• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates...

headscratcher4

Philosopher
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
7,776
An itneresting story from Today's NYTimes...will need to register to access the full story.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/science/sciencespecial2/28kansas.html

October 28, 2005
Kansas Fight on Evolution Escalates
By JODI WILGOREN
Two leading science organizations have denied the Kansas Board of Education permission to use their copyrighted materials as part of the state's proposed new science standards because of the standards' critical approach to evolution.
The rebuke from the two groups, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association, comes less than two weeks before the board's expected adoption of the controversial new standards, which will serve as a template for statewide tests and thus have great influence on what is taught.
Kansas is one of a number of states and school districts where the teaching of evolution has lately come under assault. If adopted, its change in standards will be among the most aggressive challenges in the nation to biology's bedrock theory.
The copyright denial could delay adoption as the standards are rewritten but is unlikely to derail the board's conservative majority in its mission to require that challenges to Darwin's theories be taught in the state's classrooms.
In a joint statement yesterday, Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy, and Michael J. Padilla, president of the teachers' group, said: "Kansas students will not be well prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically driven world if their science education is based on these standards. Instead, they will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world."
In the statement and in letters to the state board, the groups opposed the standards because they would single out evolution as a controversial theory and change the definition of science itself so that it is not restricted to the study of natural phenomena. A third organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, echoed those concerns in a news release supporting the copyright denial, saying, "Students are ill served by any effort in science classrooms to blur the distinction between science and other ways of knowing, including those concerned with the supernatural."
Though the complaints of the National Academy and the teachers' group focus on just a handful of references to evolution, their copyrighted material appears on almost all 100 pages of the standards, which are an overview of science subjects taught in kindergarten through high school. In Kansas, as in most states, local school districts decide on curriculums and choose textbooks, but the state standards guide those decisions....
 
While I can to some extent see where they're coming from, I wouldn't have thought that denying teachers in Kansas access to reliable materials is necessarily going to be a productive approach. Quite apart from anything else, is there any evidence that the majority group on the Board care about science teaching at all? If they're prepared to throw biology out of the window for the sake of their religious beliefs, why not the rest?
 
I am no fan of ID or creationism but I am at a loss to understand how being taught creationsim or ID (even to the exclusion of evolution) would have a negative impact on anyone's later education or career unless they chose to pursue evolutionary biology.

Unless of course we're suggesting that it's a slippery slope.
 
Taught where I think is the question.

Taught as a belief that some people hold I think is fine, to be taught however that it is science and is a theory that somehow provides a better explanation (even if Behe doesn't seem to know what that better explanation is) for the evidence we have is wrong because it doesn't.
 
I am no fan of ID or creationism but I am at a loss to understand how being taught creationsim or ID (even to the exclusion of evolution) would have a negative impact on anyone's later education or career unless they chose to pursue evolutionary biology.

Unless of course we're suggesting that it's a slippery slope.

ID is not science. Teach away but not giving it the respect a scientific discipline is given.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. Living in Kansas, it makes me sad to think that such a step would be taken. I don't think it will be productive in the least.

OTOH, it is about the only concrete step that organization can take. Issuing a public statement that the disagree doesn't do much. Withholding copyright permission is something they can do and does impact the State BOE. They now must pony up additional resources to duplicate the work. So it's a way to express their displeasure that will actually be felt by the BOE.
 
OTOH, it is about the only concrete step that organization can take. Issuing a public statement that the disagree doesn't do much. Withholding copyright permission is something they can do and does impact the State BOE. They now must pony up additional resources to duplicate the work. So it's a way to express their displeasure that will actually be felt by the BOE.
But can you imagine what science education will be like with the Kansas BOE producing their own texts? :oldroll:

"In the beginning..."
 
Science 101:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day
 
I am no fan of ID or creationism but I am at a loss to understand how being taught creationsim or ID (even to the exclusion of evolution) would have a negative impact on anyone's later education or career unless they chose to pursue evolutionary biology.
Perhaps the single most important step toward gaining a good grasp of the details and implications of any scientific endeavor is to learn what constitutes evidence, and how it is evaluated. "Intelligent Design Theory" is rejected -- not for the conclusions it reaches -- but for failing to meet even the minimum standard for scientific evidence (while its poor country cousin, Creationism, hardly bothers with standards at all).

Our sons and daughters, and their sons and daughters, will face challenges even more daunting than those we face today -- one thing that guarantees it is the fact that technological solutions often create new problems themselves. Dedicated and highly trained scientists will continue to produce solutions (and new problems) whether public schools in the U.S. play an important role in their training or not.

Among the challenges those scientists will face, perhaps the most difficult will be communicating their findings to an increasingly scientifically illiterate public -- one thing that guarantees it is the fact that as scientific exploration of nature's mysteries increases in depth, comprehension of its findings and their implications requires increasing effort (sort of a "Red Queen" effect). There appears to be little reason to expect to see much willingness on the part of the average American to make the effort to keep up (Americans like their science the way they like their pizza: delivered, and already cut up into neat slices that can be managed with one hand, leaving the other free to work the remote).


Here's a short list of career opportunities that would be compromised for an individual whose education lacked a grounding in evolutionary theory:

Physiology
Neurobiology
Microbiological Sciences
Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology
Human Genetics and Genetic Counseling
Forensic Science
Health Education
Botany
Plant Pathology
Oceanography
Science and Engineering
Animal Behavior
Biological Systematics
Ecology
Entomology
Parasitology
Oceanography, Marine Science & Marine Biology
Marine Mammal Science
Ichthyology
Botany
Mammalogy
Herpetology

American students interested in pursuing such careers would be well advised not to neglect foreign language studies.
 
Science 102:

Blah, blah, blah. Then God realized that he had forgotten to front-load evolution in His design. So He was forced to intervene periodically to set things going in the right directions. This annoyed Him no end, so He retired around the middle of the nineteenth century AD.

Then Charles Darwin stepped in ...
 
Last edited:
I am no fan of ID or creationism but I am at a loss to understand how being taught creationsim or ID (even to the exclusion of evolution) would have a negative impact on anyone's later education or career unless they chose to pursue evolutionary biology.

Or medicine.

Which means public health and safety will be directly impacted by this decision. Do you want to live in a community where the local board of health does not understand how antibiotic resistance develops?
 
Physiology
Neurobiology
Microbiological Sciences
Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology
Human Genetics and Genetic Counseling
Forensic Science
Health Education
Botany
Plant Pathology
Oceanography
Science and Engineering
Animal Behavior
Biological Systematics
Ecology
Entomology
Parasitology
Oceanography, Marine Science & Marine Biology
Marine Mammal Science
Ichthyology
Botany
Mammalogy
Herpetology
drkitten said:
Or medicine.
And others might ask, "What beyond the fact of mutation and Mendelian genetics in a dna/rna world would be needed to successfully pursue PhD level careers in those fields?".
 
Last edited:
And others might ask, "What beyond the fact of mutation and Mendelian genetics in a dna/rna world would be needed to successfully pursue PhD level careers in those fields?".
The fact of natural selection.

And that's it.

Such a wonderfully concise theory, isn't it?
 
And others might ask, "What beyond the fact of mutation and Mendelian genetics in a dna/rna world would be needed to successfully pursue PhD level careers in those fields?".
Again: the ability to recognize what consititutes evidence, and what does not.

As drkitten has just pointed out, we ALL have a dog in this fight.
 
Last edited:
Hold on, there are more facts that are needed. We also need to know which biological mechanisms were designed, so we don't waste time trying to figure out how they evolved and so we can use the design model when investigating/repairing/engineering them, rather than the evolution model.

Face it guys, that's really important.

~~ Paul
 
Again: the ability to recognize what consititutes evidence, and what does not.
Facts are indisputable. Interpretations less so. Separating one from the other is too often art as much as science.

Dr. A said:
The fact of natural selection.
I tend to prefer 'survival of the fittest'. That is incontrovertible, and carries much less semantic baggage.
 
Physiology
Neurobiology
Microbiological Sciences
Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology
Human Genetics and Genetic Counseling
Forensic Science
Health Education
Botany
Plant Pathology
Oceanography
Science and Engineering
Animal Behavior
Biological Systematics
Ecology
Entomology
Parasitology
Oceanography, Marine Science & Marine Biology
Marine Mammal Science
Ichthyology
Botany
Mammalogy
Herpetology

Here are a few more fields:
Forestry
Enviornmental Science
Bioinformatics
Psychology
Evolutionary Computation
Veterinary Medicine

I have directly worked in or know very personally people who work in these fields. Every single one uses the theory of evolution on a daily or nearly daily basis.
 
Here are a few more fields:
Forestry
Enviornmental Science
Bioinformatics
Psychology
Evolutionary Computation
Veterinary Medicine

I have directly worked in or know very personally people who work in these fields. Every single one uses the theory of evolution on a daily or nearly daily basis.
I see. What specific parts do they use? I will state categorically that what non-evolutionists refer to as macro-evolution is not one of them.
 

Back
Top Bottom