Kansas board boosts evolution education

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Aug 26, 2002
14,639
826
0
45
WWW.YABITCHDONEME.COM
#1
Guidelines backed by conservatives skeptical of Darwin repealed


Kansas Board of Education members Kathy Martin, left, and Sally Cauble look over the new science standards approved Tuesday in Topeka.

Updated: 49 minutes ago
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.

The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.

The intelligent design concept holds that life is so complex that it must have been created by a higher authority.

The state has had five sets of standards in eight years, with anti- and pro-evolution versions, each doomed by the seesawing fortunes of socially conservative Republicans and a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans.

The board on Tuesday removed language suggesting that key evolutionary concepts — such as a common origin for all life on Earth and change in species creating new ones — were controversial and being challenged by new research. Also approved was a new definition of science, specifically limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe.

“Those standards represent mainstream scientific consensus about both what science is and what evolution is,” said Jack Krebs, a math and technology teacher who helped write the new guidelines. He is also president of Kansas Citizens for Science.

The state uses its standards to develop tests that measure how well students are learning science. Although decisions about what is taught in classrooms remain with 296 local school boards, both sides in the evolution dispute say the standards will influence teachers as they try to ensure that their students test well.

John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said under the new standards, “students will be fed an answer which may be right or wrong” about questions like the origin of life.

“Who does that model put first?” he said. “The student, or those supplying the preordained ‘natural explanation’?”

The Board of Education’s swing back wasn’t likely to settle the issue, given many Kansans’ religious objections and other misgivings about evolution.

“I don’t think this issue is going to go away. I think it’s going to be around forever,” board chairman Bill Wagnon, a Topeka Democrat who supports evolution-friendly standards, said before the vote.

“There’s this, I think, political agenda to just ensure that evolution is the driving, underlying notion that has to be accepted in Kansas science standards in order for Kansas to keep its head up in the world, which is just bizarre,” said board member Ken Willard, a Republican who supported the 2005 standards.

The debate has branched off into history, with the current board planning to delete a passage about abuses of science.

The wording mentioned the Nazis, forced sterilization and the decades-long Tuskegee syphilis study, in which public health officials falsely told poor, black men with the disease that they were being treated for it.

Critics claim the board is trying to sanitize the sometimes ugly history of science, while scientists argue the passage was inserted by supporters of intelligent design during the last revision and unfairly targets abuses perceived as linked to evolution.

Last year, legal disputes or political, legislative or school debates over how evolution should be taught cropped up in at least seven other states. But none of those has inspired attention — or comedians’ jokes — like Kansas has since a conservative-led state board deleted most references to evolution in rewriting the standards in 1999.

Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” had a four-part “Evolution Schmevolution” series in 2005, and hearings that year drew journalists from Canada, France, Britain and Japan.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

HELLA COOOOOOOOOOOOOO

5000
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
37
#3
nhojsmith said:
one small step for man, one dragon punch to the face for jesus christ.
The arguments in here have become redundant, religions or creationists versus atheist,agnostics, and evolutionists. No one ever comes to a conclusion. Atheists will give some theory as to why it's true, then a creationist will find some flaws, and the evolutionists will give more "facts" and will even dig himself into a whole. Then the evolutionists will say God is fake because it's illogical to believe god exists without the use of the 5 senses, but yet they believe they were once monkeys. Yeah that's more logical reasoning for ya. It's a joke. Bible Bashing, It'll be 10 against 1-3. Bash evolution, atheism, or their form of politics, siccness gang rape. GOM is the best forum, in all of the siccness, no doubt, but it's very close to being one sided.

A Christian/Creationist uses science to prove something from the bible, it's either to vague or a coincidence. People use the writings of ancient philosophers, yet they're quick to rebuke the bible, a document that predates many books which we learn from today. Funny, the Irony.
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
37
#4
my conclusion is clear, your beliefs are archaic and ridiculous and rooted in controlling large groups of people through fear. but i still respect your right to have these beliefs. in contrast, you think i will justifiably burn in hell for eternity because of what i believe in.
First of all, that's your look on religion. Secondly, I don't automatically assume you're going to hell for what you believe in, in terms of your outlook on life i.e Evolution etc.
For one who speaks out against generalizations, you just clumped in evolution with atheism.
Well on this board is seems they're not synonymous, look at most of this board, almost all the atheists are evolutionist, notice I said almost. If evolution also means the survival of the fittest, then I'll apply that to the flora and fauna.
You also say people who accept evolution think we were once monkey's?!?!?! this is the straw man fallacy
The foundation and Basis of DARWINISM, which is the basis of Evolution started off with the theory that man derived and evolved from monkeys. No straw man there homie
no one who argues for evolution should be saying we came from monkeys
Evolutions will forever be linked with Darwinism
Take some time to actually learn about evolution before you deny it, or dont, it seems to have worked for you thus far.
I'm still learning guy, each man on this board still learns.
Proving that something referenced in the bible is true doesnt make the bible true!!! this is yet another fallacy, big surprise, you are assuming that what is true of the individual parts is true of the whole.
Then can we go back to the argue that George Washington may not have been the first president, because it may have been a scewed version of history? This shit is ridiculous though. I don't assume that one part maybe true, so that all parts are true. Some of you dismiss the whole bible, and Alot of YOU guys do.
Finally, whats the irony in accepting historical modes of though while rejecting historical methods of thought control?
hahaha
 
May 1, 2003
6,431
25
0
54
#5
Hold up! Can yall...dumb it down ...just a lil bit. I think it's against the rules to sound this smart on the Siccness.

Carry on!
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
45
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#6
nhojsmith > Stockton.

@Stockton,
Just a couple points:

"look at most of this board, almost all the atheists are evolutionist, notice I said almost."

It may be true that most atheists believe in evolution, however the belief in evolution does not mean you're atheist. That was his point, you generalized two groups of people being one in the same.

"The foundation and Basis of DARWINISM, which is the basis of Evolution started off with the theory that man derived and evolved from monkeys. No straw man there homie"

You have once again displayed your ignorance and your refusal to learn new information. Not only is this incorrect but several members on this site, including myself, have pointed this out to you on numerous occasions and yet you still refuse to learn.


If you wont accept new information from me or other siccness members, maybe these links will help:

Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM


Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

Evolution is also frequently misinterpreted as stating that humans evolved from monkeys; based on this, some critics argue that monkeys should no longer exist. This misunderstands speciation, which frequently involves a subset of a population cladogenetically splitting off before speciating, rather than an entire species simply turning into a new one. Additionally, biologists have never claimed that humans evolved from monkeys—only that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, as do all organisms.[56]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
37
#7
I'll brush up on my evolutionary education, on the other hand, you didn't address the fact that you guys are quick to rebuke the bible, a document that has existed more than 5200 years.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
45
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#8
The Red Sin said:
on the other hand, you didn't address the fact that you guys are quick to rebuke the bible, a document that has existed more than 5200 years.
There are many holy books that have existed for thousands of years. The age of any one book is meaningless (if it were, then maybe you should convert to a religion that has been around longer than the one you currently practice, after all there were many).

I criticize the bible because of it's contents, not because of it's age. You on the other hand criticize evolution when you know nothing about it. You don't even understand the basic concept.
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
37
#9
There are many holy books that have existed for thousands of years. The age of any one book is meaningless (if it were, then maybe you should convert to a religion that has been around longer than the one you currently practice, after all there were many).
That wasn't my point, and I agree with you, but that's if I was speaking on age making a difference in my belief. Don't we quote Greek Philosophers, and Anglo Saxon Renaissance men? If I gave a quote from the bible as a source of history, with evidence, yes physical, to back it up, many, NOT ALL, will be quick to say typical bible thumper, and just ignore or rebuke my post.

2-0-Sixx said:
I criticize the bible because of it's contents, not because of it's age. You on the other hand criticize evolution when you know nothing about it. You don't even understand the basic concept.
Beyond, the so called "FAIRY TALE" stories, do you ever research evidence that back up the stories in the bible? Noah's Ark, in the Mountains of Ararat in Iraq. The Arc of the Covenant, the Blood line of Solomon tracing down to Halie Selassie along with the Ethiopian Jews. Many in here, not saying you, but many in here, from what I've read and observed, are quick to deny the bible. I will continue to read those links your gave me, and will refer to other books on this subject. Most of the time, the word Evolution is linked to Darwinism, natural selection. Has evolution been revised as time went along?
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#11
nhojsmith said:
my conclusion is clear, your beliefs are archaic and ridiculous and rooted in controlling large groups of people through fear. but i still respect your right to have these beliefs. in contrast, you think i will justifiably burn in hell for eternity because of what i believe in.

For one who speaks out against generalizations, you just clumped in evolution with atheism. You also say people who accept evolution think we were once monkey's?!?!?! this is the straw man fallacy, no one who argues for evolution should be saying we came from monkeys, but that we have similar roots. Take some time to actually learn about evolution before you deny it, or dont, it seems to have worked for you thus far.

Proving that something referenced in the bible is true doesnt make the bible true!!! this is yet another fallacy, big surprise, you are assuming that what is true of the individual parts is true of the whole.

Finally, whats the irony in accepting historical modes of though while rejecting historical methods of thought control?
the scientific truth is that we ARE monkeys, because we're in the same order

and what we evolved from was also a monkey, when people say we didn't evolve from "monkeys", they mean we share a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas, rather than that we evolved from them

I'm nor trying to bug you, I just want to clarify things
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#12
The Red Sin said:
The arguments in here have become redundant, religions or creationists versus atheist,agnostics, and evolutionists. No one ever comes to a conclusion. Atheists will give some theory as to why it's true, then a creationist will find some flaws, and the evolutionists will give more "facts" and will even dig himself into a whole. Then the evolutionists will say God is fake because it's illogical to believe god exists without the use of the 5 senses, but yet they believe they were once monkeys. Yeah that's more logical reasoning for ya. It's a joke. Bible Bashing, It'll be 10 against 1-3. Bash evolution, atheism, or their form of politics, siccness gang rape. GOM is the best forum, in all of the siccness, no doubt, but it's very close to being one sided.

A Christian/Creationist uses science to prove something from the bible, it's either to vague or a coincidence. People use the writings of ancient philosophers, yet they're quick to rebuke the bible, a document that predates many books which we learn from today. Funny, the Irony.
The truth is that the whole debate is about creation of the world and our place in it and the problem of has three parts - biological, geological and cosmological

What people always forget is that when the bible was written, there were only two parts of the problem - biological and geological. The bible (and other holy books and religions) offer similar solutions to both problems, and all these solutions have been proven to be wrong or very improbable by science

The question what credibility does the Bible have when it's so flawed arises naturally but I'm not going to talk about it right now, instead I want to point out that as science progressed it revealed a third part of the problem of creation - the cosmological one and as it is still largely a mystery what the early history of the universe was, religious people were quick to jump in and say it is God that's responsible for the Universe and everything in it

What they forget though is that the idea of God appeared a long time before we know anything about the Universe the way we know it now and it would have never appeared if we had our present knowledge 10000 years ago
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#13
The Red Sin said:
Well on this board is seems they're not synonymous, look at most of this board, almost all the atheists are evolutionist, notice I said almost. If evolution also means the survival of the fittest, then I'll apply that to the flora and fauna.
no, it doesn't mean survival of the fittest, but I agree with you that evolution and atheism are linked, I don't think any normal person can understand the theory of evolution and still believe in god


The foundation and Basis of DARWINISM, which is the basis of Evolution started off with the theory that man derived and evolved from monkeys. No straw man there homie
the foundation of Darwinism were many years of observations and data collecting; the idea that we evolved from primates (because we are primates) was a corollary of the theory


Then can we go back to the argue that George Washington may not have been the first president, because it may have been a scewed version of history? This shit is ridiculous though. I don't assume that one part maybe true, so that all parts are true. Some of you dismiss the whole bible, and Alot of YOU guys do.
most of you take all of it seriously which is much worse
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#14
The Red Sin said:
I'll brush up on my evolutionary education, on the other hand, you didn't address the fact that you guys are quick to rebuke the bible, a document that has existed more than 5200 years.
NOBODY in math reads journals published 70 or 80 years ago
NOBODY in biology reads journal articles published 3 or 4 years ago (in some especially hot fields the limit is even lower - an year or less)

these are the two extremes in science when it comes to longevity of documents


what credibility does something written 5200 years ago have then?
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#15
The Red Sin said:
Beyond, the so called "FAIRY TALE" stories, do you ever research evidence that back up the stories in the bible? Noah's Ark, in the Mountains of Ararat in Iraq. The Arc of the Covenant, the Blood line of Solomon tracing down to Halie Selassie along with the Ethiopian Jews. Many in here, not saying you, but many in here, from what I've read and observed, are quick to deny the bible. I will continue to read those links your gave me, and will refer to other books on this subject. Most of the time, the word Evolution is linked to Darwinism, natural selection. Has evolution been revised as time went along?
the bible is a collection of metaphoricl stories reflecting the history of jews and as such contains a lot of true stories about historical events (Noah's ark is definitely not one of them) but it has absolutely no credibility when it comes to prehistory and scientific facts
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#16
ThaG said:
NOBODY in math reads journals published 70 or 80 years ago
NOBODY in biology reads journal articles published 3 or 4 years ago (in some especially hot fields the limit is even lower - an year or less)

these are the two extremes in science when it comes to longevity of documents


what credibility does something written 5200 years ago have then?
This is pure foolishness. If I can show you 3 books from BOTH fields that you listed, and the person cited sources that were first published over five years ago where would that leave your MIGHTY SHOUTING WORDS that NOBODY reads journals or articles published that far back?

But what does time have to do with anything? I understand if the bible was saying the world was flat (something europeans believed for centuries) and science proved it was incorrect, but you are missing the point. You CAN'T stamp a date on knowledge or something that is a fact. You can't say "because its this old this isn't valid" because in a lot of instances you may have to dig up the old research and actually R-E-A-D it in order to validate your position.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#17
HERESY said:
This is pure foolishness. If I can show you 3 books from BOTH fields that you listed, and the person cited sources that were first published over five years ago where would that leave your MIGHTY SHOUTING WORDS that NOBODY reads journals or articles published that far back?

But what does time have to do with anything? I understand if the bible was saying the world was flat (something europeans believed for centuries) and science proved it was incorrect, but you are missing the point. You CAN'T stamp a date on knowledge or something that is a fact. You can't say "because its this old this isn't valid" because in a lot of instances you may have to dig up the old research and actually R-E-A-D it in order to validate your position.
citing doesn't mean shit, and BTW you'll be very pressed to find serious math papers citing things from less than 5 years ago, because that's the time it takes people to read and understand the new papers, it is that complex these days; only after that they can start citing them (which is the reason why Annals of Mathematics have IF~3)

in biology you will see people citing old papers, but that doesn't mean these papers are hot any more, they are usually initial discoveries which of course get cited a lot

the fact is that in biology no paper older than an year accurately represents the current level of understanding in most fields
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#18
citing doesn't mean shit
It means you READ IT which KILLS your statement that NOBODY reads it.

and BTW you'll be very pressed to find serious math papers citing things from less than 5 years ago, because that's the time it takes people to read and understand the new papers, it is that complex these days; only after that they can start citing them (which is the reason why Annals of Mathematics have IF~3)
Very pressed doesn't mean I am not capable of finding them, nor does it mean they do not exist.

in biology you will see people citing old papers, but that doesn't mean these papers are hot any more, they are usually initial discoveries which of course get cited a lot
Again, in order to cite a source you have to READ what you are citing (and I don't mean you have to read the ENTIRE book/report/periodical) but you do have to read. and this kills your position that NOBODY reads articles from (insert time period here)

the fact is that in biology no paper older than an year accurately represents the current level of understanding in most fields
It doesn't matter. Depending on what type of essay or report I am writing I typically tend to use sources that are no older than sixty days from the due date. However, you can't place a stamp on something and say it isn't "valid" or "true" just because it is from an older period.

Thats the only thing I'm trying to point out to you.

BTW, Lets throw anything written by Darwin smooth out the window because its old.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#19
HERESY said:
It means you READ IT which KILLS your statement that NOBODY reads it.



Very pressed doesn't mean I am not capable of finding them, nor does it mean they do not exist.



Again, in order to cite a source you have to READ what you are citing (and I don't mean you have to read the ENTIRE book/report/periodical) but you do have to read. and this kills your position that NOBODY reads articles from (insert time period here)



It doesn't matter. Depending on what type of essay or report I am writing I typically tend to use sources that are no older than sixty days from the due date. However, you can't place a stamp on something and say it isn't "valid" or "true" just because it is from an older period.

Thats the only thing I'm trying to point out to you.

BTW, Lets throw anything written by Darwin smooth out the window because its old.

same old tactics - using quotes out of context and taking words literally

I am pretty sure you haven't written even a single scientific paper in your life so you don't know that people don't need to read old papers to cite them, they know what's there because they have read it when it came out

when I say nobody reads odl papers I mean that nobody reads papers that are not relevant anymore to get information from them the same way that nobody reads Watson and Crick paper about DNA structure that came in 1953 and others of that kind any more but these papers still get cited

stop taking words literally and instead focus on the thoughts being expressed, I know that understanding things is the biggest problem of creationists but it's worth the effort to try
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#20
BTW we can throw Darwin out the window because his books are not relevant anymore, we have the modern synthetic theory, we have sequence data, we have genes and molecules and a lot of toher things, he didn't know about these things and nobody will sit down to read his books except for historical reasons, because they won't tell you much about the current understanding of evolution, sciences progresses and improves itself all the time

yes we can throw Darwin out the window, but we can't throw out evolution because all the new evidence supports it while it rejects almost everything that the bible says