This standard is completely confusing -
It states that the student should understand "that biological evolution is used to explain the earth's present day biodiversity" at the same time it argues that the student should understand that evolution is controversial in that "The view that all living things are the descendent of a common ancestor has been challenged in recent years."
True wandeljw,
But the only way to get Kansas to change it is to talk about it and make them embarassed about who they voted in.
wandel,
Yes, there is hope. But only if it stays an issue that the voters care about. Making fun of Kansas is required to keep that hope alive.
Lord Ellpus wrote:This is going to raise such a laugh on British TV. It will keep the comedy chat shows going for a while.
Thank you for all the new material, America.
America's a big place. Most of us aren't in Kansas any more
parados wrote:This standard is completely confusing -
It states that the student should understand "that biological evolution is used to explain the earth's present day biodiversity" at the same time it argues that the student should understand that evolution is controversial in that "The view that all living things are the descendent of a common ancestor has been challenged in recent years."
actually, you can reconcile those statements if the first statement is taken to be a mere summary of current practice, rather than an endorsement of it. the qualifying phrase is "is used to explain" as opposed to "explains."
yitwail and parados,
The current board in Kansas merely took the old standards and superimposed some wording that fit their agenda. The original standards concerning evolution education were the same as those recommended by most science associations.
The new revisions belong to a phony "teach the controversy" tactic. The intelligent design tactic was running into problems. "Teach the controversy" is the latest anti-evolution tactic.
wandeljw wrote:The new revisions belong to a phony "teach the controversy" tactic. The intelligent design tactic was running into problems. "Teach the controversy" is the latest anti-evolution tactic.
Oh good, another tactic. Just what we need. These things are getting more and more vague, don't you think... "Teach the controversy", what controversy? Now they will have to convince everyone that there *is* a controversy (which there isn't within the scientific community), and then get everyone to believe that it's a *scientific* controversy, and not just a bogus drummed up controversy invented by creationists. Here we go again.
The problem is that the IDers claim scientific credentials to which they are not entitled, so that the gullible believe that there is a scientific controversy, and the propagandists (such as our "real life") continually contend that there is controversy, on the principle that something repeated sufficiently often takens on a patina of truth.
Well, the PA school board was completely replaced, except for one member that was not up for re-election.
And good old Pat Robertson was so Christian about it, too.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there."
DrewDad wrote:Well, the PA school board was completely replaced, except for one member that was not up for re-election.
And good old Pat Robertson was so Christian about it, too.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there."
Ah, I didn't see your post DD, I just started a new topic on that here.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=63254
I guess Pat Robertson is proof that evolution is completely without design or plan. There is no other way to explain the man.
ascribed to Dr Pat RobertsonQuote:
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there."
If there were some concerns for the judge that ID was indeed religion at its core, then our Dr Robertson has removed all doubt. Thank you Dr Robertson, we shall forward this to the PA ACLU as they are submitting their trial summary briefs as we speak.
he he he heee heee, what a maroon
D'artagnan wrote:"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....
Scary stuff.
What if students started thinking that they could get away with holding a different opinion?
I tell you, this dissent is dangerous ........................dangerous.
We've got trouble, boys. How shall we keep students from asking these questions?
Poppycock, rl - it isn't a matter of limiting questions, it is a matter of evidentiary support, something abundant, multiply replicable, and widely cross-corroborative in the naturalistic proposition, yet totally lacking in the ID proposition.
Creationists have an agenda, not an argument. To characterize the rejection of the ID fairywork and the championing of the science of Evolution as censorship or the suppression of independent thought and open inquiry is morally, ethically, and academically dishonest - not that any of that bothers creationists and their religionist coconspirators.
parados wrote: "Whether microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolutionary changes is controversial."
I don't see a controvesy there at all in the science community.
But this isn't true anymore under the new and improved definition of "science", which gets you a new science community for free by making every faith healer a member. See the genius of the redefinition?
rl, Discussing controversy is not prohibited in the public school systems. In my junior year in h.s. I did a comparative study of creationism vs evolution for my world history class, reworked it in my senior year for a science thesis, and rewrote it yet again in my freshman english class in college. There are plenty of opportunities to bring the topic into the classroom, even the science classroom, but it doesn't belong in the curriculum.
Perfectly stated timberlandko! I was hoping someone would make that point clearly. Science invites debate, you just need to be able to stand up to criticism. Science does not need to be redefined, especially by a bunch of halfwits.
It also occurred to me, does this mean that Pat Robertson is with the Terrorists?
-J
Pat Robertson seeks to manipulate people with "the fear of god." Pat Robertson is a terrorist.
Setanta wrote:Pat Robertson seeks to manipulate people with "the fear of god." Pat Robertson is a terrorist.
Gah! I put that line in the wrong thread! Back of the class for me.
-J
