads)

• 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
• 2003-07-18 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)

---

Longest CrevoSci Thread Ever

• 2002-12-11 Evolution Disclaimer Supported (6,879 replies)

---

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"

---

The
official beer
of Darwin Central

[RunningWolf]

It is not what the theory of evolution 'says' that is so important, more it is as what the evolutionists say with their arguments, and that is

The argument from evolution is an argument against the existence of God, specifically against the existence of a creator God. It is based upon the premise: Science provides sound explanations for the origin and diversity of life, and the origin of the Universe.


Do any of the 'scientists' here deny that? I say not, I challenge them to prove me wrong.

Wolf

[ml1954]

changes within kinds and changing from one kind to another. Again, as previously stated, evolutionists want nothing to do with trying to clarify terms and meanings.

I hope he somewhere someplace sometime clarifies his meaning of his scientific definition of kind.

[ml1954]

We want to provide more clarity to this inflamed issue and we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding...

Hmmm. I guess I know where this guy stands on evolution and 'evolutionists'. I guess he thinks hundreds of thousands of 'evolutionist' scientists have been 'hiding' something the past 150 years. Is it just me or does this sound paranoid?