Kansas Adopts Evolution Because Of Politics And Embarrassment
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The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of international ridicule.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?
February 14, 2007 - 02:34 AM on February 14th, 2007
ID isn’t science. If ID is in the classroom, then politics has entered the classroom. If ID is removed from the classroom (for whatever reason) then science is able to reenter the classroom.
So we aren’t going to let the educators decide on the education guidelines?
We’re just going to allow scientists rather than religious fanatics decide what science is. Seems fair.
February 14, 2007 - 03:14 AM on February 14th, 2007
Oh, please. Let’s have an ID debate here. I can’t wait to hear Robert and PCD on this one.
February 14, 2007 - 03:31 AM on February 14th, 2007
2- No, you don’t want to… honestly!
February 14, 2007 - 08:24 AM on February 14th, 2007
I sed the proven idiot, Mattias, put in his 2 pfenigs.
AKD, your elitist concensus is not science. Science is not declaring a theory as fact by consensus. That is what the Inquisition did. Are you the reincarnation of Torquemada?
Trauer, Gaia isn’t science. Some of you secularists throw out inconvient findings just to defend your science just liek the Ape tribunal defended their science against Taylor in Planet of the Apes.
Now, AKD is “Hear No Evil”, is Trauer “See No Evil” and Mattias “Speak No Evil”?
February 14, 2007 - 08:25 AM on February 14th, 2007
1- the governor is a scientist? Nope..the governor said herself, she made the decision because of “embarrassment”, not for the benefit of furthering science.
Politics entered already.
February 14, 2007 - 08:36 AM on February 14th, 2007
Bottom line is, evolution is just a “theory”, just as “intelligent design” is a theory. The better discussion to have would be the “group think” being displayed on many of the hot topics. Global warming and Evolution are a good start. I am very thankful to have been educated when I was, and in the school sytem I went to. We were incouraged to keep questioning and learning…it seems that today, you need to go along with the majority? Perfect example of the dumbing down of a society.
February 14, 2007 - 08:43 AM on February 14th, 2007
Hey i thought the residents of KANSAS passed the state ballot that gives CREATION and EVOLUTION Equial in the states schools what are they doing pushing thie DARWINISM APE to MAN poppycock bull crap:mad:
February 14, 2007 - 08:45 AM on February 14th, 2007
3- I have to correct my statement in the other thread: It’s not Kindergarten- it is like a monkey cage. In Kindergarten they don’t start throwing shit at eachother!
February 14, 2007 - 09:45 AM on February 14th, 2007
8, you haven’t seen scheiss yet, putz.
February 14, 2007 - 12:43 PM on February 14th, 2007
6- ” I am very thankful to have been educated when I was, and in the school sytem I went to.”
Peejz, just to satisfy my curiousity. What theory/fact have you been taught on evolution/ID?
February 14, 2007 - 12:52 PM on February 14th, 2007
10- both. When I attended school, we didn’t have the PC police. We had teachers that taught. Each was presented as the theory they are, and no one was forced to believe in either as an absolute. Ours was taught as Creation, btw. When we were tested, we had to explain each theory, similarities and differences. We had to explain what theories were, whey are they relevant, and the impact they have made on our understanding of how things came to be.
February 14, 2007 - 02:03 PM on February 14th, 2007
Any ape should grab up a stick and give that evolutionist atheist wacko RICHARD DAWKINS a good wack over the head:roll::idea:
February 14, 2007 - 02:11 PM on February 14th, 2007
11- I find that interesting, because I’m not sure if we were explicitely taught evolution at all. I know we had biblical/religous education with the Genesis and many stories from the Old and the New Testament and we had biology as a different school subject (in the 80’s). Would it be too indiscreet when and where you were taught both theories?
February 14, 2007 - 05:38 PM on February 14th, 2007
Science is not declaring a theory as fact by consensus. That is what the Inquisition did. Are you the reincarnation of Torquemada?
I love the example of the inquisition. Why don’t you ask Giordano Bruno about the coupling of science and religion, idiot? In science the consensus arises out of the facts; in religion, consensus decides the facts. If you’re too dumb to tell the difference, this might explain a lot of what you’ve been posting.
the governor is a scientist?
Nope, and neither are the slope-skulled dimwits who tried to push their religious agenda into the science classroom. The scientists are scientists, and they have a pretty clear position on all of this. Sorry if it conflicts with your politics.
Politics entered already.
Yep. Ugly, ignorant, religious politics entered as soon as someone tried to set up ID as a legitimate alternative to the science of human evolution. They became an international laughing stock for it, and deservedly so. Thank god for shame!
Bottom line is, evolution is just a “theoryâ€, just as “intelligent design”is a theory.
Right, because empirical science doesn’t trade in analytic truths. Bottom line is, one theory is supported by empirical research; the other theory is supported by a bunch of xtians who are afraid of science making yet another inroad into their faith. Wanna guess which is which? Do you know what “theory” means when used in a technical scientific sense?
Avoiding “groupthink”doesn’t mean that we have to pretend that every argument is equally valid regardless of how ill-supported and naïve. It means that we weigh the evidence as best we can and we bow to the experts in cases where they clearly know better.
February 14, 2007 - 06:14 PM on February 14th, 2007
14- Again with the “you’re too dumb”…What I see is a person that really has no concept of either theory, what a theory is and how they came to be. What I see in you is a go along, that seems to think that by pushing what you call facts, you will somehow be correct..in the case of this topic, there is no definitive “right” answer, but you do seem threatened by religion.
February 14, 2007 - 06:22 PM on February 14th, 2007
13- We were taught this in the 7th grade..in the 1970’s(public education,but in a college prep format). When discussing creation, we did not get into a deep religious discussion…we were told about what various different religions believed to be true about this..basically, “a higher power, some say God,” would be how it was worded Matthias. There was no need to get into the actual religious aspect of it, as that was what our respective churches were for. The teacher was to present both theories and it actually worked out well…
February 14, 2007 - 09:01 PM on February 14th, 2007
I was going to post something, but I’m not trained in this and I am not an expert (as AKD is). I need to consult the (political) consensus before I am entitled to form an opinion. Following AKD’s lead, as soon as I have found someone else to tell me what to think, I will be ready to have an opinion.
February 15, 2007 - 02:13 AM on February 15th, 2007
creationism = belief in santa claus
(!)
February 15, 2007 - 02:55 AM on February 15th, 2007
What I see is a person that really has no concept of either theory, what a theory is and how they [sic] came to be.
Before we go in circles about this, here’s a link to an article on the meaning of “theory” in science.
February 15, 2007 - 03:30 AM on February 15th, 2007
Can anybody explain/describe to me the basic idea behind “intelligent design”/creationism?
I guess it’s not this “hardcore” stuff like “the world 6000 is only years old”, “we all descend from Adam and Eve”, “we did not develop from lower primates”… or is it? It is the idea of god directly influencing the development of the human species, right?
As I mentioned before, we’ve never been taught this “theory”…
February 15, 2007 - 07:45 AM on February 15th, 2007
AKD, you are living proof idiots and gaia acolytes can be tolerated in this country, otherwise you’d be hanging from a flag pole long ago.
February 15, 2007 - 08:12 AM on February 15th, 2007
19- Thanks for showing me you need someone else to explain it
February 15, 2007 - 08:29 AM on February 15th, 2007
20- Matthias, my belief, and I am Catholic and was taught Adam and Eve, is that there are various forms of evolution, but there are some things that can’t be explained scientifically, therefore, I do believe that in the begininning, there was a higher power. In that, I am talking about all things…
And for the record, most people that I know that are “religious” or attend church,on whatever basis they call regularly, believe the same way..I think that the perception of how people think is far different than how they really think.
As I said to you earlier, when I was in school, they presented both theories. Parents could opt to keep their kids out, but none did. There really was no need to get overly religious on the topic. But the point is, both sides were presented, which is the way to educate kids.
February 15, 2007 - 09:24 AM on February 15th, 2007
23- Hmm… I am not sure if that is already what shows up to me the difference between evolution and creationism.
I mean if if was just the question to say “some evolutionary mutation which leads the direction from ape to homo sapiens” is in one theory done by the hand of God and in the other theory accidentally&survival-of-the-fittest, I wouldn’t understand why there is such an excitement.
I mean, Einstein said on the quantum theory that “God would not play dice” and nobody started complaing much about Einstein… (Besides: but what if God consciously likes to play dice?)
I would understand the anger against creationists, if they taught the children those extreme views that I mentioned in my previous post (Adam & Eve as the very first people, etc.)…
February 15, 2007 - 09:43 AM on February 15th, 2007
24- Mattias, I think you are getting it now…Adam&Eve are not part of this..but to hear people talk, they are. You have to understand that in this country, there is a movement to try and erase all Christian religions, which is ignorant. If you were to teach a comprehensive world history course, could you teach, and have the students learn the history, without bringing up a religious “war”? I don’t think you could. I do think you could teach the class, bring up the religion, but not teach religion. That is easily done.
February 15, 2007 - 10:13 AM on February 15th, 2007
25- “You have to understand that in this country, there is a movement to try and erase all Christian religions, which is ignorant.”
But I hope that is not the main “motivation” to teach creationism. Because that would sound like “Hey, we need to have some non-religious area of life where we set our mark, just for the purpose of being seen at all.”
To me (as an non-US outsider) this creationism-vs-evolution debate equally to the GW-debate shows that there is a big crack in the American society and I wonder if it wasn’t good to have a unified education through the whole nation so that there are everywhere somewhat equal beliefs (without oppressing minority views).
February 15, 2007 - 10:41 AM on February 15th, 2007
26- It isn’t. Unified education? What do you mean? We do have standards etc., but unfortunately, you have individuals that feel it is their place to inject ther beliefs into the learning process…if people would just present the material, keep personal feelings out of the lesson, let kids absorb all the info, we would be better off!
February 15, 2007 - 03:13 PM on February 15th, 2007
27- On Wikipedia I saw creationism being put in the area of philosophy, but I gues that is something most creationists would not want to see it. I guess even if you present creationism at school, there will always be (more conservative) people to whom the taught stuff is not going far enough and who would in the best case demand to have again priests doing the lessons…
Well, I was never confronted with the debate/choice between one theory or the other (evolution is to me a fact and god is what I believe in and I don’t see the requirement to make a direct connection), but even if somebody does not believe in Santa Claus (to refer to SF’s comment) it does not make you stop celebrating christmas…
February 15, 2007 - 05:18 PM on February 15th, 2007
22. Thanks for showing me you need someone else to explain it
Whatever. It’s not like 99/100 of your posts aren’t actually pastes. So do you understand what “theory” means now?
I’m fine with ID being taught, but it should be taught in a philosophy class. It has no place in a science class anymore than does any other metaphysical speculation (for methodological reasons).
February 15, 2007 - 06:00 PM on February 15th, 2007
29- Who cares how you feel it should be taught? It isn’t up to you is it? It is up to the governor.
February 15, 2007 - 08:05 PM on February 15th, 2007
What is being taught, and what we should all think, should be determined by the experts in the fields of Philosophy and Theology. When they reach a consensus and render their pronouncement, then we will be qualified to opine, only in accordance with their promulgation.
Right, AKD?
February 16, 2007 - 02:24 AM on February 16th, 2007
30. I guess that it’s not up to you either (and neither are any of the other things you post about).
31. They are teaching ID in philosophy depts, moron. It’s called the “argument from design.” You’re on top of things, as always.
I’ll ask again, do you understand what theory means now? Or are you going to keep repeating the tired old “scientists admit that evolution’s just a theory, just like ID” bullshit?
February 16, 2007 - 08:24 AM on February 16th, 2007
32- Do I understand the meaning or Lenny Franks? I loved this correction of his work btw
I am find that the majority of scientists are calling it a theory and fact. Although they take the time to actually explain how they came about with their answer!
February 17, 2007 - 05:12 PM on February 17th, 2007
I am find that the majority of scientists are calling it a theory and fact. Although they take the time to actually explain how they came about with their answer!
Huh? I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
February 17, 2007 - 07:04 PM on February 17th, 2007
31. They are teaching ID in philosophy depts, moron. It’s called the “argument from design.”You’re on top of things, as always.
I couldn’t care less about evolution, intelligent design, or you for that matter. I was simply taking the opportunity to apply your flawed thinking from the Global warming argument to this topic. Really puts it into persepctive, doesn’t it?
February 17, 2007 - 09:04 PM on February 17th, 2007
34- Am I supposed to be surprised you don’t understand?
February 18, 2007 - 02:24 AM on February 18th, 2007
36. OK, you wrote: I am find [sic] that the majority of scientists are calling it a theory and [sic] fact. Although they take the time to actually explain how they came about with [sic] their answer!
The first sentence is the trickier one, including as it does the creative construction “I am find that the…” I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that: a)you “find that x is the case,” which could mean that you now realize it despite the fact that it contradicts your earlier uninformed view; or b) you “are fine that x is the case,” which could mean that “you’re cool with it,” but you don’t realize that it contradicts your earlier uninformed view. I’m tending toward the former, but the latter would only require turing the letter ‘d’ into an ‘e’ rather than eliminating an entire extraneous word.
Regardless, scientists indeed call non-teleological evolution “both a theory and a fact,” which would have made sense to you from the beginning if you’d understood how (in informed discussions of evolution) “theory” is being used in a technical sense.
February 18, 2007 - 09:11 AM on February 18th, 2007
37- The only person that it seems tricky for would be a person like you. You have comprehension problems. Instead of reading what is on the page, you read what you want to see on the page.
I was never having any problem understanding what it is that scientists call it, it was you, you asked the question.
February 18, 2007 - 12:16 PM on February 18th, 2007
I was never having any problem understanding what it is that scientists call it, it was you, you asked the question.
Decoding these increasingly incoherent posts is getting a little tedious….
Way back in post 6 you stated, “Bottom line is, evolution is just a ‘theory’, just as ‘intelligent design’ is a theory,” thus demonstrating that you don’t understand what it means when evolutionary biologists, for example, refer to the “theory of evolution.” Don’t feel bad: Reagan made the same mistake twenty years ago. Now you know better, right?
Evolution = theory in the strict scientific sense; ID = theory in the colloquial sense of a guess. Equating the two is a silly mistake. ID isn’t science; it doesn’t adhere to the scientific method. Sorry.
February 18, 2007 - 12:28 PM on February 18th, 2007
…. feel a bit like some people are simply hot-wired not to understand the larger picture AKD?:roll:
I have a sense that to expect any broadness of undertanding of the human condition as it applies in any pervasive sense is a study in futility with most of these individuals here posting.
Oh well. It’s a fun way to pass a quiet Sunday.
February 18, 2007 - 01:46 PM on February 18th, 2007
39- again with the decoding. Are you really that simple that you can’t understand a sentence. Reading your posts is quite comical…if only you were half as intelligent as you want people to think you are, you would qualify for special ed.
February 18, 2007 - 03:08 PM on February 18th, 2007
AKD’s not simple in the least.
Funny peejz when someone calls you out the way you do others you revert to ad hominems rather than carrying on legitimate discussion.
‘qualify for special ed’??
How about simply considering another’s opinion? Oh sorry. I’m at Right Voices aren’t I?
February 18, 2007 - 05:02 PM on February 18th, 2007
42-I guess you haven’t followed his conversations? I consider others opinions all the time, when they are intelligent. Try it sometime.
February 18, 2007 - 06:13 PM on February 18th, 2007
43-
Try it sometime.
Proof positive of my previous assertion; (see #42)
I’ve followed everything’s he’s recently written. He writes with intelligence, fact, and a detachment that rattles you.
Otherwise you’d be able to refute what he says. You cannot.
That’s all.
February 19, 2007 - 02:02 AM on February 19th, 2007
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Eben!
Peejz,
It would be nice to hear you admit that you were wrong, that you didn’t quite understand how you were using “theory” when you tried to prop up your indefensible (and ultimately just silly) position on evolution vs. ID. It would be much easier to take your other comments seriously if you would grace the list with this one small gesture of intellectual honesty.
February 19, 2007 - 06:46 AM on February 19th, 2007
Have any of you taken a look at Dawkins’ new book, The God Delusion? It’s certainly worth a look, especially if you’re still laboring under a few delusions of your own.
February 19, 2007 - 08:35 AM on February 19th, 2007
45-I would need to be wrong in order to admit it.
February 19, 2007 - 08:44 AM on February 19th, 2007
46- The reviewers don’t see it as one of his better works.
February 19, 2007 - 11:00 AM on February 19th, 2007
47. So, what were you trying to say way back in post 6?
February 20, 2007 - 03:14 AM on February 20th, 2007
I’m still waiting for your answer. Do explain why you weren’t wrong back in post 6.
February 20, 2007 - 12:29 PM on February 20th, 2007
So, no defense of your creative use of “theory?”
I guess that peejz is speechless.
February 20, 2007 - 01:24 PM on February 20th, 2007
51, no, you just don’t accept that you are wrong and peejz is right.
February 20, 2007 - 01:40 PM on February 20th, 2007
52. Do you want to defend it, PCD? Oh, I forgot, you’re too stupid to do anything but cheerlead.
53. J.H. rocks
February 20, 2007 - 02:03 PM on February 20th, 2007
AKD, up yours! Keyboard commandoes like yourself never say such things face to face. YOu shit your panties and holler for help.
February 20, 2007 - 02:11 PM on February 20th, 2007
55. As if you’re anything but a gutless “Keyboard commando” yourself. Stick to cheerleading, loser; you belong on the sidelines.
February 20, 2007 - 02:11 PM on February 20th, 2007
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…
February 20, 2007 - 02:14 PM on February 20th, 2007
55. As if you’re anything but a gutless “Keyboard commando” yourself. Stick to cheerleading, loser; you belong on the sidelines.
February 20, 2007 - 02:14 PM on February 20th, 2007
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…
February 20, 2007 - 02:23 PM on February 20th, 2007
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.
February 20, 2007 - 02:49 PM on February 20th, 2007
Not Shiloh, sorry.
Nobody’s answering because nobody’s capable. Pathetic.
February 20, 2007 - 03:54 PM on February 20th, 2007
61- Actually, you aren’t worth the time as you aren’t capable of basic comprehension.
February 21, 2007 - 02:27 AM on February 21st, 2007
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.
February 21, 2007 - 09:03 AM on February 21st, 2007
63- Only an idiot that has no comprehension skills could come to the conclusion that you have.
February 21, 2007 - 12:52 PM on February 21st, 2007
Then you should have no difficulty showing me where I went wrong. Please, do so.
February 21, 2007 - 03:20 PM on February 21st, 2007
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?
February 21, 2007 - 03:21 PM on February 21st, 2007
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.
February 22, 2007 - 06:58 AM on February 22nd, 2007
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.
February 22, 2007 - 07:38 AM on February 22nd, 2007
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.
February 22, 2007 - 08:50 AM on February 22nd, 2007
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.
February 22, 2007 - 09:13 AM on February 22nd, 2007
69. Agreed
February 22, 2007 - 01:00 PM on February 22nd, 2007
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.
February 22, 2007 - 04:27 PM on February 22nd, 2007
Evolution: Fact and Theory
By Richard E. Lenski
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
Evolution: Fact, Theory, Controversy
Evolution