Kansas Adopts New Science Standards 868
porcupine8 writes "The Kansas State Board of Education has changed the state science standards once again, this time to take out language questioning evolution. This turnaround comes fast on the heels of the ouster given this past election to the ultra-conservative Board members who originally introduced the language. 'Science' has also been re-redefined as 'a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations' (the word 'natural' had been previously stricken from the definition). If you'd like to see the new standards, a version showing all additions and deletions is available from the KS DOE's website (PDF)."
This quote still applies (Score:2, Informative)
"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.
The real news here (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe we should go back to calling ourselves "natural philosophers" rather than "scientists".
Re:Eternal Vigilance (Score:5, Informative)
This video is really disturbing: http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070206_eva
Especially the poster which says "God Says it. I believe it. That settles it."
"flock of dodos" documentary (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The future of America (Score:5, Informative)
Well, with such an incredibly incorrect first premise, I'm sure you can prove about anything.
Natural selection is not random.
buttsexwithfishsquirrels tag` (Score:4, Informative)
Full circle (Score:2, Informative)
The part about this story that bothers me is that a theory is being advanced by subjecting opposing views to "international ridicule" and censoring away any mention of controversy. Evolution proponents should be careful using such tactics. The notion that the prevailing dogma is beyond question and that all who doubt it must be denounced for their heresy is a concept that scientists helped us move beyond in the Renaissance, but occasionally wander dangerously close to adopting themselves. By all means, teach science, but don't become what you claim to hate in the process.
Re:"God Says it" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:good for Kansas (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Church vs. State (Score:5, Informative)
There is less evidence in support of Newton's Theory of Gravity (or even Einstein's Theory of Relativity) than there is in support of the Theory of Evolution. The term 'law' has not been used in science for a very, very long time. The word theory should not be confused with the word 'hypothesis'. In science, a hypothesis is closer to how the common vernacular uses the term 'theory'. A hypothesis is just an idea based on observation. A theory is what grows from a hypothesis: Scientists continue additional observations and experiments over the course of time and use those results and observations to refine or refute the hypothesis. Eventually the hypothesis becomes sound enough to become a theory. A theory must be supported by multiple sources of available evidence; it must be repeatable, consistent, empirically testable, and falsifiable. It must be multiply reproducible. Yes, theories must admit that they might be wrong. But there are no absolutes in this world -- just as they must admit that they might be wrong, theories are also the soundest explanations for natural occurence that science has available.
No matter how you slice it, Intelligent Design is not science. It doesn't hold up to the rigorous scientific scrutiny that scientific theories must hold up against. Evolution does. Intelligent Design is nothing more than religious dogma; it is not now, never will be, nor can it ever be by definition, a scientific theory.
I have nothing against people having their children taught Creationism. But not in a science classroom. The time and place for studying Creationism is in a religious setting, not a science classroom.
Re:"God Says it" (Score:1, Informative)
You can NOT be a Christian and not also be a strict creationist. That's not possible with what a Christian is and should be. They can't be separated, and if you do, then you aren't truly a Christian.
Re:I just don't get it... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No Problem (Score:3, Informative)
Inflammatory (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"God Says it" (Score:5, Informative)
Some examples: (1) there is anywhere between 1 character in 20 and 1 in 2000 difference between the dead sea scrolls fragments and the current text; (2) truly identical copies of the Torah are found only from the 16th century on, and those are not handwritten; (3) even today there are slightly-different versions of the Torah in use, e.g. the Yemenite version differs in 3 characters from the Koren (which is perhaps the 'standard').
So, by no means has the text been copied without error, at least not according to the people researching this topic.
Re:"I say God Says it" (Score:2, Informative)
I'm afraid that's an idiotic suggestion.
Re:The future of America (Score:3, Informative)
The one interesting thing I've read that I don't quite understand is how evolution doesn't seem to be a gradual process. Rather it comes in spurts which seems to imply that mutation isn't completely random.
A mutation either happens or it doesn't. It is by definition a stepwise process, not a gradual one.
What you find in the fossil record is not the stepwise occurance of mutations, though. It is the stepwise occurance of selective pressure. In a stable environment, the biosphere will diversify - whatever doesn't kill something will sooner or later develop and the maximum of complexity allowd bythe energy envelope of the niche will be achieved. THEN when a change in the environment occurs (some plain gets flooded or some such - yes, that includes asteroids and such) you will "suddenly" find a shift in the fossil record towards particular traits -- because those traits are the ones that allowed the survivors of the shift in selective pressure not to be selected against.
There's all kinds of hair colors out there. If something happens tomorrow that'll kill all people except those with red hair, you will find that "there was this sudden shift towards red-hairedness in the early 21st century". This will not mean that there's suddenly been a lot of mutations leading to red hair, though.
Re:"God Says it" (Score:4, Informative)
um ...
The Pilgrims weren't all Puritans. In fact, the Mayflower Compact [historyplace.com] was writtten on board the Mayflower to try to prevent mutiny by the majority on that ship who were not in it for religious reasons but rather, for profit (which was the primary motivation for almost all colonies.
Converting the people living in the Americas to some kind of faith or another was more the motivation of Spain, who had (in 1492!) only just rid the Iberian Penninsula of non-Christians. Occasionally, some of the English Colonists would pay lip service to this ideal, but it was rarely policy.
The 37 Separatists (Puritans) fleeing religious persecution who were on board the Mayflower had set about trying to convert their fellow shipmates. And when it was discovered that they were strongly desirous of creating a theocratic movement in the new colony, their shipmates immediately threatened to let them off right where the boat was at the time (in the middle of the Atlantic) where they could set up their government in any way they preferred.
Since the victors tend to write the history books, we tend to be particularly focused on these particular Separatists who narrowly missed setting up a theocracy in salt water. Over the course of the years following the original Mayflower landing, more Puritans emigrated and it is these people who began linking governance with their religion. They were primarily interested in making money, realizing the trade in shipbuilding timbers and exploitation of the costal fisheries was making a number of the colonists wealthy and land in the colony was available at low cost.
And, rather than indescrimately kill all Native Americans, the earliest colonists were beneficiaries of a French trading mission that had passed through the area five years before the Mayflower landed, unwittingly exposing their trading partners to European diseases. It is said that influenza killed off half of the tribal population in the area the first year and when the Mayflower landed, the colonists found the land empty.
This stands in sharp contrast to the Roanoke colony [nationalcenter.org] which lasted some 10 months, the survivors of which were returned to England due to increasingly hostile Native Americans.
If you look at a map of New England, you'll see many towns and cities with the word "field" in the name. The reaon why this reoccurs is due to the habit of the Europeans referring to these areas as clearings. Now these areas wold not have been cleared had the Native Americans cleared them but, due to disease sweeping through the indigenous populations whenever contact was made with the Europeans, these clearings had been abandoned. Europeans called a "clearing" a "field."
The Plymouth colonists' first contact with the Native Americans was in March, 1621, when Samoset, a Wampanouy, entered their encampment and began conversing with them in English, which he had picked up from English sailors in the area. Samoset and later Squanto, a Massasoit, were interested in these new white settlers because they wanted to form an alliance between them and their tribes in order to be able to fend off incursions from other tribes. They figured that the European technology might help them resist encroachment on their lands and that an alliance would help them both from a military standpoint and a trade standpoint. But the Europeans would never have been a consideration had their tribe not suffered substantial losses in population due to disease.
Now, I have read history and part of it is due to my ancestry being from the founders of the Cape Ann colony, which settled in Massachusetts in 1623. Many relocated to Connecticut by the 1680s. While the Puritans were very strict in their adherence to the tenants of their religion, you have to understand that they did not try to convert Native Americans--that was just not their aim. I
Re:"God Says it" (Score:2, Informative)