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 ...
What a joke. The evolutionists who have been using litigation since the Scopes trials to force any other viewpoint out of the schools. Every time the people speak, and anything but evo only is even considered being addressed in public schools, the evos with the ACLU tagging right along file a lawsuit so fast that your head will spin.
Do you think it might go the other way?
That is the stated goal of many on the left - to use the school system to indoctrinate the children of conservative/Christian families.
It’s good, though, that you admit that education cannot, by definition, be “values neutral”.
It’s only been in the last few decades that the standard of naturalism has been demanded from scientists.
All one has to do is look at what happens to the career at the hands of his contemporaries to a scientist who breaks in any way from the hardline, no God, random mutation, evolution standpoint. It’s professional suicide and there’s been enough examples of that lately.
So much for objectivity. No dissent allowed.
You have GOT to be kidding.
Of course, you may be like the fish that doesn't understand what "wet" is.
Rationality in, superstition out. Sounds about right for the 21st century.
The Scopes trial was about challenging the law that was keeping the Science of Evolution out of the Science classroom.
Revisionist history?
Revisionist history?
Creation "science" -- facts are adjusted to support the goal, and claims are not meant to be examined closely.
So if you wer in Louisiana and had a law authorizing you to teach “scientific alternatives to evolution,” what would you teach?
What is the alternative theory that explains the dual nested hierarchies of similatities and differences found in living things?
So scientists included supernatural explanations in their research papers prior to 1988? Can you cite a few examples?
Let's look at Newton's rules of reasoning:
Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.You're right. Newton cited supernatural forces as the explanation of anything not yet understood. Thank you for pointing this out.
Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
Since when has evolution been particularly leftist? Or has a plank adhering to creationism been added to the GOP platform that I didn't know about?
The Southern Baptists have done studies of how their children and the children of evangelicals are doing. They found that 80 percent abandon their religion as soon as they leave home, around age 18. I presume this 80 percent does OK in science.
It's also possible to make a really good living writing books and pamphlets trashing science, so I assume the other 20 percent is doing OK in the science biz.
Everyone wants a piece of the God biz. Democrats are calling Obama a blessing from God.
Apparently wrapping oneself in the Bible has replaced wrapping oneself in the flag as a political ploy.
Which one of your 5 is your favorite CM? Or do you throw them all under the bus now that you have been caught well outside of 'science' as it were. Not that you were ever actually doing science here.
a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
The results indicate that about 30 percent of Americans believe that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory, either with or without evolution in the curriculum. At the other end of the spectrum, 20 percent believe that evolution should be taught in science class without any mention of creationism. Most respondents, though, took the middle road, saying that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory, while creationism should also be discussed -- as a religious belief rather than a scientific theory.(Sensible people.) And in the first poll you mention--commissioned by the Discovery Institute--the questions are obviously worded to give a leg up to the ID side.
Here's a pretty good overview of a lot of different polls and the elements that are consistent and the ones that vary depending on how the questions are asked. What seems most clear is that most people aren't really sure and are trying to be fair. But given the shifting election results in Kansas and the clear thumping the voters in Dover PA gave the school board there, it's hard to claim that "most people" want creationism taught in the schools along with evolution.
What happens when creationists get close to getting their programs into schools is they run into several brick walls.
The most formidable is the Constitution and the court rulings that explicitly forbidden teaching creationism in science classes. These are much stronger than most people imagine. The go into detail about "teaching both sides" as a ruse to get religion on equal footing with science.
Another brick wall is the business community, which doesn't want state and local governments stigmatized as supporting bad education. This makes it harder to recruit white collar employees.
Another brick wall is the perception that losing major court cases is expensive. After Dover, Georgia caved completely on the textbook labeling case, agreeing never to try it again.
Another brick wall, suddenly noticed by the folks in Louisiana, is there simply isn't a scientific alternative to evolution. ID folks at every level are now discussing the fact that there is no theory of ID, no research program, no explanation for the nested hierarchy.
Thanks for the info - I look forward to reading the article when I have some time to absorb the information there. Looks like it addresses my question plus some others I wonder about as well.
That's why I said the DI poll questions were phrased to help out the ID side. They asked questions like whether people agreed with the statement "When Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life." Totally begs the question of whether such evidence exists.
I see God’s creation all around me. I reject that all there is to experience is some accidental unexplained godless cosmic bang and that all this just came from nothing with zero intelligence or thought put into it and it’s all just unexplainable randomness.
That’s the idea behind the theory. One that most Americans indeed believe. Incidentally, evolution’s but a tool in a much larger picture humans don’t fully see and may never see. It’s why it’s called “theory”.
It’s surprising to me after all this time you still don’t understand it. Fascinating actually as many times as it’s been explained and re-explained.
Which leads me to better insight into why this argument tends to be so little about science just as it is with all godless liberals when they whine about 10 commandments in courtrooms, or Christmas trees in schools, crosses erected in cemeteries, or people reading scripture on buses, or whatever...godless liberals are simply angry at God and that anger is directed at those that do.
That you can’t understand is your problem and it’s very fascist to suggest that if I teach my kids a belief in God, be it in church, in science class, when they read the pledge out loud, or recognize Him by means of Christmas carols; I should somehow be silenced or punished by godless judges and your ilk.
You might be so much happier with your God anger in a place like Cuba or Russia but not in America.
Because you don’t agree with it, means you just have to get over it! Period. Christians are realizing two can play at such a game. You’ll win some you’ll lose some but ultimately, God won’t be removed from ANYTHING, including science.
People like you and Michael Newdow need to understand because I acknowledge my beliefs doesn’t mean I’m somehow infringing upon yours.
But when you seek to hijack the legal system or basically ANY tool to silence me, you’re very much indeed infringing on mine!
What a sad day it is in America when a school can’t even tell kids there’s a book down in the library exploring ID on your own time. Nazis would be impressed!
Makes normal people wonder why such cowards are so afraid of having their beliefs exposed alongside Christian beliefs!
(Well, I personally used to wonder that, but not so much anymore!)
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.