Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kansas State School Board At It Once Again
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 37 of 136 (199565)
04-15-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by CK
02-27-2005 8:16 PM


Yes, but at least it IS a theory - creationism has yet to rise to that level !
You make another seriously flawed assumption.
We don't advocate teaching evolution because it is 'true'.
'Truth' in the sense you speak of it, is outside the realm of science.
We advocate teaching evolution because it is *useful* to explain and predict the changes in biological phenomena that we observe.
In fact, it is the single most useful theory in all of biology.
Unfortunately, it casts doubt on a lot of what Christian dogma tries to claim as 'truth'. Too bad. You can learn all the Christian 'truth' you want in church - just don't try and limit our teaching of science because your faith is threatened by some of the implications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by CK, posted 02-27-2005 8:16 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by CK, posted 04-15-2005 5:53 PM EZscience has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 38 of 136 (199568)
04-15-2005 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Demosthenes Fan
02-27-2005 1:56 PM


As a professional biological scientist who has to work in this sorry state, I can tell you this much. The whole hearings are a trumped up sham to cater to the ignorant masses in the state who see evolution as a threat to their faith. The politicians aren't intersted in improving the education standards for kids, just in gratifying the Religious Right that is perceived to be such a powerful voting block out here in Wheat-land. The Kansas Citizens for Science have advocated that all scientists boycott these hearings to deny them credibility. LAst I heard, there were 23 'experts' who had agreed to testify for insertion of 'alternative' theories (= ID), and only one scientist registered to oppose their inclusion. I guess they will get the consensus they are looking for, but it won't have any credibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Demosthenes Fan, posted 02-27-2005 1:56 PM Demosthenes Fan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 04-15-2005 11:58 AM EZscience has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 41 of 136 (199637)
04-15-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by CK
04-15-2005 5:53 PM


OK I will.
Hope they are more legible than this one !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by CK, posted 04-15-2005 5:53 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by CK, posted 04-15-2005 8:17 PM EZscience has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 68 of 136 (205312)
05-05-2005 2:29 PM


Back on topic - The hearings begin....
Here is a link to the latest on the school board
hearings
Do the school board reps really doubt the veracity of evolutionary theory themselves, or is this just a case of politicians pandering to a perceived bias against evolution in their overwelmingly religious electorate ?
Will they allow the creationists and pro-ID supporters to meddle with the science standards that guide teachers and 'water down' all assertions pertaining to the validity and general applicability of evolutionary theory, even at the risk of making the state an academic laughing stock again?
Any opinions? Conspiracy theories?
One thing is certain: the quality of public education for the students is at stake. They are the real pawns in this shell game.

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mikehager, posted 05-05-2005 8:50 PM EZscience has replied
 Message 70 by Jazzns, posted 05-06-2005 12:17 PM EZscience has replied
 Message 72 by coffee_addict, posted 05-06-2005 1:53 PM EZscience has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 73 of 136 (205629)
05-06-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by mikehager
05-05-2005 8:50 PM


Re: Back on topic - The hearings begin....
mikehager writes:
Those citizens of Kansas wise and informed enough to oppose this nonsense should be proud. To those people I say, keep going and fight the fools.
We are "Kansas Citizens for Science"
Welcome kcfs.org - BlueHost.com
..and we thank you for your support !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by mikehager, posted 05-05-2005 8:50 PM mikehager has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 74 of 136 (205631)
05-06-2005 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by coffee_addict
05-06-2005 1:53 PM


Re: Back on topic - The hearings begin....
troy writes:
Gallop pollsGallop polls show that there is a correlation between the level of education and support for evolution.
No wonder the creo's are trying to corrupt the education system.
They need to ensure there is sufficent *lack* of education in the next generation that they can continue to peddle their wares !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by coffee_addict, posted 05-06-2005 1:53 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 75 of 136 (205634)
05-06-2005 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by kjsimons
05-06-2005 12:22 PM


I like it.
It could also read:
"Leave every child behind: Teach creation science"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by kjsimons, posted 05-06-2005 12:22 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 76 of 136 (205640)
05-06-2005 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Jazzns
05-06-2005 12:17 PM


Hearings coverage May 6, 2005
Here are excerpts from today's coverage, available in its entirety at:
Topeka Capital Journal
Opponents of the hearings by a three-member panel of the Kansas State Board of Education say they are a "publicity stunt" -- more theater than substance. But critics say it is essential that the state board and students learn more about evidence that contradicts evolution -- viewpoints they say are often shunned by closed-minded colleagues.
"We would go a long way in this discussion by simply having the majority view say, 'We don't know' instead of saying, 'We do know and this is what it is: It's a naturalistic process,' " said William Harris, the first witness and a leading proponent of changing the standards.
Some of the changes Harris and others are proposing are consistent with intelligent design, but Harris said intelligent design is a "new and maturing science" and it would be inappropriate to mandate teaching it. Instead, he said, students should learn evidence against the theory of evolution, particularly when it comes to species evolving into new species.
"Secondly, we want to make the point that this controversy has profound implications for religion and philosophy," he said. "If this did not have implications for religion, this room would be far emptier today."
"The fact the other side isn't here, that speaks volumes to me because they cannot defend themselves," Nancy Hanahan, of Overland Park, said of those boycotting the proceedings.
But those who refused to participate in the hearings said their actions were justified. Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, said state board members already have made up their minds and scientists didn't want to give the "appearance of a legitimate debate."
Thursday was the first of three days in which critics of evolution will make their case. During about eight hours of testimony, six witnesses brought by lawyer John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design network, made the case for transforming a minority viewpoint into new curriculum standards for schoolchildren in Kansas.
The three conservative state board members serving as a jury for the hearings were a receptive and sometimes adoring audience for the witnesses.
"I'm an elementary teacher, and I am humbled by the intelligence before me, so bear with me," Connie Morris, of St. Francis, told Charles Thaxton, who has a doctorate in physical chemistry and has written books about the weaknesses he sees in the theory of evolution.
Thaxton said there is no evidence of a "primordial soup" from which life would have emerged.
"I can go out of here, and people will say to me, 'You've been saying there is evidence that refutes Darwin's theory of evolution,' " Morris said. "I've been hoping this hearing would help me have some good, hard evidence that I can show."
But critics of the witnesses described the testimony as misleading and sometimes uninformed.
Topeka lawyer Pedro Irigonegaray, who is representing those opposed to the hearings, asked pointed questions as he cross-examined witnesses.
"Would you suggest," Irigonegaray later asked Harris, "that any time that we do not have a natural explanation we ought to stop looking for it and invoke miracles?"
William S. Harris, a University of Missouri-Kansas City professor and proponent of intelligent design, presents his testimony.
"If we don't have a natural explanation we should keep looking for it," Harris responded, "but there has got to be a point -- just as it came with the alchemist of the Middle Ages -- where someone said, 'Enough is enough. We're not going to make gold out of lead.'
************
So apparently Troy was right.
Judging from Ms. Morris, apparently anyone can get on a school board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Jazzns, posted 05-06-2005 12:17 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 81 of 136 (205846)
05-07-2005 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Phat
05-06-2005 7:29 PM


Re: Back on topic - The hearings begin....
Charismania writes:
we need god in school. He knows what to teach us.
Sorry, but no.
We have plenty of churches to choose from if you want religious teachings. We also have privately-funded religious schools that you can send your kids to if you want.
But *publicly-funded* schools MUST remain secular. Even if we ignore the rights of atheists (which I don't, because I am one), the problem with bringing any 'god' into a public school is that whose god are you going to choose ?
If you choose a Judao-Christian god, you disenfranchize muslims and on and on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 05-06-2005 7:29 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 2:59 AM EZscience has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 84 of 136 (206062)
05-08-2005 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Rrhain
05-08-2005 2:59 AM


Re: Back on topic - The hearings begin....
Rrhain writes:
There is no such thing as "non-denominational."
I agree. That's my point.
Whatever is taught about *any* religion in a public classroom is always going to offend someone who happens to believe in a different god or belief system. I guess we could take Jar's advice (message 64 on this thread) and have a theology class where all belief systems are given equal coverage, but do you really think that would appease the protestant fundamentalists who are making this unjustified assault on the teaching of evolution? They don't want an objective course of study on the bases of all religions and philosophy, they want *their* religious 'values' imposed as an insidious undercurrent in all disciplines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 2:59 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 5:04 PM EZscience has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 87 of 136 (206194)
05-08-2005 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Rrhain
05-08-2005 5:04 PM


Re: Back on topic - The hearings begin....
Let's move this to the other thread.
I agree with you about ID theorists, but I am not so sure about the aliens...
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-08-2005 05:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Rrhain, posted 05-08-2005 5:04 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 88 of 136 (206428)
05-09-2005 10:41 AM


Latest on the hearings..
Some excerpts from an article in the Kansas City Star
"Most of the 23 witnesses that Calvert led through scripted questions favor intelligent design over evolution. Only four of those witnesses were Kansans.
Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka lawyer, represented pro-evolution scientists in the hearings by questioning witnesses to expose their motives and inconsistent testimony.
"We should not allow the minority, in essence, to hijack education and send it back to the 16th century," he said.
On Thursday, Irigonegaray will present a response to defend evolution and "counter all of the ridiculous ideas we've heard in the last three days."
The minority group wants the state board to endorse a more critical approach to evolution and expect teachers to explain some of the holes in the central theory of biology. They also want to change the way science is defined as a search for "natural explanations," because they say that represents an endorsement of naturalism and atheism.
One of the other witnesses was a Turkish newspaper columnist with no science background but a nearly 10-year-old interest in intelligent design. Mustafa Akyol testified that the naturalistic bias in Kansas' science standards contributes to the ill will between the Muslim world and the United States.
He urged the board to adopt the critical approach to help alleviate that ill will.
"This is not the only reason for anti-Westernism, but it is an important one," he said.
Throughout the hearings and again Saturday, witnesses repeated the objection that the proposed standards are biased against intelligent design and against religion because they describe science as a search for natural explanations.
Philosophy professor Angus Menuge said that bias in favor of naturalism would rule out any scientific evidence that would support a theistic religion, making the standards like a religion.
When Irigonegaray asked him about the thousands of scientists who accept evolution and are religious, the Concordia University professor angered many of the mainstream scientists in the room.
"It might be that some of these people are confused," he said.
Rachel Robson, a doctoral student studying pathology at the University of Kansas, mocked Menuge's statement.
"I understand how it would be good for their case if believing in evolution meant you were an atheist," Robson said. "If that were true, I'd be on their side. But it's not."
Later, some of the religious evolution supporters in the crowd started wearing name tags with the word "confused" on them.
The mainstream scientists, like Jack Krebs, weren't convinced.
"These folks are trying to redefine science as an atheistic philosophy, so they can advance their theological goal," said Krebs, vice president of the pro-evolution Kansas Citizens For Science.
Some changes in the way evolution is treated in the science standards are expected because conservative Republicans control six of the 10 seats on the state board.
When conservatives last controlled the Kansas board in 1999, they voted to de-emphasize evolution in the standards, leaving the decision whether to teach it up to local school boards.
That decision earned the state ridicule nationwide and prompted voters to elect a moderate majority to the board. Moderates restored evolution to the standards in the spring of 2001.
---
Like we needed another reason NOT to vote for conservatives in this country. Interesting strategy, though. Argue that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a 'naturalistic' religion - EZ
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-09-2005 10:44 AM

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 95 of 136 (209828)
05-19-2005 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Mammuthus
05-17-2005 8:33 AM


Re: True Colours revealed indeed
Mamumthus writes:
...they will undermine the education in all sciences not just biology.
Somehow I missed this crap.
Now I am really pissed.
Mammuthus writes:
...the tiny minority of people who actually understand how science works (in the USA)
Could it possibly get smaller still ?
Mammuthus writes:
... the entire decision in Kansas is being made by elected officials with no scientific background
Are you aware of any politicians that *do* have scientific background?
I mean even federally, outside of Kansas ?
Maybe some former medical practitioners (Bill Frist comes to mind ), but what about real researchers ?
I need to find this email I got a while back, post-election, from a scientist addressed to other scientists. He complained about how totally ineffectual we are as a lobby group in US politics, when we should be one of THE most influencial of all lobby groups, given the current importance of science and technology to all aspects of our lives, economically, politically etc.
Does our inaction / disorganization make us 'de facto' part of the political problem instead of part of the solution ? Are we so caught up in our research that we have become politically apathetic ?
Or is it that so many of us depend on some sort of government paycheck to pursue our research dreams that we are loath to take a political stance on anything for fear of offending some administration we depend on for support ?
Mammuthus writes:
...the US will have to become an even greater importer of foreign educated scientists
You mean greater importer than already ?
I can tell you from my own hiring experiences for assistantships and associateships in my discipline, you are lucky to get one or two remotely qualified American applicants out of 40 or 50.
I recently answered a questionnaire from a national association of biological sciences (that shall remain nameless), commissioned by Congress no less, that asked questions along a sub-text of, 'maybe we need more incentives for American students to choose a career in biological sciences', and 'maybe we need to make it more expensive / harder for foreign students to come and take graduate assistantships here'. I am not kidding. Talk about protectionism ! (sorry - that's another thread I am on). My reaction was, what are you trying to do to us - shut down our research programs !?
Mammuthus writes:
The trend already exists and will continue to accelerate.
We can only hope you are wrong. So much of American scientific history documents the important contributions of foreign scientists. But then, most of that was back when we were actually a welcoming haven for foreign intellectuals, an exemplary icon of freedom, as opposed to a purveyor of freedom by force that wants to build ever taller fences around its own borders.
I might also mention that the average Joe has no idea of the costs to the country (in terms of lost and delayed scientific research) of the post-911 'visa renewal nightmares' suffered by foreign graduate students and post-docs. I had a post-doc stuck in Pakistan for *9 weeks* waiting for a stamp on his passport when he already had employment authorization and an approved visa ! Of course I had to maintain his salary during this period - a salary that was being paid from a grant from the Department of Homeland Scurity, no less !
Are we shooting ourselves in the foot or what ?
Mammuthus writes:
...because the homegrown science students will be to poorly educated to be able to compete
OK. Some of us might say we are seeing this already. I know I have already thrown out one non-rhetorical question above, but I now have another.
Why it is, in the USA, we seem to have such a paucity of students *interested* in a science education ? I mean, forget about students that excel in science (we certainly do have some of those), but the majority of American students with opportunity for higher education seem to choose a course of study other than science. Why ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Mammuthus, posted 05-17-2005 8:33 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by paisano, posted 05-19-2005 11:59 PM EZscience has replied
 Message 97 by Mammuthus, posted 05-20-2005 3:45 AM EZscience has not replied
 Message 105 by nator, posted 05-20-2005 9:05 AM EZscience has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 100 of 136 (209934)
05-20-2005 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by paisano
05-19-2005 11:59 PM


Lack of American interest in / respect for the sciences
paisano writes:
1) Other closely related fields (e.g engineering, computing, medicine) are perceived as more lucrative or interesting.
2) Academia is perceived as an unattractive career choice (low pay and benefits, revolving series of one year postdocs, excessive politics
Except for the politics part (not sure what you refer to here), these are pretty much the same ideas that came to my mind when I asked the question. But I would have to say that careers in 'business management' and 'asset transformation' draw away far more students than engineering.
American students have so much economic opportunity, a science career is probably perceived as way too much work for way too little return on investment.
Now, you compare that to the situation for bright students in developing countries. For them, demonstrating academic prowess in the sciences can be a 'way out', a means to open up many new international opportunities for study and employment. There so many easier ways to make a more lucrative living as an American citizen.
I really want to reply to some of the excellent comments by Holmes and Mammuthus, but I have a very busy day ahead of me, so I will have to do that a bit later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by paisano, posted 05-19-2005 11:59 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by paisano, posted 05-20-2005 7:51 AM EZscience has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 108 of 136 (210107)
05-20-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
05-20-2005 4:41 AM


Re: True Colours revealed indeed
holmes writes:
The US is anti-education and specifically anti-intellectual.
I admit some days I feel that way too, but we cannot allow ourselves to accept that vision. Besides, wait until those guys come to you wanting help to solve a problem. That's when you get to teach a little science )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 05-20-2005 4:41 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024