Kansas finds sanity again

[Banquo's Ghost]

Looks like sense is regaining the upper hand in Kansas

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In a state primary election, Kansas voters have ousted two radical conservative school board members who opposed teaching evolution in schools.

The result of the 1 August election guarantees that the Kansas state school board will be transformed in January 2007 from one that mainly opposes the teaching of evolution to one that has majority support for it.

"I am thrilled," says Janet Waugh, a pro-evolution school board member and Democrat who lives in Kansas City and won her primary on Tuesday. "The people of Kansas are tired of being the laughing stock of not just the nation, but the world."

Although the election was a primary and not a general election, the result ensures that two of the school board's six anti-evolution members will not stand in the general election in November 2006.

As both the Republican and Democrat candidates for those seats are now very likely to be pro-evolution, the result of the general election should be immaterial: at least six out of 10 school board members will be pro evolution when the current school board hands over in January 2007.

"The only thing that can happen is for things to get better for us," says Jack Krebs of Kansas Citizens For Science, a non-profit group that seeks to educate the public about evolution.

A central issue in the primary election was evolution. In November 2005, the school board voted 6 to 4 to change the state's definition of science so that it could include supernatural causes and to change the definition of evolution to imply that evolution conflicts with belief in God (see Kansas backs intelligent design in science lessons).

Before November 2005, the curriculum read that "science seeks natural explanations". Now it reads that science seeks "more adequate explanations" for natural phenomena. It also adds that: "The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor...has been challenged in recent years", even though mainstream science has produced vast amounts of evidence for common descent.

These are subtle changes, but would allow supernatural ideas to be taught as science, and an unscientific amount of doubt to be heaped on Darwinian evolution, says Krebs. Anti-evolutionists have a problem accepting certain aspects of Darwinian evolution because it conflicts with the idea that a supernatural being, such as God, created the world.
Down to business

John Calvert, manager of the Intelligent Design Network in Shawnee Mission, Kansas, is in favour of the 2005 changes and denies that they were religiously motivated. "I don't think that science is just about material explanation," he says. "There is an enormous amount of data that is inconsistent with common ancestry."

The state standards form a guide for local school districts but had not yet been adopted into the curriculum of any actual schools, probably because the districts were waiting to ensure that the school board that had voted for them would stay, before going to the effort of changing their curriculums.

Pro-evolution experts feared that if a majority of anti-evolution candidates had stayed, the curriculum would have been adopted by local districts with creationist leanings. But soon the school board will not have a majority in favour of the new standards. "One of the first parts of getting down to business will be to remove these creationist standards," says Krebs.

Connie Marsh and Brad Patzer, who were in favour of the new standards in November were ousted in Tuesday’s vote, and will leave the school board in January 2007.

[drone]

Yeah, that's all well and good, but where do they stand on the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Don Corleone]

You know, I never understood the whole Kansas school board thing. It's one thing to propose Intelligent Design, creationism, whatever as a competing 'scientific' theory and present the empirical evidence available to support it. I don't have anywhere near as much of a problem with that.

But banning any lesson plan that even hints at evolution was just way over the top. If your scientific theory cannot play in the arena of ideas, it doesn't belong there in the first place. Thank goodness (speaking as an electrical engineer) the Bible doesn't even mention electricty, or even lightning. I can only imagine where consumer electronics would be if we were required to teach at the university level that in reality, it was cherubim coming to dwell in a glass globe that made it light up.

[Tribesman]

Someone once wrote......

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
......so religeous nuts trying to mix religeon with things that are not religeon is nothing new , 1500 years later and there are still plenty of reckless and incompetent nuts .
But good news for the school board if the vote goes as predicted .

And the lord sayeth unto noah , I command thee to include a moonpool in my holy revised design , and Noah sayeth in awe to his master blimey oh lord thine wisdom is astounding , the wife was just saying that a DIY project wouldn't be complete without a nice water feature . Oh and while you are here , I got a smal problem with the suppliers , they are all out of pitch and are not expecting any deliveries for a few thousand years Book of Amadan 6-26

[drone]

Thank goodness (speaking as an electrical engineer) the Bible doesn't even mention electricty, or even lightning. I can only imagine where consumer electronics would be if we were required to teach at the university level that in reality, it was cherubim coming to dwell in a glass globe that made it light up.

Well, they teach us software guys that ICs work because of the magic smoke. When you let the smoke out of the chip, it doesn't work anymore...

And the lord sayeth unto noah , I command thee to include a moonpool in my holy revised design , and Noah sayeth in awe to his master blimey oh lord thine wisdom is astounding , the wife was just saying that a DIY project wouldn't be complete without a nice water feature . Oh and while you are here , I got a smal problem with the suppliers , they are all out of pitch and are not expecting any deliveries for a few thousand years Book of Amadan 6-26

[Crazed Rabbit]

Unfortunately, it is not sanity that is prevailing in Kansas, but lies and deceit.

The fanatic darwinists falsely said that the Kansas School board opposed evolution.

In reality, they only supported teaching that there are some criticisms of evolution:
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.html
(go to 8th-12th grade standards).

At the top of page 18, dealing with life sciences:

STANDARD 3: LIFE SCIENCE GRADES 8-12

LIFE SCIENCE – The student will develop an understanding of the cell, molecular basis of heredity, biological evolution, interdependence of organisms, matter, energy, and organization in living systems, and the behavior of organisms.

Benchmark 3: The student will understand the major concepts of the theory of biological evolution.

At the end of the section (page 21).

The life science standards provide a framework for a variety of courses in the life sciences. Evolution is a key theoretical framework for the life sciences; these indicators should be part of any life science course curriculum, including biology, botany, zoology, and microbiology.

The part that apparently got the darwinists hot in their tweed (page 20):

7. explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations.

7. Some of the scientific criticisms include:
a A lack of empirical evidence for a “primordial soup” or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;
b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells; and
c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.

All of the standards are not compatible at all with creationism, and make no mention of Intelligent design.

The darwinists, refusing to acknowledge that there could be some small holes in Darwin's theory, labeled them 'anti-science' among other lies. And I guess for the 'New Scientist' and others in the media using the facts instead of hype is too much work.

A National Review article on the subject:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...E3MWM0Y2ZkOGI=

Crazed Rabbit

[Navaros]

Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".

[ajaxfetish]

Well, looks like there'll soon be one less reason to be embarrassed on behalf of my fellow countrymen. I wonder how much contribution the FSM made to this correction. Thankfully people have taken notice of the issue and democracy has worked as it's supposed to.

Ajax

[Louis VI the Fat]

It's always heartwarming to see the natives of faraway exotic places like Kansas join the ranks of civilization nations.

[Reverend Joe]

God does not belong in a scientific classroom, for one simple reason.

The theories of God are based upon many assumptions which have no compatibility with reality itself. This is because they exist in a way that we do not. To attempt to understand them in our world would thus be the equivalent of attempting to apply the laws of science to a drug trip. Things are not going to make sense, because they (drug trips and the theories of God) operate by different laws other than those of science.

Whether or not there is actually any interaction between the alternate "planes" of, or even if these other things are (I do not wish to use the word "exist", because God doesn't exist the way you and I and reality do, but that's for another night), is not the concern of science. Science is limited in its scope to that which can be hypothesised to be true and real; in other words, what exists according to our world of existence. To attempt to apply this to something like God is folly, and similarly, to attempt to apply the percieved actions of a "being" whose true motives or actions we are clueless on is also sheer folly. For that matter, the very idea that we can hope to know God's true nature and designs is so laughable that I am amazed that the Pope is not recieved with a roar of jeers and laughter every time he makes an appearance. Noone has a monopoly on the knowledge of God. So, how, I ask you, does a theory like intellegent design have any merit in a scientific classroom whatsoever?

(And for the record, I am extremely religious, and I do believe in a being called God, but I don't think he spends all his time tinkering with how life will evolve. If he did, then explain the Platypus. I dare you. A hideous abberation that does not even have the decency to make up for this by being nice. And don't try pulling the Devil on me... he hasn't fit into any other aspect of "intellegent design.")

[Earl of Sandwich]

Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".

Please, do go on. I appreciate the entertainment. Is it not true that evolution is a secular conspiracy on the part of the godless liberal media to promote a Marxist agenda in schools while distributing condoms to 6-year-olds in order to have protected sex with 60-year-old men after school? Is it not true that evolution was invented by Karl Marx and Charles Darwin during a homoerotic love cruise on the H.M.S. Beagle? How could I be so blind to the truth, that the whole vast cosmos was actually created a few thousand years ago by an invisible super-man, and yet, this same guy focuses 90% of his attention to what one species on one tiny spec of dust does with its genitalia? It only makes too much sense for me to believe!

[Papewaio]

Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".

I agree that would be total BS. It would be like calling a child the parent of a twin. As it was the proto-ape and the proto-humans that respectively turned into ape and man. That the proto-apes ancestor and the proto-humans ancestor were one and the same is far more sensible.

[Ice]

Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".

Do you have a better explanation? Do tell.

[Tachikaze]

The darwinists, refusing to acknowledge that there could be some small holes in Darwin's theory, labeled them 'anti-science' among other lies. And I guess for the 'New Scientist' and others in the media using the facts instead of hype is too much work.

I hope you're not confusing Darwinism with Evolutionism, if I may call it that for parallel structure's sake.

No knowledgeable, rational person disputes evolution. It's as much a fact as the Sun-centered solar system and round Earth. The disputes come in the mechanism(s) of evolution. This is where the science is theoretical.

Few scientists today follow a purely Darwinian explanation. It fails to answer certain questions on some transitional functional features of organisms. This doesn't mean that alternative or supplemental theories haven't been proposed and tested. After all, Darwin wrote his books 150 years ago!

Evolution of simple organisms to modern life forms, including humans, of course, should be presented as fact in schools, along with photosynthesis and plate tectonics. The mechanisms that made Evolution come about should be presented as theories.

[Tribesman]

Indoctrinating children with BS like that apes turned into men over time is the polar opposite of "sanity".
Showing the "mental" in fundamental again , how sane is someone who literally interprets a hodgepodge collection of mistranslated heavily edited words as the ultimate truth ?
But of course Pape has pointed out a serious flaw in your position , the words of Augustine sum you up quite well don't they .....to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

[Navaros]

Showing the "mental" in fundamental again , how sane is someone who literally interprets a hodgepodge collection of mistranslated heavily edited words as the ultimate truth ?
But of course Pape has pointed out a serious flaw in your position , the words of Augustine sum you up quite well don't they .....to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements,.

In my view far more sane than people who believe in "evolution" crap simply because it was indoctrinated to them at schools and by the mass media.

"Utterly foolish and obviously untrue" - the "theory" of evolution epitomizes such phrases.

[Ironside]

In my view far more sane than people who believe in "evolution" crap simply because it was indoctrinated to them at schools and by the mass media.

"Utterly foolish and obviously untrue" - the "theory" of evolution epitomizes such phrases.

What I've always found interesting is that people were right for atleast 1850 years (you can probably add 1000-2000 years on that) and then suddenly decides to get it all wrong. Then thanks to thier master manipulating skills they convince most of the world of thier false ideas.

[InsaneApache]

In my view far more sane than people who believe in "evolution" crap simply because it was indoctrinated to them at schools and by the mass media.

"Utterly foolish and obviously untrue" - the "theory" of evolution epitomizes such phrases.

I agree. I was indoctrinated at school and church about Christianity. However as I became more educated I saw it for the preposterous belief system that it is. No basis in fact and you have to believe what was written down thousands of years ago, by men with an agenda.

Evolution on the other hand does not bash you over the head to get the message across. The proof is there for all to see, you only have to open your mind.

[Navaros]

Evolution on the other hand does not bash you over the head to get the message across.

Sure it does. That is precisely why threads like this exist, and why pro-evolutionists are always zealous and fundamentalist in their efforts to make sure their evolution propaganda is never removed from schools. Kids are being bashed over the head with evolution and having it shoved down their throats, and the biggest crime against humanity in all of that is that most of them will simply accept that misinformation as correct simply because an alleged "teacher" told it to them as part of their alleged "education".

[English assassin]

And I guess for the 'New Scientist' and others in the media using the facts instead of hype is too much work

In stark contrast to the rigourous fact based work of the "faith community"? What did faith mean again BTW? Oh yeah, believing something without evidence, that was it.

Navaros I really don't mind that you believe every word in the bible but please could you at least pay lip service to how science says it works? You know, evidence, falsifiability, all that. Frankly it pees me off a bit to have science accused of propagandising children, when 2/3 of the schools in the UK are Church of England or Roman catholic, just so the vicars can start banging on about sin to five year olds.

Who was it said before you remove a mote of dust from someone elses eye first remove the beam from your own?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sure it does. That is precisely why threads like this exist, and why pro-evolutionists are always zealous and fundamentalist in their efforts to make sure their evolution propaganda is never removed from schools. Kids are being bashed over the head with evolution and having it shoved down their throats, and the biggest crime against humanity in all of that is that most of them will simply accept that misinformation as correct simply because an alleged "teacher" told it to them as part of their alleged "education".

Crime against humanity?

Navaros, you really need to get out more.

Your Jesus would be the very best person to take you by the hand and show you true crimes against humanity. But then poverty never seems to be very far up the list of 'Christians' does it, only moral outrage. He would also be a good person to warn you about the dangers of taking established religionists' hard-line views at face value. You're not the first to condemn science and thinking as being anti-religious, heresy and the work of Satan, and sadly unlikely to be the last.

But then, just as with Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, your kind would be the first to condemn a returned Christ for being so radical as to ask people to think.

Eppur si muove. (Assuming you are allowed to read his works rather than burn them).

[Don Corleone]

Can I just interject with a question for a second? Did the Kansas school board require the teaching of creationism and halt the teaching of evolution? Or did it just allow for the teaching of creationism (or intelligent design, or spaghetti monster, etc).

Even an atheist would have to agree that our current working model for life on Earth has holes in it. It doesn't take a religious fundamentalist to recognize that some of the predictions the theory makes aren't accurate (linear time line for one thing, most biologists now hold that evolution happened/happens in quantum spurts).

And frankly, the primordial sea full of proto-proteins, getting zapped repeatedly by lightning to form RNA, sorry, that's just a bit hinky for me. Were this version true, it should be fairly reproducable in a laboratory environment.

Don't get me wrong, I DO hold that the earth is 4 billion years old and I do agree with the progression of the species. I just see some gaps in the tale that's usually told. Not holding it up for inspection because you're afraid of creationists entering the discussion is as bad as the blind creationism itself. We still can't get any closer to a more accurate model. Don't be so thin skinned... We're still not quite certain on an accurate model of particle physics (remember when the proton, nuetron and electron were as small as it gets?) But physicists kept plugging away. Biologists need to do the same.

[English assassin]

It allowed the teaching of creationism...in science classes.

That is fine so long as I can teach enzyme kinetics in RE.

DC, no one would say that science has a complete answer, with copper bottomed proof, for how we went from a ball of lava to me typing these words in 4.5 billion years. No biologist would, I think, say we had a stand out theory for how life began, and no biologist would want children to be told that we did in the absence of evidence. Like you I find the whole "warm little pool" model a bit unlikely although its not the last word on the subject these days, and you and I probably both have difficulty in giving full credit for what might happen when you are considering things on a geological timescale. Its a bit unfair to draw many conclusions from the fact that cells fail to spontaneously assemble in a test tube in a week, when we are talking about the whole surface of the earth and maybe 500 million years.

The trouble with your (otherwise reasonable) comments about not being allowed to question evolution and whats that all about, is we are talking about school level science here. It simplifies. You wouldn't get up in arms about teaching kids Newtonian gravity, even though as it happens we know for a fact its wrong. (ish. Y'all know what I mean. )

So, how come for all other school subjects, we teach the kids the essential outlines of the broadly accepted approaches to the issues, but here, where we have a theory which in its overall form is about as firmly established as any scientific theory has ever been, we want to be open to nit picking and quibbles that don't even affect the basic theory, and that might be relevant at university level but not before.

Oh yeah. Because a few people seriously think the bible says the earth was created in 4004 BC. As pedagogy that doesn't do it for me.

As you said earlier, its lucky for you the bible has nothing to say about electrical engineering.

[Shaun]

Sure it does. That is precisely why threads like this exist, and why pro-evolutionists are always zealous and fundamentalist in their efforts to make sure their evolution propaganda is never removed from schools. Kids are being bashed over the head with evolution and having it shoved down their throats, and the biggest crime against humanity in all of that is that most of them will simply accept that misinformation as correct simply because an alleged "teacher" told it to them as part of their alleged "education".

Well I dont know what kind of logic you use, but a sensible person logic would say that evolution sounds far more plausible than creationism, not to mention the fact that volution has far more scientific backing as well.
The idea of a supreme creator is ludacris when you think about it, how do you know that the Christian creator is the right one, after all there are many other gods, like the FSM.

[Don Corleone]

EA,
You misunderstand the intent of my post. I'm arguing for the right to discuss any contradictory evidence on evolution. Believe me, I'm no creationist, and it would serve as a very poor parallel model.

Schools use evolution as one example of the scientific model, and how extended research and empiricism can lead to the rebuttal of commonly held beliefs. I think this is an important lesson for young minds. But somebody forgot to tell the science teachers. I see no healthy skepticim, no attempt to require designed experiments, no contemplation of alternate theories (and go ahead and leave creationsim out).

I mean, one popular alternative to evolution that requires no relgious faith whatsoever holds that in reality, life was brought to Earth by extra-terrestrial intelligent life forms and that we have been gently nudged in certain directions over the aeons. Why not present that and use that as an example for scientific debate. Present what evidence exists for evolution, present what evidence exists for the X-files version, and let the debate of ideas begin.

The reason I have a problem with the way evolution is taught has nothing to do with Christianity. Because they present it dogmatically, it makes no difference in the students' minds whether they're adopting articles of religious faith or scientific faith. They're simply hearing a message that they must adopt, regurgitate and never question. There's nothing scientifc at all about that.

If people want to claim that it's elves running up and down copper wires and not electricty at all, I'd be happy to debate them on it. If I couldn't, or wouldn't, I hardly deserve to be treated as an engineer. I'm nothing more than an automaton, consulting formulas and following a prescribed recipe... no actual thinking required.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Don't get me wrong, I DO hold that the earth is 4 billion years old and I do agree with the progression of the species. I just see some gaps in the tale that's usually told. Not holding it up for inspection because you're afraid of creationists entering the discussion is as bad as the blind creationism itself. We still can't get any closer to a more accurate model. Don't be so thin skinned... We're still not quite certain on an accurate model of particle physics (remember when the proton, nuetron and electron were as small as it gets?) But physicists kept plugging away. Biologists need to do the same.

Biologists do. Very few people would advocate the banning of creationism as a subject for religious studies, or even including an assessment of creation theory in science class which is subjected to the same rigorous scientific criteria as you espouse be applied to evolutionary theory (rightly). Science is about critical analysis of theory. Faith is about believing your revelation. One cannot apply the same methodology to both.

Gaps in the tale are there because science is always testing new thoughts and tries not to claim things that can't be verified through proofs. There are developing theories of evolution. But creationism is a belief system based on a Middle east tradition - and there are many creation myths out there other than the Christian accepted one. Why is that the one that should be taught in parallel with evolution, even if you are a theist? That, to me, is the first question that needs to be answered by creationists - why your fairy story, not one of the others, just as valid? Why should a Buddhist have to listen to creation stories as fact? Let's face it, if it hadn't been for a pragmatic choice in the Roman Empire, no-one would have heard of it and we'd be arguing about Jupiter impregnating a swan or whatnot being The TruthTM.

The thin skin comes from the outrageous attempts by some religionists to subvert science. We biologists tend to be at the forefront because for reasons unknown to me, the lunatic fundies don't have a go at physics, astronomy, chemistry and the other core sciences.

It's really no different from wanting to teach Flat-earthism in geography class. Alchemy in Chemistry class. Etc. Why aren't creationists pushing for that? (I know from your earlier post that you understand that, so this post is asking open questions, not directed at your post )

And frankly, the primordial sea full of proto-proteins, getting zapped repeatedly by lightning to form RNA, sorry, that's just a bit hinky for me. Were this version true, it should be fairly reproducable in a laboratory environment.

Actually, there's been some good work demonstrating this experimentally. The problem is, the effects of millions of years of random events on a planetary scale is quite difficult to model in the lab. So it's our best guess, drawn from first principles, and there's some experiments to show you can get amino acids and RNA precursors from such an environment. That puts it about a million miles in front of the so far untestable idea that some bearded geezer who likes to be invisible waved his magic wand and it all sprang into view.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The reason I have a problem with the way evolution is taught has nothing to do with Christianity. Because they present it dogmatically, it makes no difference in the students' minds whether they're adopting articles of religious faith or scientific faith. They're simply hearing a message that they must adopt, regurgitate and never question. There's nothing scientifc at all about that.

Don, you pre-empted me as I was writing!

If what you say is true, then the schools of America are indeed letting their children down badly.

If I accept the standards of teaching are so low in biology teaching, does the same attitude prevail in teaching the other sciences: ie Science is Truth, Don't be Misled by Facts?

If not, might the biology failure be down to an over-reaction to the threats of creationists trying to hijack the school agenda? Might teachers be unwilling to even address other theories because it would be the slippery slope to creationists demanding no critical analysis of the Bible story?*

*See the unyielding Navaros.

[Ronin]

Sure it does. That is precisely why threads like this exist, and why pro-evolutionists are always zealous and fundamentalist in their efforts to make sure their evolution propaganda is never removed from schools. Kids are being bashed over the head with evolution and having it shoved down their throats, and the biggest crime against humanity in all of that is that most of them will simply accept that misinformation as correct simply because an alleged "teacher" told it to them as part of their alleged "education".

Man...Navaros.....reading your posts acusing OTHERS of being "zealous and fundamentalist"




man....I think my irony indicator just exploded!

[Don Corleone]

Don, you pre-empted me as I was writing!

If what you say is true, then the schools of America are indeed letting their children down badly.

If I accept the standards of teaching are so low in biology teaching, does the same attitude prevail in teaching the other sciences: ie Science is Truth, Don't be Misled by Facts?

If not, might the biology failure be down to an over-reaction to the threats of creationists trying to hijack the school agenda? Might teachers be unwilling to even address other theories because it would be the slippery slope to creationists demanding no critical analysis of the Bible story?*

*See the unyielding Navaros.

Sadly, yes. The scientific method, or as I like to call it, thinking for oneself in an orderly, repeatable way, doesn't really get taught until the University level. Chemistry, physics, geology... they're all taught like Organic Chemistry.... semesters, if not years, of memorizing a series of facts Sometimes these facts are logically related, often they are not. Always, they are facts and why is an unheard question. The scientific method is 'taught', in that the 4 phases are presented as additional material for memorization, but true critique and analysis doesn't begin until after secondary school.

[Ronin]

Even an atheist would have to agree that our current working model for life on Earth has holes in it. It doesn't take a religious fundamentalist to recognize that some of the predictions the theory makes aren't accurate (linear time line for one thing, most biologists now hold that evolution happened/happens in quantum spurts).

Of course the current theory/model has holes in it....It´s a best guess and nobody is saying the contrary.....


but just because there are holes and parts we don´t understand I don´t think telling the kids fairy-tales is a good alternative.