Kansas changes definition of 'science.' And 'idiocy.'

Chacala_Nayarit

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Oct 6, 2005
315
0
Lakewood, Washington
The USA is the laughing stock of the world! :eek:

Kansas board votes to alter science standards
Published November 17, 2005


TOPEKA, Kan. (BP)–The Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 Nov. 8 to alter the science standards in public schools in favor of Intelligent Design, further igniting a nationwide battle over how much students are taught about the controversy surrounding the theory of evolution.

Science standards, required by Kansas law to be updated regularly, are used to develop student achievement tests for measuring how well schools are performing in that subject area. Local school boards and administrators determine the curriculum at their schools, but by deciding what students are expected to know for state assessment tests, the state standards will most likely affect what students are taught.

“These are absolutely great science standards. I have no doubt about it, positively no doubt whatsoever,” board chairman Steve Abrams of Arkansas City said, according to The Wichita Eagle newspaper.

Conservative board members sought to give students a balanced view of evolution, but critics said they were only promoting a “repackaged form of creationism” in alluding to Intelligent Design.

Officials with the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association said the new standards “will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.” Other critics of the standards said there is no significant controversy over evolution and evidence ranging from the fields of paleontology to molecular biology shows all life on Earth originated from a single simple life-form, The Post noted.

But the board, except for two Republicans and two Democrats who objected to the standards, said high school students should be told that aspects of the widely accepted evolutionary theory are controversial and there is a “lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code.”

Observers say the Kansas board of education drama is bound to continue as four of the six board members who voted in favor of the standards will face re-election next year and so far three of them will run against an opposing candidate. Even so, the latest vote puts Kansas at the forefront of a contentious nationwide debate.
 

swindmill

macrumors 6502a
Mar 17, 2005
944
4
KY
Here is a funny comment made by one of the board members that was quoted in a CNN.com column the day the vote took place:

Supporters of the 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, an Olathe Republican.
Two things in reply:

:confused:

:eek:
 

swindmill

macrumors 6502a
Mar 17, 2005
944
4
KY
leekohler said:
Gets rid of dogma? What????!!!!! Is that a joke?
You would think so. He apparently thinks that teaching evolution is being dogmatic. That's kind of (or is) like saying teaching the theory of gravity is being dogmatic. When something is incontrovertibly true, there is nothing wrong with teaching it as such. It's unfortunate that morons like this are on school boards. We can only hope that KS citizens will follow the lead of those in Dover, PA and toss the idiots on their school board when they get the chance.
 

belvdr

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2005
5,660
1,001
No longer logging into MR
swindmill said:
You would think so. He apparently thinks that teaching evolution is being dogmatic. That's kind of (or is) like saying teaching the theory of gravity is being dogmatic. When something is incontrovertibly true, there is nothing wrong with teaching it as such. It's unfortunate that morons like this are on school boards. We can only hope that KS citizens will follow the lead of those in Dover, PA and toss the idiots on their school board when they get the chance.
And what is definitely true?
 

feakbeak

macrumors 6502a
Oct 16, 2003
925
1
Michigan
I'll second that :confused: and :eek: ... and I'll throw in a WTF? for good measure.

The Kansas state board of education needs to be educated. I don't care what you think about evolution or creationism... oops, I mean Intelligent Design.. yeah, that's it. Intelligent Design and/or creationism has no scientific basis. All observable evidence and theories that are supported by the scientific method point to evolution and the big bang for how we got here. If new data arises in the future that contradicts those theories, scientists will re-evaluate our working theories. Look at the record though, scientists, though it is painful for them too, are willing to accept new ideas when observable evidence slaps them in the face and says, "No, I believe you were mistaken." That happens in religion... oh... never.

Even most scientists believed in the steady-state theory of the universe, which in ways, is more supportive of creationism. However, once Hubble discovered our universe was expanding via the red-shifting of galaxies and then those dudes at Bell Labs found the background radiation left over from the big bang... the deal is done. No steady state! And although I'm more familiar with astronomy than biology there is the same amount, if not more support for the theory of evolution as well. We have found skeletons of Neanderthals and many other humanoids that aren't quite human but not apes either, etc, etc.

I have no problem with people believing in creationism out of faith or simply giving the reason that Bible says so. I may not agree with it and think that the logic is flawed, but I can respect it and peacefully coexist with that. However, parading this crap around as science is a shame and I feel no guilt for attacking intelligent design as idiocy.
 

toontra

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2003
261
0
London UK
belvdr said:
And what is definitely true?
Death and taxes.

Personally I don't engage in philosophical debate on waking every morning. If some things happen regularly enough for me to assume they will continue to do so (sunrise, sunset), and if some theories adequately explain the world in which these events take place (evolution) then I go along with these as working assumptions.

I would be prepared to change these assumptions if I was presented with adequate data. What the creationists do, on the other hand, is distort all the evidence so it fits with the bible. That's ****ocks!
 

Sdashiki

macrumors 68040
Aug 11, 2005
3,512
8
Behind the lens
i dont live in kansas, dont know anyone from kansas, dont care about kansas and even more so now.

it will be obvious when there are no more science grads from any Kansas higher learning center. basically its natural selection of the workforce.

if you dont "know" or "understand" evolution, then you will just be left behind in the ever changing world of technology and biology. sheesh.:D :D
 

belvdr

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2005
5,660
1,001
No longer logging into MR
swindmill said:
The natural forces of evolution and gravity
Gravity is a given because it happens every day, and we can experience it.

However, I don't see how scientist can claim something is millions of years old, when their most accurate dating method is only good to up around 50,000 years.

Given that, I can't seem to grasp the idea of a big explosion somehow forming us and giving us the ability to reproduce. When seeing how human reproduction works and how a baby is formed, I seriously doubt a big bang could make that possible. There are so many things that need to come together so precisely for a big bang to create what we have, and I don't believe it for a second.

toontra said:
Death and taxes.
Now that's a fact.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
belvdr said:
Gravity is a given because it happens every day, and we can experience it.

However, I don't see how scientist can claim something is millions of years old, when their most accurate dating method is only good to up around 50,000 years.

Given that, I can't seem to grasp the idea of a big explosion somehow forming us and giving us the ability to reproduce. When seeing how human reproduction works and how a baby is formed, I seriously doubt a big bang could make that possible. There are so many things that need to come together so precisely for a big bang to create what we have, and I don't believe it for a second.
Well if you can't grasp it, then it must not be true. You okay with particle physics, then? I'm sure some nuclear physicists are dying to know whether they're on the right track.

BTW, your statement about the accuracy of dating methods is incorrect. Errors of 50,000 years are present in dating objects millions of years old. The margin of error in dating more recent objects is much smaller.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,994
Republic of Ukistan
belvdr said:
Given that, I can't seem to grasp the idea of a big explosion somehow forming us and giving us the ability to reproduce. When seeing how human reproduction works and how a baby is formed, I seriously doubt a big bang could make that possible. There are so many things that need to come together so precisely for a big bang to create what we have, and I don't believe it for a second.
By the same token, there are so many things that might not have worked out in any long range Universal Plan, be it 6,009 or 15 billion years long, that it's absurd to imagine that any responsible Designer would leave it unattended. And if He or She is tweaking things to make sure it works out, why didn't they tweak stuff in 1914 or 1939?