Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

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?

real life wrote:

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?

There is nothing wrong with well thought out questions.

ID isn't well thought out. It makes a claim that evolution can't be real because it doesn't answer every qeustion. Then ID proposes an answer that doesn't answer any questions. Id violates the very rules it used to slap down evolution. Complete confusion and lack of logic.

parados wrote:

There is nothing wrong with well thought out questions.

ID isn't well thought out. It makes a claim that evolution can't be real because it doesn't answer every qeustion. Then ID proposes an answer that doesn't answer any questions. Id violates the very rules it used to slap down evolution. Complete confusion and lack of logic.

This is not, I think, an accurate representation of the position most IDers take.

Neither evolution nor ID have much in the way of direct evidence to work with since neither has ever been directly observed.

The evidence that is available to evolutionists and IDers alike is largely circumstantial in nature. As such it is open to a variety of interpretations.

Most evolutionists hate to admit that this is so, but until they can show direct observation of evolution, this is where we are.

For evolutionists to present inference and circumstantial evidence as conclusive is, I think, a bit too optimistic on their part.

There is quite a difference in the science behind ID and evolution. They are in no way comparable unless you ignore the standards of science completely.

...unless you ignore the standards of science completely.

...because ignoring the standards of science completely, is exactly what RL and other creationists are doing.

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.

a. The theory "postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal."
b. "The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by (i) discrepancies in the molecular evidence, (ii) a fossil record that is not consistent with gradual increases in complexity, and (iii) studies that show that animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.
c. "New heritable traits may result from new combinations of genes and from random mutations or changes in the reproductive cells. Except in very rare cases, mutations that may be inherited are neutral, deleterious or fatal."
d. "Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial."

Wolf,

Quote:

a. The theory postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal.
b. The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by (i) discrepancies in the molecular evidence, (ii) a fossil record that is not consistent with gradual increases in complexity, and (iii) studies that show that animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.
c. New heritable traits may result from new combinations of genes and from random mutations or changes in the reproductive cells. Except in very rare cases, mutations that may be inherited are neutral, deleterious or fatal.
d. Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial.

rosborne979 wrote:

...because ignoring the standards of science completely, is exactly what RL and other creationists are doing.

Ignoring them? In Kansas they just changed them! And their vision is to turn the rest of the world into Kansas.

Then it will just be corn, corn, corn everywhere with I70 running right through it!

BTW, Real Life, it would be nice if you would address timberlandko's post.

-J

Well, JStark, it's one thing to assert, but it's another thing to prove something.

Timber's assertions that creationists are dishonest, his denial that the present Evolution 24/7 format in schools amounts to censorship, etc are just that. Assertions, not proofs.

And of course, the sheer comic madness of blustering "Creationists have an agenda....." You know, everyone has a point of view that they represent and that they argue for and try to advance. To pretend otherwise, (especially in a forum such as this,) is really priceless comedy, but not much else.

real life wrote:

Well, JStark, it's one thing to assert, but it's another thing to prove something.

This is exactly what the scientific community has been trying to explain to IDers all along. Proving creationism through the scientific process seems to be to difficult. Easier just to do an end around and get it shoe horned into the science room via political means.

real life wrote:

Timber's assertions that creationists are dishonest, his denial that the present Evolution 24/7 format in schools amounts to censorship, etc are just that. Assertions, not proofs.

Evolution in the class room is what students are taught because it is the best possible explanation that science has come up with. Any science teacher worth their salt is going to let students know that it will be their responsibility to carry the scientific process forward. Giving special attention to creationist theory is taking kids back to where science was over a hundred years ago.

real life wrote:

And of course, the sheer comic madness of blustering "Creationists have an agenda....." You know, everyone has a point of view that they represent and that they argue for and try to advance. To pretend otherwise, (especially in a forum such as this,) is really priceless comedy, but not much else.

The scientific agenda is discovering the truth. You got us, it's true. Agenda confirmed.

-J

Corn? I suppose we've got some corn, but we've got a heck of a lot of wheat. And not that many tumbleweeds.