Kansas Board of Education
May 6, 2005 at 3:55 pm #851ERSParticipant
Anyone keeping up on the ‘trial’ of evolution in Kansas? I say ‘trial’ because I think they are trying to emulate the Scopes format–however, without the judge and all that.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
May 6, 2005 at 7:28 pm #22180
Never heard of this. What are doing exactly?
May 6, 2005 at 8:17 pm #22186
banning evolution/teaching creationism probably
May 8, 2005 at 4:57 pm #22253thank.darwinParticipant
No, Not that!
May 29, 2005 at 9:26 am #23339
It is the U.S. District Court decision in which “balanced treatment” for creationism and evolution in Arkansas public school science classrooms was ruled unconstitutional. It is titled “McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education”. From the court decision,
“Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion filed this date, the defendants and each of them and all their servants and employees are hereby permanently enjoined from implementing in any manner Act 590 [‘Public schools within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science.’] of the Acts of Arkansas of 1981. It is so ordered this January 5, 1982”
Here’s a link to the documentations of the court case.
May 29, 2005 at 1:48 pm #23344
but this one isn’t in kansas though….
May 29, 2005 at 4:15 pm #23355
I didn’t notice that. But the post is still good anyway, about court decisions on evolution.
June 4, 2005 at 12:46 am #23712makedonec07Participant
It doesn’t make sense how our education system can take out teaching fact to our students and teach them that evolution is a theory of a similar sort to creationism. Boggles my mind… 😕
June 4, 2005 at 8:22 am #23724
Evolution is a theory, but it has been been proved to be true. Electrons are a theory: no one has ever seen them
June 4, 2005 at 2:00 pm #23746
Oh it’s not proved, as my esteemed teacher(she got one thing right :D) told us, data supports a theory, nothing is ever proved. Cuz science is ever changing.
That said, evolution is one of the backbone theories and probably will not change very much, and changes will come in the form of additions such as when darwininian evolution became the synthetic theory of evolution.
June 4, 2005 at 4:17 pm #23757PoisonParticipantquote MrMistery:
There are some parts that are not proved and cannot be explained. ( I can not remeber now but I know that there are.) Hope some day those parts will be clear too.
June 4, 2005 at 5:29 pm #23770
Ok, i was wrong. But, on the contrary to what some creationists claim, the evidence in support of evolution is incredible
June 4, 2005 at 7:04 pm #23786PoisonParticipant
Yes Andrew. I agree…
June 11, 2005 at 6:34 pm #24367charles broughParticipant
I live just a few miles from the Kansas border and know people from Kansas. One Kansas woman I talked with told me the world is filled with demons. She tried to convert me to Christ! We biologists have the highest number of atheists of any profession because we deal with and understand evolution.
Or do we? I am surprised over all the talk of “theory.” What is going on? It would appear that even biologists are still having trouble accepting that there are no absolutes. Amazingly enough, this goes back to the 1920s and 1930s when a host of scientists in different fields discovered there was no such thing as “truth.” Even Einstien showed that all is relative. There are no absolutes, no “truths,” so everything that is important to us to deal with is belief or theory. All we are doing, in science, is improving constantly the accuracy of what we believe. So, evolution is a far more accurate understanding of our origin and the origin of all life than the creation myth! There is no evidence to support the old myth, but plenty to support evolution. It is more accurate and its accuracy is constantly being further improved. Let the “born again” think they have “truth”, let them deceive themselves, but they have only something that does not exist.
June 14, 2005 at 3:23 pm #24713
Here is the transcript of the May 5 Science Hearing of the Kansas State Board of Education http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/schearing05052005.pdf.
The notable thing about the hearing are the contradictory statements made by William Harris, PhD while being cross-examined by Mr. Pedro Irigonegaray. “William Harris, a medical researcher and co-founder of a Kansas group called the Intelligent Design Network, posed the core question about life’s beginnings before mapping out why he and other Christians want changes in school curriculum.” http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/5/175846/9499
Harris accepts that science should be dealing with naturalistic explanations and supernatural explanations should be not included. Yet, he objects that the science standards should mention something about guided/unguided and the fact that they don’t is a problem. (pp. 27-28 of transcript)
Harris argues that the standards should remain neutral with respect to philosophical and religious views. Yet he argues that the problem with the standards is that they do not include such views. (pp. 30-31 of transcript)
June 14, 2005 at 3:36 pm #24717b_d_41501Participant
I can’t understand why you can’t be scrupulous and still accept evolution, I do!?
June 21, 2005 at 7:58 pm #25202charles broughParticipant
The creationists arguments before the Kansas board give the appearance of reasonableness—which is characteristic of their approach. They concede science is needed, that natural cause is the way to go and all that. This is a deceiving because science is the secular, in other words, it is the profane. To them, their faith is THE TRUTH and science is superficial and unnecessary, just an big bother.
also, the connect it with amorality and associate it with our hedonistic society. The more people return back to their old faith, the more science will be in trouble. Already the creationists “reasonableness” is making friends and scientists are beginning to flow with the trend. Social scientists are notorious for that.
For example, they love to come up with theories that are popular. They want to please everyone. They love to show that religion, science and our secular beliefs are all compatable and, in fact, can be reconciled. This way our science is corrupted. In the end, if we allow religious reaction to continue thru the century, we will have no more science, hence no more technology. That means, we would be living grubbing out from subsistence farming.
June 22, 2005 at 6:21 pm #25282
It is not a habbit of mine to debate on creationist’s side…
But you blame them so much that they belive their way is the truth and everything else is bogus… You seem to do the same thing but you enforce evolution not creation. I am not saying evolution is not true, i am a convinced evolutionist… But each man has the choise of what to believe in
June 23, 2005 at 3:06 am #25324b_d_41501Participant
I believe in evolution, however, I believe it was directed by some being. There are some things in the universe that can’t be explained. This is not to say that they will never be explained, but they aren’t at the moment. So, sometimes when there is no rational explanation, the only explanation is irrational. 😀
June 23, 2005 at 5:01 am #25329
Nothing wrong with a bucolic lifestyle 🙂
As for teaching evolution,
I think that there’s no problem in having creationists debate with evolutionists regarding their ideals. The only problem is when the public is involved. Asking the public to decide is like asking a 5 year old which wine tastes better. They have no clue and will decide in favor of who’s more eloquent.
I say, let the scientists decide. Kids in school should be taugh evolution just as they should be taught physics or math. Everyone is taught that a triangle has 180 degree angles. There’s no need to elaborate on 3d triangles and situtations where Euclidian geometry fails. Once they’re in college, they can choose to pick whether they want to study some of the more controversial matter i.e. creationism, the myriad of phyic theories etc.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.