John Hanna of the AP sees it this way:
The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of international ridicule.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.
So are we admitting that politics is entering the classroom? And where are the stories on this? I think this is the 2nd time in 2 years that I have heard this discussed!
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat re-elected last year, cited embarrassment caused by the board’s past decisions on evolution as a reason to strip it of its power to set education policy.
So we aren’t going to let the educators decide on the education guidelines? Isn’t that what they are paid to do? If they aren’t doing their job properly, shouldn’t they be fired? Or is it that they are doing their job, but the Governor seems to feel the need to overstep her authority?
So, no defense of your creative use of “theory?”
I guess that peejz is speechless.
51, no, you just don’t accept that you are wrong and peejz is right.
52. Do you want to defend it, PCD? Oh, I forgot, you’re too stupid to do anything but cheerlead.
53. J.H. rocks
AKD, up yours! Keyboard commandoes like yourself never say such things face to face. YOu shit your panties and holler for help.
55. As if you’re anything but a gutless “Keyboard commando” yourself. Stick to cheerleading, loser; you belong on the sidelines.
55. As if you’re anything but a gutless “Keyboard commando” yourself. Stick to cheerleading, loser; you belong on the sidelines.
Still waiting for that response…
55. As if you’re anything but a gutless “Keyboard commando” yourself. Stick to cheerleading, loser; you belong on the sidelines.
55. As if you’re anything but a gutless “Keyboard commando” yourself. Stick to cheerleading, loser; you belong on the sidelines.
Still waiting for that response…
AKD, again up yours, especially if you are Shiloh sock puppeting. YOu deserve no answer, a back of the hand across the face and a challenge to a duel, but not an answer.
Not Shiloh, sorry.
Nobody’s answering because nobody’s capable. Pathetic.
61- Actually, you aren’t worth the time as you aren’t capable of basic comprehension.
62.
I guess that it’s now pretty clear that you know that you were wrong but lack the integrity to admit it. Nice try, though.
63- Only an idiot that has no comprehension skills could come to the conclusion that you have.
Then you should have no difficulty showing me where I went wrong. Please, do so.
Your conclusions and assertions on the Global Warming topics were quite successfully challenged, but you would not acknowledge anything, not even part. So why should anyone bother to spend any more time with you here when it will make no difference?
AKD…I’ve been following this thread and I have to tell ya’…ya’ look rather lame. Insults and arrogance get you nowhere. Give it up already.
65,66
The folks on the right (as represented by the folks on this site) are always harping about accountability, integrity—the sorts of values that they love to pretend to have. The reason? I guess that its usually easier to claim (falsely, of course) the moral high-ground than to develop a coherent argument.
Here’s the situation:
Waaaaay back in post 6, Peejz stated “Bottom line is, evolution is just a theory, just as ‘intelligent design’ is a theory.” She thus repeated the same silly mistake that Reagan made years ago and, unfortunately, the same silly mistake repeated again and again by Christians scared of having their beliefs threatened. I linked to an article that explained her error to her, and now, assuming that she read the article, she knows better. In a year from now, however, if this site is still active, she’ll probably repeat the same “mistake” again, because, you see, even though the statement is demonstrably false it props up the sort of political agenda that Peejz supports.
Though Peejz must now recognize her initial statement as indefensible, she refuses to admit that she was wrong. This is obviously a relatively small fish in the ocean of right-wing half-truths and outright lies; nonetheless, admitting her mistake would be a symbolic gesture, a gesture that would represent a willingness to accept the truth even in those pesky cases when it conflicts with one’s most firmly and irrationally held political prejudices. That’s why Im not going to let it go.
AKD…..your arrogance, obvious ignorance, rudeness, condescending, patronizing, stubborn, mean spririted, post of 67 is precisely why people on the right stop arguing with you. You may believe what you like. You are entitled. But what you seem to fail to understand is that we read and perceive things differently from you for various reasons. I know Peezj and others take their information from reputable places with people who have verifiable credentials in their fields as well as opinions from blogs.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not make them wrong.
Bon Bon, AKD has nothing. He is not capable of understanding what it is that scientists do, let alone understand what they say. Why would he act this way/ It is he who is scared of his own beliefs. Why else would he babble so? He still can’t figure out why a scientist would call evolution a theory and a fact. See they can lay it out, but he then goes on to tell you what they meant to say.
69. Agreed
69. When Gould (most famously) referred to evolution as a theory and a fact, he was (like Flank) criticizing the idea that “evolution is just a theory, just as ‘intelligent design’ is a theory.” Here’s a link. And here’s a nice quote from the article:
“Scientific creationism” is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science.
Gould’s alluding to Popper’s falsification hypothesis–look it up.
So, theory and fact… Theories are the structual frameworks in which facts become meaningful; or, from another (more Germanic) perspective, theories are the transcendental frameworks in which empirical experience is articulated; or, (in the Kuhnian language popular in the philosophy of science), theories are the paradigms in which the data of normal science occurs qua data; or, theories are the language games in which individual utterances achieve validity.
The relationship between theory and fact in science–which I’m fairly certain that I understand much better than you–isn’t too complicated when you understand how theory is actually being used in its technical sense.
Regardless, your statement: “Bottom line is, evolution is just a “theoryâ€, just as “intelligent design”is a theory,” was false. You have all of the data necessary to recognize that it was false; you’ve shown absolutely no ability to defend this utterance, yet you refuse to admit that your wrong.
My rudeness, my arrogance, my stubborness, or my anything else doesn’t change this simple fact.
Your intellectual dishonesty is horrifying.
Evolution: Fact and Theory
By Richard E. Lenski
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
Evolution: Fact, Theory, Controversy
Evolution