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The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of international ridicule.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?
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.
Oh, please. Let’s have an ID debate here. I can’t wait to hear Robert and PCD on this one.
2- No, you don’t want to… honestly!
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”?
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.
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.
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:
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!
8, you haven’t seen scheiss yet, putz.
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?
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.
Any ape should grab up a stick and give that evolutionist atheist wacko RICHARD DAWKINS a good wack over the head:roll::idea:
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
creationism = belief in santa claus
(!)
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.
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”…
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.
19- Thanks for showing me you need someone else to explain it
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.
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.)…
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.
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).
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!
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…
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).
29- Who cares how you feel it should be taught? It isn’t up to you is it? It is up to the governor.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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?
34- Am I supposed to be surprised you don’t understand?
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.
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.
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.
…. 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.
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.
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?
42-I guess you haven’t followed his conversations? I consider others opinions all the time, when they are intelligent. Try it sometime.
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.
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.
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.
45-I would need to be wrong in order to admit it.
46- The reviewers don’t see it as one of his better works.
47. So, what were you trying to say way back in post 6?
I’m still waiting for your answer. Do explain why you weren’t wrong back in post 6.