Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

You obviously haven't been touched yet, Dys.

If you HAD, you would want it on the curriculum.

Bring back the Pirates, that's what I say.

0 Replies

If you're going to let the Flying Spaghetti Monster in then TCOICBINB wants in too.

And I'm sure the Church of Bacon is lining up right behind me.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

waitaminit, the entire slate of Intelligent Design school board candidates has been defeated in Dover Pa.
So were not all in Kansas anymore.

Thank the Lord, Lord and Taylor's or Lord Ellpus, glad to read this.

Does flying spaghetti cling to the wall when flung? Can you describe the evidence blindfolded? Which wall, the battered stone one? Here, test it with your heads, you IDers, you.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

If you're going to let the Flying Spaghetti Monster in then TCOICBINB wants in too.

And I'm sure the Church of Bacon is lining up right behind me.

Church of bacon? Now you're talking.....maybe they could make an alliance with the FSM and we could have Pasta dishes with little bits of bacon in that wonderful creamy sauce all over it.

What IS that dish called..........Osso would know.

0 Replies

I do believe in your case MR Elipsis you should stick with Pasta e Fagioli.

0 Replies

Carabonara, I think...

On the other hand, a simple tomato and basil salsa with pancetta, perhaps with some chili flakes, is quite delicious, if one hasn't eaten all the fried pancetta first.

0 Replies

Italian pancetta, of course, not the vile local substitutes...

0 Replies

as a kid I only ate Franco American. See how far Ive come?

0 Replies

Yeh, me too. And then when I was in lab tech internship I lived on frozen Morton's spaghetti dinner. It was 29 cents a package..

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Baltimore Sun - ID Ok'ed in classroom

Lost Angeles Times - Panel Favours Evolution Doubters

They all say the same thing. The board changed the definition of science in order to get ID approved. Isn't that just admitting that ID wasn't science in the first place?

Why don't you tell us what specifically in the definition of science it is that you are objecting to?

Farmerman and Boomerang seem to have reservations about the word "logic" being included, but other than that almost no one has had the courage to voice a specific objection.

0 Replies

Here's one actual passage from the standards that might be problematic, from the section on Life Science for grades 8-12, on page 76:

7. explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin
of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations.

7. Some of the scientific criticisms include:

b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the
sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical
machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems,
and the formation of proto-cells;

Source

The phrase "lack of adequate natural explanations" could be interpreted as leaving the door open for supernatural explanations.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

Here's one actual passage from the standards that might be problematic, from the section on Life Science for grades 8-12, on page 76:

7. explains proposed scientific explanations of the origin
of life as well as scientific criticisms of those explanations.

7. Some of the scientific criticisms include:

b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the
sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical
machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems,
and the formation of proto-cells;

Source

The phrase "lack of adequate natural explanations" could be interpreted as leaving the door open for supernatural explanations.

Well, that is the nature of allowing dissent. You may not end up liking what you hear.

(At the risk of sidetracking for a moment however, many great scientists have seen there was room for supernatural explanations without being considered unscientific. Sir Isaac Newton is a classic example.)

If the word "natural" was removed and it simply said that "scientific criticisms include lack of adequate explanations for the genetic code ............and the formation of proto cells" is that any different? I don't see that it would be. It says the same thing, doesn't it?

Without disallowing mention of scientific criticism and completely gutting the meaning, how would you word this? Please suggest.

0 Replies

actually, removing the word "natural" would alter the meaning, because the sentence then implies that all explanations, both natural & supernatural, are inadequate. i also think that replacing the word "adequate" with "complete" might be more accurate & less pejorative.

lest you think i'm being nitpicking, i don't have strong feelings about the developments in Kansas; i rather think that they've been overhyped by both proponents & opponents of ID.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

actually, removing the word "natural" would alter the meaning, because the sentence then implies that all explanations, both natural & supernatural, are inadequate. i also think that replacing the word "adequate" with "complete" might be more accurate & less pejorative.

lest you think i'm being nitpicking, i don't have strong feelings about the developments in Kansas; i rather think that they've been overhyped by both proponents & opponents of ID.

No, I don't think you're nitpicking at all.

Your suggestion is a fair-minded one and could reasonably be accepted as a possible alternative by folks on either side of the issue.

I also agree on the idea that this is overhyped. It is not going to make a lot of difference in how most science teachers today handle the subject of evolution. The only real effect will be to allow students more freedom of inquiry and it will also offer some protection against the (rare) hyper-evolutionist teacher who is hostile to any ideas other than their own.

0 Replies

"Hyper-evolutionist teacher"? Lord only knows what that means.

I've read that the strategy of ID advocates is simply to introduce a debate of some sort into the classroom discussion. As in, "one the one hand, and on the other hand..."

It all sounds so innocent---and so clever. The thin edge of the wedge....

0 Replies

There are several things in the standards that fly in the face of science.

The standard states under specificity of 3 on page 75...

"Whether microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolutionary changes is controversial."

I don't see a controvesy there at all in the science community. This is a simple case of allowing a few vocal naysayers to claim their view makes science controversial.

The claim is made that "recent" science has put evolution into question but they then cite the "Cambrian explosion" as evidence that contradicts evolution. Anyone that has spent time on boards here has seen that the "Cambrian explosion" is not recent and is quite controversial if it even existed as an "explosion."

0 Replies

D'Art, the use of the term "evolutionist" is part and parcel of creationist propaganda. They are trying to cast those who accept the scientific reliability of a theory of evolution as partisans in an ideological struggle, which is what they are trying to whip up. As Parados points out, they attempt to create controversies where none exist (there is not even a clear scientific distinction to be made between "microevolution" and "macroevolution," they are simply terms which make specificity of discussion easier), and as you point out, they want this to seem to be a clash of opinions, on the order of "on the one hand . . . while on the other . . .

The public, ill-educated in a public school system which has not for more than a century aspired to producing critically adroit citizens, cannot follow most of the arguments, and are easily cozened by the self-proclaimed "scientists" of ID who are no scientists at all. Anti-intellectual attitudes, a subset of anti-elititism, work effectively for creationists to create an atmosphere hostile to ordinary scientific discourse, by making a false claim that an agenda is being foisted on the schools, when in fact evolution is a part of science education's "business as usual," and has been since the days of the Scopes trial fiasco in Tennessee.

Thin end of the wedge indeed . . .

0 Replies

i should have noticed the claim about the macroevolution "controversy". i'm just curious, parados, do ID advocates in the main reject macroevolution? and pardon if i bring up an old topic, but how does ID explain extinction--the fact that most species that ever existed are extinct?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

This is a simple case of allowing a few vocal naysayers to claim their view makes science controversial.

Well said. This isn't about giving kids the whole picture, it's about disencouraging them to believe in evolution. They're not fooling anyone.

0 Replies

This is the third thread where I have tried to call attention to the fact that Kansas will have elections in 2006 for new state board of education members. This controversial change in science standards does not go into effect until 2007.

Am I the only person seeing hope in this? There is a real possibility that the new policy will be repealed before it actually goes into effect.

0 Replies

Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know