It’s nice to see the Kansas Board of Education rethinking Evolution again. We can’t let faith guide science.
After victory at the polls in November, a moderate majority on the 10-member board in the central U.S. state plans to overturn science standards seen as critical of evolution at a board meeting on Tuesday in Topeka.
New standards would replace those put in place in 2005 by a conservative board majority that challenged the validity of evolution and cited it as incompatible with religious doctrine.
However, I don’t like this discussion over whether or not to delete unpleasant passages of history from textbooks. That isn’t teaching, that’s pedagogery and censorship.
A national group is urging the Kansas State Board of Education to reject on Tuesday a plan to delete coverage of the historical misuses of science from state curriculum standards, including a reference to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment targeting African-Americans.
“It is only by studying these past abuses that students — our scientists of the future — can learn about the critical importance of science operating within ethical standards,” wrote West to the board. “As has often been said, ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'”
You can’t stifle the truth, and to deny knowledge from children only places them at a disadvantage to those who know the facts.
UPDATE:
The Kansas Board of Education on Tuesday threw out science standards deemed hostile to evolution, undoing the work of Christian conservatives in the ongoing battle over what to teach U.S. public school students about the origins of life.
31,
I don’t go around parading my faith for Jesus as my personal savior and guide. If I did I would be more circumspect in speech and behavior.
Your high-and-mighty attitude that I am an Atheist just because I don’t believe in your flavor of diety can go take a hike. I can recognize that God created everything without believing in adam and eve. What if the Big Bang was God saying, “Let there be light”, and everything else followed within the template established?
Now, if creationist ID proponents actually meant to debate evolution and human development intelligently, I would support it. But we all know CID is only a trojan horse for religion in the classroom.
“I don’t go around parading my faith for Jesus as my personal savior and guide. If I did I would be more circumspect in speech and behavior.”
Going ad hominem just won’t cut it buddy. You know why ID versus Evolution always deteriorates to a “My religion is better thatn yours” discussion? It’s because the evolution theory is nothing but a religious doctrine and you in here are the faithful followers of this alternate doctrine that all these wondrous designs that scientists blatantly copy from nature are not designed by a more superior and more moral intelligence.
Are there any harsh words in my posts? Did I call anyone a moron, or an idiot? The only pompous thing that had been said from me is this: I disagree with what all of your evolutionist religion. I am unapologetic and very happy about my being Creationist Christian. You do a disservice to many Christians who visit this site for insight in technology and blindside them by preaching your religion of evolution. Your Big Bang God, Alix is just another flavor of diety that is considered as hideous idolatry to most Christians. My annoyance comes from this blog’s general ridiculing of Creationism while purporting to be a secular, discussion of technology. But now that you are tired of hiding behind technology and would rather preach to lure people into your Darwinian religion, then I’m perfectly happy with Digg.
33,
You have the freedom to come and go here as you please, Hal. If you prefer Digg, have at it.
Have I called you any names, Hal? I did call those who try and dictate my behavior based on their faith morons, but they started it. I did take slight umbrage at your tone, and it is reflected in my response.
Religion rules by fiat, there is no debate. That science allows any theory to enter the stage and be tested openly demonstrates that it is not a religion.
It’s frightening that the ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE RIGHT wants us to regress to a pre-modern existence. They want to force us to fear God instead of being taught logic and the fact that religion cannot be proven. I believe that they in Kansas as well as other states with backwards thinking populations should be given the choice to allow their children to be educated with proofs of nature or be educated with theological dogmas, and those choosing dogma should not complain when their children and descendents fall behind in every manner of falling behind. If they choose not to swim then allow them to sink like rocks. After all it’s their choice to be left behind.
PS in the ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN RIGHT’S choice of dogma over reason, they are setting the stage for both creating and maintaing a new underclass of which they will be the majority.
Only pin-headed thinkers would refer to God as a she. God transends gender. To say that KBE is returning to common sense education is not only a missnomer, but only a fool can think that common sense can exist outside of wisdom. God given wisdom. Perhaps thats why we are in the shape we are in in this Godless socity and country and headed for a rude awakening. Only an astroid or the second comming will change our views.
So, Enrique, how do you feel about others not believing what you say? Do you think we should all be burned at the stake or suffer in other ways at your theocracy’s hands if we reject you and your culture’s rhetoric? I don’t BELIEVE that you people are capable of coexisting, similar to Nazis, Stalinists, and of course Inquisitionists as well as Muslim Fundamentalists. YOU ARE ALL EXTREMISTS!
Jesus Christ expects no less than for Christians to be Extremists – but not in the violent sense that you so cheerfully attach to Christianity. None of the Inquisitionists were Christians because they did not follow the Christian faith – they merely lodged Christianity into everyone’s throats. Faith and Religion are two very different things.
The Pharisees and Hypocrites were men of great religion but they were not considered by Jesus Christ as men of faith.
Jesus Christ lived and preached that men should love God with all their heart and with all their mind, and to love their brethren as they love themselves.
In that sense, you can call people who gave their lives for love and peace as Christians. You can call Buddha, Ghandi, even Mohammad as Christians in their hearts.
It is extremely easy to label groups of people as Extremists and lump them up as mere crackpots, whereas it is difficult to attempt to gain a perspective of why and where these persons falter. It is even easier to simply find reasons to hate rather than to find the courage and kindness to forgive. To love your enemies and be kind to those who persecute you. That is the true gift of God.
It seems to me, that religion itself is following the basic principles of Darwin’s evolution. The diversity of the modern religions can be traced back to a few religions of the past. Christianity is as diverse as the sparrow bird species and increases in diversity as the population of humans grow.
The diverse religions give individuals choices on what behavior to pursue in order to have a life in the after life. Ex: I will not commit acts of sins according to religion X so that I will have an after life according to religion X. This is behavior modification to increase survival. Behavior modification can occur because of environmental changes or by physical changes.
Some may say that religion is not about the after life but about doing good works in the here and now. If that is the case then you can do away with the concept of faith in a god by just being human and doing good works.
#33: Where did you get the idea this is a technology blog? It is about anything John and any of us editors want it to be about.
“Where did you get the idea this is a technology blog? ”
Uh, because John Dvorak is a columnist for Tech and PC Magazines and participates regularly on shows like Cranky Geeks and This Week in Tech? He’s known by many because of that isn’t he? Otherwise why not name this Dave’s Evolutionist Blog?
Do we need to evolve some more?
While I don’t endorse the idea of a guy up in the sky wearing white robes as the correct theory, neither do I see the other theory as being correct.
Correct methodology is to take a theory and try to tear it apart. This has been done. Macro-evolution has holes big enough to drive a Nimitz class carrier through.
It’s time to break away from the dogma on both sides and start over to find the correct answer.
After reading all the above, one thing is certain. There are those in Kansas (or the World) who pessimistically seek to return to the ignorance of the past and there are those who optimistically look forward to a better more knowledgeable future. Consider America’s failure to convert to the metric system. A coherent and consistent system of measurement is absolutely essential to science and engineering. Yet, in America, we blind our students with fractional inches, angles in degrees and weight in pounds and ounces. Then, when students finally qualify for a real science education in college, they must begin by adopting a whole new system of measure. America’s students have been disadvantaged for over two-hundred years by the forces of ideological conservatism. Why is this? Because the metric system began with the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, which removed the Church from power in Europe. That’s why neither the Democratic or Republician Partry will support metrification. It’s not about doing the right thing for the future — it’s about supporting the politics of religious history. It’s not just the concept of evolution that’s under attack by the forces of conservatism — it’s anything and everything that attempts to rectify the errors of the past and create a brighter, more hopeful future. Conservative Christianity clings desperately to the superstitious ignorance of the past, seeking to deny America’s children the benefits of discovering their own scientific truths. Religion has become a force for evil in America and most of us are too polite, or too political, to speak the Truth. Here it comes — (the devout may wish to avert their eyes):
God is an imaginary concept created by ancient politicians to secure power over their superstitious constituencies. There is no Heaven; there is no Hell and when we die, we’re just plain dead. God Himself is not merely dead — He never even existed, except in the fertile minds of those who seek to manipulate other human beings.
Somehow, Western Civilization has managed to survive the dark ages of its religious childhood and has emerged as a brilliant young adult, eager to embrace the realities of the physical universe. The time has come for those who understand physical reality to seize the reins of power from those who worship the politics of the past.
#42: Then I take it the fact that only a relatively small percentage of the posts are tech related has gone unnoticed by you.
Response to UPDATE: Bravo!
Response to #42: Study something more advanced than your bible — or navel. Why must reactionaries and bible bigots continually try to excise whole demographics from having opinions?
If we listened to these dweebs, we’d be passing laws that outlaw freedom of expression for actors, musicians, geeks, scientists, technologists — oh, and anyone who thinks international diplomacy involves something more than bombs.
Yo Bromley, the Christianity you are talking about is called Catholicism. Catholics in the past persecuted Biblical Christians as witches. Catholics today do not behave and think like Catholics of the Inquisition. As a non-Catholic Christian, I find it merely convenient for you to think that way about modern Christians. There are more God believers in any nation than total atheists even in communist countries. And in a plane that’s about to crash? Zero athiests.
Said the neanderthal to another, “I cannot validate this crackpot theory of relativity, therefore I conclude that Einstein is not only dead, he did not exist!”
What is the seven days of creation but the process of introducing energy into a vacuum, converting energy into matter, cooling, terraforming, inventing climate controls, physics, and designing self-replicating organic machines. And as a triumph of nanotechnology-all this is voice activated and is so fast that it runs quantum leaps around the current core core core duos. What’s so magical or superstitious about the theory that someone else has reached the apex of technology before we did? How about this theory, that someone wants to do a bit of Pygmaleon and Galatea, to become the Primus Inter Pares, but only to those who will not annihilate him when they reach his domain, so he builds this virtual reality of sentient beings to make sure? Is that a plan a simpleton might make? How is that any different from just adding lightning to a primordial soup to create life? How many brilliant scientists have tried that one?
#24. You obviously don’t have a clue about the implications of quantum physics or what Einstein meant when he said, “Gott wurfelt nicht!” I am a mathematician and there are eminent physicists who agree with my religious interpretation of quantum physics. Albert Einstein said, “If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science.” You are evidently a philosopher who knows nothing of modern physics.
Yo, Gregory, a rock is inorganic, it lacks the life force, therefore it will never multiply and grow into another rock, it can only degnerate to dust as you wish our species to degenerate by not allowing reasonable science to be taught.
Hal, let’s see how the persecutions would go if your conservative Christians were to gain political power and suspend The Constitution. You know the Roman Catholics and most of the Protestant Sects would gladly support a Theocracy in this country. You also could be sure their aim is to force everyone to be born-again and if not, find ways to punish them for dissent. Don’t forget what happened in Geneva during the tenure of John Calvin when thousands of Roman Catholics and Jews were “brought to justice” as a result of the protestant iquisition there… Organized religion breeds hate and continues to be used as a tool to opress, to subject, and to surpress a mass of people for political ends. That is why you fear resaon so much. With true reason comes true choice and understanding. As I said, you people are not capable of coexistence. Extremists!
#48 – And in a plane that’s about to crash? Zero athiests.
I get a littled tired of the Xian mindset that says, “We think this way so there is no way anyone else could think differently.”
Not only do we think differently, we think more logically, reasonably, smartly, and rationally. There are athiests in foxholes because once you’ve adopted an enlightened point of view, you don’t let something as primitive as fear overcome your understanding of the nature of the universe.
Pray to whomever you want… Think whatever you want… Waste your precious time in a death cult like Chistianity all you want… I really don’t care and have no sympathy for you… But don’t presume that in the face of fear, we are as easily unhinged as you.
We will cure cancer. We will break light speed. We will reverse climate change. We will make this Earth better. We will even share our achievements with you despite the fact that you’ll spit in our face for it and then praise your imaginary God for our hard work.
Yo, Gregory, a rock is inorganic, it lacks the life force, therefore it will never multiply and grow into another rock,
Er… yes? I agree that a rock isn’t alive, I believe I said the same thing…
it can only degnerate to dust as you wish our species to degenerate by not allowing reasonable science to be taught.
1) I’m all for reasonable science – science can be tested and has evidence to support it, science is rational and logical… so we.. you’re wrong.
2) If by reasonable science you actually mean “intelligent design” then.. ok – as soon as you can show me tests for it, and evidence. Also the logical arguments for it based on that evidence.
3) I don’t wish I species to degenerate to dust – I wish it would embrace rational thinking a bit more actually…
Your turn.
53 – Chiming in late but Gregory and a few others have said everything I might have said on a good day. For the religionists, let me put it in terms you presumably understand: http://www.dannemann.org.uk/contact/
Those of you who think you “know” evolution are missing the target.
That is understandable, as it is a moving target.
Evolution is as much an act of faith as creation. It has NEVER been proven. In fact usually what happens is as one theory is disproved, a new theory is presented (as a fact) to replace the old.
If you can truly sit back and look at yourself with the same critical eye you use to others, you will see the world in a different light. Evolution doesn’t matter, except it proposes that EVERTHING must change.
Therefore morals must change.
Therefore what I want is alright “because I want it” and the old fuddy duddy moral had to be wrong anyway.
The bible states this so correctly, we are all justified in our own minds.
If you are truly interested in “truth”, first you should study a dissenting theory. Compare it to real world evidence. Then you can debate it.
But you will notice that most evolutionists will make broad sweeping judgments about the character and intent of the proponents of “intelligent Design”. Not try to punch holes in its teachings.
So when a state wants to introduce critical discussion into a classroom, they are labeled and ridiculed, not debated.
And isn’t that what is going on in this thread?
I haven’t seen people trying to punch holes in intelligent design here, so much as assert correctly that matters of faith are not relevant to the practice of science. Of COURSE that states an ideal – humans cannot keep their belief systems out of their perceptions. Hence the need for occasional paradigm shifts. But in the abstract, religion is not relevant to science because religion does not deal with questions of fact that can be tested, only with things that must be accepted without testing (and let’s not get into what religionists do to others who do not accept their untestable beliefs).
Evolution as a theory never proposed that “EVERYTHING must change,” or at least no evolution I ever read about proposed such a sweeping principle. Far less have science-based (as opposed to politics-basesd) evolutionists applied the theory to “morals” or other purely abstract concepts. That’s just ridiculous. Once again: http://www.dannemann.org.uk/contact/
Those of you who think you “know” evolution are missing the target. That is understandable, as it is a moving target.
Hmm.. not really. The fundamentals of Evolution have been the same for years. There are some small details that get argued about – not usually the how, but more the why the how is taking place.. if you see what I mean.
Evolution is as much an act of faith as creation. It has NEVER been proven.
Sorry, but it has. You’re wrong. There is no debate here. It is indisputable that evolution takes place, it has even been observed.
In fact usually what happens is as one theory is disproved, a new theory is presented (as a fact) to replace the old.
Again, this is more the small arguments in scientific circles over why certain processes happen, not if they happen.
If you can truly sit back and look at yourself with the same critical eye you use to others, you will see the world in a different light.
I do so, I try to do as much as possible – self examination is crucial to self-improvement.
Evolution doesn’t matter, except it proposes that EVERTHING must change.
Wrong. It says that biological organisms change, thats all.
Therefore morals must change.
Why? They aren’t biological organisms. Morals are social constructs. They can (and do) change, but there is nothing in the scientific biological meaning of evolution that says they must change. You’ll want social science for that. Morals now are not the same they were 400years ago, or 3000.
Therefore what I want is alright “because I want it” and the old fuddy duddy moral had to be wrong anyway.
Wrong. I mean.. you can think that if you want, but your assertion doesn’t follow.
If you are truly interested in “truth”, first you should study a dissenting theory.
.. that has evidence to support it, but yes, agreed…
Compare it to real world evidence. Then you can debate it.
no… not quite. Debate is valuable, but if something doesn’t have evidence (or the evidence doesn’t hold up under testing) then you can debate it to the end of the world – it will still be wrong.
you will notice that most evolutionists will make broad sweeping judgments about the character and intent of the proponents of “Intelligent Design”. Not try to punch holes in its teachings.
Well it is sad that people insult each other, but ID people do the same back – it’s not one sided. However the reason so many people get aggressive to ID proponents is that there is no evidence for ID, none, at all, zilch, nada, zip! It is not logical, or science, or anything that can be called close.
If you have any evidence – I say this again – please present it.
So when a state wants to introduce critical discussion into a classroom, they are labeled and ridiculed, not debated.
Religious discussion does not belong in a science class. If Kansas was talking about introducing a module on ID vs Evolution in a religious class… well I’d applaud that actually. But it’s not.
And isn’t that what is going on in this thread?
No, for the reasons in the two previous paragraphs.
#55 – Evolution is as much an act of faith as creation. It has NEVER been proven. I
No no no no no no no… Get thee to a remedial biology class.
Evolution is a fact. It is observable. It is documented. It can be created under lab conditions. Life evolves. This is as much a fact as gravity is a fact and there is no debate.
The mechanisms that allow evolution to occur is what we don’t have a clear understanding of and that is what we study. That is what the “theory” of evolution strives to discover, and that is a moving target as new evidence replaces old ideas and refines our understanding of the process.
Intelligent Design is Creationism. That isn’t a secret or a tin foil hat theory. That’s just what it is. It is a backdoor attempt by fundamentalists (who are not credible in any way shape or form) to pollute the educational system with religious indoctination.
Why is this politically important? Because we can’t afford to backslide into the dark ages, which exactly where Jesus freaks want us to go. Civilization is always standing on the edge of the future and now, perhaps more than ever before, we are better able to see the possibility of breakthroughs in cancer, diabetes, alzhiemer’s and other debilitating illnesses. But what’s required to see these breakthoughs to fruition is the next generations. If we allow them to be deluded with malarky about creationism and mythical gods watching as masterbate and damning us to this “Hell” place they’ve concocted… well, we damn sure won’t go forward.
The fight to banish religion is one that must be won at all costs. Religion is the anchor that stops the ship of progress. This is a black and white issue. Do we follow the failed path of religion, or walk toward the light of reason and enlightment? To borrow from the venacular of faith, science is our salvation, and our one true hope to overcome the doom that awaits us if we buy into Christianity’s death cult of guilt and repression and useless useless useless prayer.
“No no no no no no no… Get thee to a remedial biology class.”
Been there done that + advanced genetics. They’re still looking to prove the theory. Probably why it’s not not called the LAW of Evolution. Me thinks you should go back and study basic scientific methodology.
59,
The huge difference is that the theory of evolution explains things with facts that can be examined and debated. ID has yet to do that.
Tell me, what exactly does ID believe? Was man created all in one shot, or did God use some kind of process? If ID says evolution is wrong, then what theory does ID put forth that takes into account the fossile record and geologic data, both of which are easily observable and verifiable?
“We will cure cancer. We will break light speed. We will reverse climate change. We will make this Earth better. We will even share our achievements with you despite the fact that you’ll spit in our face for it and then praise your imaginary God for our hard work.” -OhForTheLoveOf
Hmp. You give yourself too much credit. And take upon yourself credit that belongs to others.
Been there done that + advanced genetics. They’re still looking to prove the theory. Probably why it’s not not called the LAW of Evolution. Me thinks you should go back and study basic scientific methodology.
Methinks you should go back and study basic scientific terminology.
You obviously have no idea what constitutes a scientific Theory or Law, that very fact calls into question your claim that you studied biology or genetics – as any decent high-school student will be able to tell you those things. If you did study those fields then you are being intellectually dishonest.
However – please prove me wrong – please cite the problems with evolution that disprove it. You may be thinking of the mechanism of evolutionary change called Natural Selection (not the same thing) which still has a few minor questions to be answered when you get to really abstract details, however problems in Natural Selection (however small) do not invalidate Evolution.
Again – you make the claim there is proof, so you must present it. Not one person I’ve challenged to do this so far has done so. Back up your claims with evidence or be dismissed.