DANGER THE FOLLOWING LINK IS A pdf FILE — ProposedRevisions_KSstandards.pdf (application/pdf Object) If there is any one state where the Creationists versus the Evolutionists are having a serious ongoing battle it’s Kansas. Banning the teaching of evolution alrogether has been in the cards over and over. The Kansas Science standards have been under attack for over 5 years as the creationists have been trying to marginalize evolution. What’s interesting to me is the constant changes in language and strategies. They must be having a LOT of meetings. The new buzzwrords (code words) I see emerging are “origins science” and “naturalism.” The creationists are using a lot of professional propagandistic tricks to make their points. For example, I see the attempt to make themselves look like the rational folks while the evolutionists are made out to look like unreasonable maniacs. This is done by finding and quoting Christian-hating atheists and setting them up as the puppet representatives arguing for evolution. This is an excellent strategy.
What I also find interesting within many of the new-creationistst documents are constant references to “No Child Left Behind.” Any idea what that is all about?
According to many scientists a core claim of evolutionary theory is that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.5 Other scientists disagree. These standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement. However, to promote good science, good pedagogy and a curriculum that is secular, neutral and non-ideological, school districts are urged to follow the advice provided by the House and Senate Conferees in enacting the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
“The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.”
Argh. Nothing is more frustrating than a belligerent creationist. Their views are so demonstrably out to lunch, yet they succeed in convincing politicians that they have legitimacy. It’s infuriating.
I dunno… it seems to me that the proposed changes (at least most of them) are not so much against evolution as they are simply pointing out that something like evolution cannot be proven or disproven due to it inherently not being able to be tested, retested, and verified. There is a point that one cannot follow the standard procedure for experimentation via testing, coming to a conclusion, and offering the procedure up for others to verify. No one can very well reset the universe and see what happens.
Most experiments are not this way. One writes down the procedure, the results, and the conclusion… all of which are verifiable. It seems pretty clear that evolutionary studies cannot follow this plan. Perhaps you disagree with this? If so, how? I’m pretty open to things and am willing to accept mistakes when I make them, but as of now, I see the point that evolutionary scientific study is completely different than conclusions drawn from testable objectives, procedures, results, and conclusions.
Creationists — er, I mean proponents of “Intelligent Design” — refer to evolution as “just a theory”. It is a theory (like the theory of gravity), but one with a great deal of evidence supporting it. What does not have any evidence to support it is the contention that the earth is less than 10,000 years old (Neanderthal cave paintings and burial sites are 60,000).
Now this is scary: from national geo, here: http://tinyurl.com/4lft5
“Other people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.” Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us. ”
So sad that so many believe literally in all the bible stories… or that they NEED to. Cmon people. The Bible was wrong about the sun and stars revolving around the earth. It’s no big deal.
“… it seems to me that the proposed changes (at least most of them) are not so much against evolution as they are simply pointing out that something like evolution cannot be proven or disproven due to it inherently not being able to be tested, retested, and verified. ”
Only the scientifically ignorant or the religiously motivated buy into this thought process. There is overwhelming evidence that evolution happened. The only argument amongst scientists is how and how fast evolution happened.
“There is a point that one cannot follow the standard procedure for experimentation via testing, coming to a conclusion, and offering the procedure up for others to verify.”
Again, wrong. We have plenty of examples of evolution happening. AIDS happens to be an example. The AIDS virus has evolved over time in response the medications. The problem is not finding proof. The problem is that the religiously motivated place man in some vaulted tower amongst species and thus assume that evidence in other species cannot possibly apply to man. This fallacious assumption ignores evidence that even man has changed over the millenia.
“…but as of now, I see the point that evolutionary scientific study is completely different than conclusions drawn from testable objectives, procedures, results, and conclusions.”
Those different conclusions are only in the mechanisms and speed of adaptation. There is no dispute as to whether the adaptation has happened.
See TalkOrigins.com for more info.
The stubborn creationist believes what he believes because he wants it to be true.
“Do not mistake wishes for truth”
If they are going to spend time teaching about creationism, why not also dedicate some time to teaching the theory that Santa Claus is the one that puts the presents under the tree?
I know a religious nut family that disallowed Halloween for their 5 year-old because of some crackpot pamphlet saying Halloween is a pagan holiday. They also smoke in their house.
I got into an argument with them about how stupid it is to punish their child by taking away Halloween over a kook pamphlet by a crackpot and at the same time ignore the surgeon general’s warning on their pack of cigarettes and subject their child –who has no choice in the matter — to smoke.
Needless to say they weren’t very happy about that 😉
To any overly religious freaks: Halloween did start as a pagan holiday. But guess what? So did CHRISTMAS. Christ wasn’t born in December, Christmas is in December because it replaced the celebration of the winter solstice — aka December 21, the longest night of the year.
So Halloween, Christmas and Easter originated as pagan holidays, so I guess you religious freaks that frown on Halloween have to give up Christmas and Easter too! Ha ha!
Sorry, Wesley Allen, but you’re either a creationist, who is pretending not to be one, or you are utterly ignorant. Evolution can be scientifically tested, has been scientifically tested, and has been proven time and time again.
What CANNOT be tested is the idea that an invisible incorporeal being is the cause of everything.
Imagine that you are in charge of setting up a tsunami detection system. Your chief scientist believes that tsunamis are caused by an invisible and incorporeal being. You ask him, well if he’s invisible and incorporeal, then how can we test him? He’d answer, “We can’t, we merely have to pray to him for guidance.”
Exactly how long would you keep your chief “scientist” in his position?
The Creationists cannot accept Evolution because it is a direct assault on their identity: Man (ego). Since their whole belief system is based on that identity, shattering that identity (by accepting Evolution) would be like killing them. For them believing in Creationism is a matter of life and death and so they must defend it as if their life depended on it. But, I think if they had an open mind, they would see that, indeed, Evolution is God.
I am a Christian. I was rasied to believe in the 7 day Creationist idea. I have, however, long since adapted my belief to accept Evolution as a truth.
Evolution does not void my belief in a higher power, Christian Values, or that Existence is genral was began by God.
My beliefs cause arguments on both sides fo the spectrum.
I still maintain that no one can firmly disprove the existance of God. I mean, really, who made those particles that sparked the so-called Big-Bang?
As long as we all accept that belief in a deity and science are not the same thing and that one should not be taught *as* the other, then we are in agreement. Where we run into friction is when people want to teach creationism (belief) *as* science.
I believe everyone did a good job of misunderstanding my post. I was not at all saying that conclusions drawn from evolutionary study are nonscientific nor incorrect. It’s just that that type of study is different in nature from that of other studies.
A study of past events is completely different than a study of present and future events. When you study past events, no matter what that past event is, you take what you can perceive in the present and extrapolate that to the past. This is completely different than saying “I think this WILL happen,” and experiencing the process as it happens.
Again, I am not saying that evolutionary study is incredulous, just that it is a different TYPE of study. You may call me ignorant if you like, but that really is not doing anything for anyone. Tell me how I am wrong and why I am wrong, but don’t insult my intelligence, that produces nothing of worth.
“If they are going to spend time teaching about creationism, why not also dedicate some time to teaching the theory that Santa Claus is the one that puts the presents under the tree?” -Anonymous
Anonymous,
Don’t tell me you are one of those nutballs who thinks that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
Wesley Allen, you want me to tell you how you are wrong. Fine. You wrote that Creationists “are simply pointing out that something like evolution cannot be proven or disproven due to it inherently not being able to be tested, retested, and verified.”
That is completely wrong. Evolution CAN be proven. Evolution CAN be disproved. Furthermore, it can be tested, retested, and verified!
And by the way, if you are ignorant about a topic and if someone points out your ignorance, that is not an insult. It’s simply a fact.
Ima,
Seems as though we run into each other a lot. I really don’t like having arguments or debates, but if you’d like to discuss something, that would be excellent.
Seriously, I am very open to ideas. If you give me something solid to work with, and propose a discussion as opposed to a “flaming” then there’s a very good chance that I will agree with at least part of what you have to say. You say that evolution can be proven and/or disproven and can be tested, retested and verified. How do you propose that one does (or has done) this sort of thing?
History is not something you can go back and do again is what my point is. You must agree with that, right? If this is the case, then you cannot test, retest, and verify history. You can test, retest, and verify current events and extend those results to history. Again, I would like to comment that I am NOT saying that this does not give accurate results; it’s just that this extrapolation makes this type of study different than studying the present and applying conclusions from that study to the future where it can be easily verified as right or wrong.
I do not mean to be insulting to you. It seems as if you have some harsh feelings toward me. This is not my intent and, thus, I apologize for any comments I have made in this regard.
Also, please do not infer things which I did not say. Never did I say “Creationists are simply pointing out that something like evolution cannot be proven or disproven due to …” I specifically said the proposed changes. If you look over the proposed changes, I believe you will agree with me at least to some extent. I would never say that Creationists are trying to do anything but say that evolution is wrong. That is what they are by definition.