Kansas State School Board At It Once Again

Added by AdminNosy
This is not directly on the topic here. Please do not respond here.I have copied the following from the article on this site under the title of "Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution".>>>This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:
It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.<<<This is an outline on current thinking of HOW evolution occurred. It does not address the question of WHY it occurred. I suggest that it leaves open three possibilities as to why.
1. Through some random process that required no stimulation or design life has evolved to its current form. (Atheism)
2. An intelligent designer set the process in motion and then absented him/herself from the process. (Deism)
3. There is an intelligent designer manipulating the process in order to achieve a particular outcome. (Theism)Any of these three WHY's requires an act of faith. I can't see where science can make that choice for us.To go back to my original, but poorly worded point; I believe that in the teaching of evolution, part of the teaching should be that this is HOW we believe that evolution happened, but that we don't know WHY evolution happened. The WHY should then be part of a class on philosophy or religion, with all points of view being discussed.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-23-2005 10:45 AM

Your post is clear and makes some good points.However, this is a rather focussed thread involving the Kanas situation. It would end up a long way off topic if we followed your thoughts.You could add it to An educational angle we all could live with? (Philosophy of Science) or should creationism be taught in schools? or another thread perhaps.It might also make a good opening post for a new thread. The "why" issue hasn't been focussed on that I can remember. In fact I recommend you post a PNT (proposed new topics)

But changing the teaching in Kansas at this point in time is not their goal. Reading Dembski and Johnson, one can see that the goal is much broader and far reaching.They wish to change the cultural understanding of what science is and so what its mechanisms and methodologies are such that lawyers and theologians and metaphysicians can compete on even ground with physical scientists regarding natural phenomena.If the Kansas board does institute that definition, it will be a feather in the ID crowd's cap as they will now have proven that science's definition can be changed, has been changed, and so should be changed by government entities. That is to say it is no longer a pursuit by scientists, but is beholden to the people via politicians who can determine exactly what it is.The US secretary of education under Bush was recently trying to creep in the same sort of nonsense. All they need to do is have the gov't drive science and anything is possible, especially to a very gullible society. 50 years from now if common knowledge is science is the attempt to create "theories" about nature, how it will be taught will look quite different.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

They wish to change the cultural understanding of what science is and so what its mechanisms and methodologies are such that lawyers and theologians and metaphysicians can compete on even ground with physical scientists regarding natural phenomena.

---

I am a bit more pessimistic. I don't think they want to change the US cultural understanding of what science is but rather to claim that the almost universal misunderstanding/ignorance of the general public "is" correct. They can cherry pick fields like physical chemistry and say that the determination of the structure of DNA is supported in the same way as the existence of ghosts or mythological beings without supporting it. Most people on the street would probably agree with this given the dismal general public science knowledge in the US. The ID movement is working to redefine science to fit this ignorance to foist their ridiculous musings on the education system in the name of "improving" science. All it will do is create an even larger gap between the fewer and fewer people who understand and can apply scientific discoveries and those who just blindly pop pills and hope that it relieves their pain and does not kill them...it will be a great time to go into the snake oil sales business.

No. let me assure you I am just as pessimistic.I agree that the ignorance problem is large (near universal) and that the IDists are simply trying to claim that these mistaken notions are factual.I was describing it as "changing" cultural understandings, because the common misconceptions are still not manifest in legal/political systems, nor in every day cultural phenomona. A good example is movies. These types are offended by cartoon movies with dinosaurs living in some ancient past getting made. There will have to be a change in culture before things like that stop getting made.This also includes education, where they want debates (and teaching) in science to be made by anyone at all, regardless of experience in the field. That will still take a bit as people are still unlikely to accept the chemistry professor being a lawyer. Agreed. Like I said earlier, I'll be a witchsmeller pursuyevent. Easy money.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ok, I agree. It would be a bit odd for most people to accept that their chemistry professor is a hula hoop maker. Though in the evolution debate, many seem to think that the uninformed opinions of engineers and a smattering of people who skimmed the Discovery Institute website are as well versed in biology as biologists...just look at this websites creationist contingent.Though a bit off topic, the movie industry while not anti-science is rather poor in accuracy (not to mention scientists are generally depicted as evil). One movie (cant remember the title but had Val Kilmer on Mars...where his career seems to have been left behind) referred to the four bases in DNA as A, C, G, and P....P???If you need a partner for your witchsmeller pursuyevent industry maybe we can combine forces and I will sell pet rocks with magica healing properties.

Can I head up the Voodoo Supplies / Chicked Parts Dept once you guys go chain?Once the medical profession goes down the tube I'll need a job.

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

From the Topeka Capital Journal:Published Tuesday, June 14, 2005Board member: Evolution a 'fairy tale'By John Hanna
The Associated PressEvolution is an "age-old fairy tale," sometimes defended with "anti-God contempt and arrogance," according to a Kansas State Board of Education member involved in writing new science standards for Kansas' public schools.A newsletter written by board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, was circulating Monday. In it, Morris criticized those who defend evolution.She called evolution "a theory in crisis" and headlined one section of her newsletter "The Evolutionists are in Panic Mode!""It is our goal to write the standards in such a way that clearly gives educators the right AND responsibility to present the criticism of Darwinism alongside the age-old fairy tale of evolution," Morris wrote.Morris was one of three board members who last week endorsed proposed science standards designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution in the classroom. The other two were board Chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, and Kathy Martin, of Clay Center.She was in Topeka for meetings at the Kansas State Department of Education's headquarters and wasn't available for interviews.But her views weren't a surprise to Jack Krebs, vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, an Oskaloosa educator."Her belief is in opposition to mainstream science," he said.The entire board plans to review the three members' proposed standards Wednesday. The new standards -- like the existing, evolution-friendly ones -- determine how students in fourth, seventh and 10th grades are tested on science.Everything else in the article is just re-cap.Isn't it just great that our state board of education sets such a good example for our students? I suspect Ms. Morris is herself a product of the education system she's trying to handicap.

We can't expect to keep a handle on our kids when we burden them with education now can we. What would we do if all of a sudden people started growing up, learning facts, and thinking for themselves. Why it would be outright uncivilized!Thank goodness we have the state of Kansas to set such a good example for conformity and indoctrination of our children into mysticism.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

It seems surreal quite honestly. It's hard to believe.EDIT: The article and her statements, not evolution. This message has been edited by dsv, Tuesday, June 14, 2005 04:52 PM

It's sad but not unexpected. Ignorance is comforting. And her position, that of the board panel in general, can only be described as ignorant and pathetic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, but not to those who want their kids to have a fighting chance for a decent education. But of course we agree.I would have to say that ignorance, even familial ignorance, can be tolerated within society as statistically inevitable. But that doesn't oblige us to use public funding to *propagate* ignorance, and it certainly doesn't mean that the politically militant ignorance of Connie Morris can be tolerated in the school system.This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-14-2005 08:08 PM

Thursday, June 16.Board trades barbs over evolutionBy Barbara Hollingsworth
The Capital-JournalModerate and conservative factions of the Kansas State Board of Education on Wednesday wrangled over the latest version of science curriculum standards.Presented with changes crafted by three conservative members, board members argued about the definition of science and efforts to weaken the theory of evolution in the standards. The four moderate members -- still stinging from insults hurled at them in a newsletter put out by conservative member Connie Morris -- said the state board needs to listen to the advice of mainstream scientists....Board member Bill Wagnon, of Topeka, said conservative members have allowed themselves to be manipulated by outside interests with fraudulent information...Carol Rupe, a board member from Wichita, objected to saying that science, in part, uses "logical argument" to explain the world. The board's writing committee had sought to explain science as seeking "natural explanations.""What might be logical for me may not be logical for Bill," she said, suggesting that changes could open the door to religion in science courses.(Ms. Connie) Morris adamantly said the changes weren't about religion."I don't know how more clearly we can say it -- and the rhetoric has become comical -- we are not putting in religion," she said. "We are not embedding intelligent design. We are getting criticisms, scientific criticisms of evolution."Rupe countered that such criticisms haven't earned widespread respect among mainstream scientists. She rejected assertions that scientists refuse to listen to evidence refuting evolution -- a common remark at the hearings."For crying out loud, the very nature of science is that if any new evidence is presented and is credible then I would think that person would be some kind of Nobel Prize winner or automatically famous with new information," Rupe said.Instead, she said, school boards are being targeted by people whose ideas don't withstand peer review by scientists.Amen to that - EZ

June 20, 2005.I had to laugh when John Stewart covered the story of the world's first map to actually depict a continent named 'America' being sold at auction in England for over $1 million. The map, dating from circa 1550, was also the first to depict the world as globe, marking the beginning of what is known in the state of Kansas as "The Round World Theory"...ABE: Are we a f***ing laughing stock or what !?This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-21-2005 09:13 PM

Kansas Evolution Hearings Transcripts at TalkOrigins.