Which one are you?

[phil]

Topeka, Kan. — Revisiting a topic that exposed Kansas to nationwide ridicule six years ago, the state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The 6-4 vote was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.

“This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,” said board member Janet Waugh, a Democrat.

Supporters of the new standards said they will promote academic freedom. “It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today,” said board member John Bacon.

The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

The new standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science.

The vote marked the third time in six years that the Kansas board has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue.

In 1999, the board eliminated most references to evolution. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that was akin to teaching “American history without Lincoln.” Bill Nye, the “Science Guy” of children's television, called it “harebrained” and “nutty.” And a Washington Post columnist imagined God saying to the Kansas board members: “Man, I gave you a brain. Use it, okay?”



And now, Eldest Son wants to finish his High School studies in Kansas ...

"A lot less to learn", he says...
"Anything I don't understand,
I'll just say God did it "!!

[phil]

Intelligent design, as most rational beings know, is not science. Part of the problem with ID is that it starts with a conclusion ("God created living things") and searches for evidence for that conclusion.

Science is objective; ID is not. Evolution, objectively, while not perfect, is nonetheless the best theory we currently have regarding the origin of life. Teaching other theories in the classroom would be fine...if they were actual theories and not merely wild guesses.

Unfortunately, ID is not well-tested, widely accepted as true. It's ridiculous to challenge a mature, widely accepted theory with a half-baked, religiously biased "theory" such as intelligent design.

[shin]

Everywhere you look nowadays, people are gravitating toward pure insanity. I really can't figure out what's sparked this newfound love for all things idiotic.

[Thorngrub]

"newfound" -? I thought you were always w/the program, shin.

[phil]

Statement from Dr. Alan I. Leshner, CEO of AAAS, on the Kansas State Board of Education vote

A statement from Dr. Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science, regarding the 8 November 2005 vote by the Kansas State Board of Education:


"Along with thousands of Kansas scientists, educators and other residents, we are deeply disturbed by the vote taken today by the Kansas State Board of Education. No matter how the board's majority tries to cast its action, the meaning is clear: This is a vote to mix science and faith in public school science classrooms, at great risk to the economy, to the educational institutions and, most importantly, to the children of Kansas.

"We do not believe that science and religion are inherently at odds. On the contrary, we believe they can co-exist harmoniously. Thousands of religious leaders nationwide share our view. We would not be troubled to see the issues about human origins discussed in social studies classes, however, we firmly believe that only science should be taught in science classrooms. By definition, scientific explanations are limited to rigorous, testable explanations of the natural world and cannot go beyond.

"Our students, like all of our citizens, need a clear understanding of what science is-and what it isn't-if they're going to thrive in the 21st century. The Kansas science standards say that science education must "prepare the citizens of Kansas to meet the challenge of the 21st century." But by endorsing science standards that contain misleading information and literally change the definition of science in order to cast doubt on biological evolution, the Board of Education has taken a vote to confuse students, and to undermine science education."

[phil]

Evolution over time


• Nov. 24, 1859: First edition of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," outlining his theories about evolution, is published.

• June 1991: Phillip Johnson, University of California law professor and founding father of intelligent design movement, publishes "Darwin on Trial," criticizing evolutionary theory.

• Aug. 11, 1999: Kansas School Board votes 6-4 to adopt science standards in which most references to evolution are eliminated.

• Aug. 1, 2000: Republican primary voters oust state board members Linda Holloway, of Shawnee, and Mary Douglass Brown, of Wichita, who opposed teaching of evolution. A third, Scott Hill, R-Abilene, did not seek re-election.

• Jan. 9, 2001: Three new state board members who support teaching evolution --Bruce Wyatt a Salina Republican, Sue Gamble, a Shawnee Republican, and Carol Rupe, a Wichita Republican -- are sworn in.

• Feb. 14, 2001: Board votes 7-3 for new science standards restoring evolution's previous place in the standards as well-founded science, crucial for students to learn.

• Jan. 14, 2003: Conservatives Connie Morris of St. Francis and Iris Van Meter of Thayer are sworn in; board is split 5-5.

• Jan. 11, 2005: Conservative Kathy Martin of Clay Center is sworn in to replace Wyatt, giving conservative Republicans a 6-4 majority on the board.

• Nov. 8, 2005: Board votes to change the science standards.

[shin]

Well, while I always felt that while idiocy would always be a major factor in life, I sort of assumed society as a whole progresses toward the future, not retards into the freakin' dark ages.

What's next, the sun revolves around the Earth?

[strat-0]

Ptolemy proved that with a working model.

BTW, the earth is flat.

[Nepenthe]

Recently Darwinism has suffered a series of embarrassments as textbook examples of evolution have turned out to be not what they seemed. The most serious reversal was in developmental biology. Based on nineteenth century drawings, the embryos of fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals were thought to look virtually identical. Much was made of the resemblance as evidence for evolution. Probably the majority of American schoolchildren in the past 50 years have seen drawings of the embryos in their biology textbooks. Carl Sagan once wrote in Parade magazine (circulation in the tens of millions) that human embryos have "something like the gill arches of a fish or an amphibian." And eminent scientists declared that the great similarity only made sense in the light of evolution. But the embryos don't look like that. Recent research has shown that these century old drawings, by Ernst Haeckel, an admirer of Darwin, are quite misleading. In reality the embryos are significantly different from each other (although there are similarities). This turns out to be a real puzzle. If fish evolved into amphibians, then the program that turns a fertilized egg into a fish had to have changed into the program that makes an egg into an amphibian. Drawing on Haeckel's work, scientists thought they understood how that could happen. Crucial early development was conserved, while later, less important stages could vary. But now that scenario has been falsified. In trying to decide what we know about evolution and how we know it, the embryo fiasco is quite instructive. The scientists and textbook authors who touted the nineteenth century drawings with utter confidence are now exposed as clueless. (They include the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Bruce Alberts, whose textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell prominently cites Haeckel's work.) They assured the public that they had strong evidence for evolution, but they didn't even know what the embryos looked like. Their " facts" didn't come from nature, but from their Darwinian premises.

Part of an article titled

"Darwin's Hostages: A decision in Kansas to question evolution dogma has given rise to hysteria and intolerance"


Michael J. Behe Professor of Biochemistry
Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University

American Spectator
December 1, 1999

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

There being some problematic areas in evolutionary theory... apparently means little girls played with the dinosaurs 6000 years ago, just after the world's creation.

Still, at least the rest of the us can take a brief time-out from our self-loathing while we have a quick laugh about the USA retreating to the dark ages. I don't see how you can either bother debating this nonsense.

[phil]

...With 19th century drawings and citations ... !!

[Nepenthe]

jllm said:

There being some problematic areas in evolutionary theory...

You mean by a complete lack of fossil record?

[shin]

Do you eat paint chips?

[luke]

www.talkorigins.org

Seriously, growing up in the Idiot Bible Belt, it's hard to have a sense of humor about that creationist nonsense.

And for every naive creationist buffoon with "good credentials", there are literally about a million more folks out there with "good credentials" who laugh off this nonsense.

Really, the whole reason this shit is a debate is because scientists are generally the types to roll their eyes and say, "Look, this is what we found. If you don't believe it, it doesn't matter, because it's true." Scientists should have stepped forth a long time ago and, instead of rolling their eyes, said, "Look, you're a fucking moron, and here's why."

[Nepenthe]

Or maybe the fact that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system?