»Kansas Board of Education Okays Teaching ID«
|
|||
 The Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power. All six of those who voted for the new standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted no. Supporters of the new standards said they would promote academic freedom. “This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do,” said board chairman Steve Abrams. Another board member who voted in favor of the standards, John Bacon, said the move “gets rid of a lot of dogma that’s being taught in the classroom today.” John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said changes probably would come to classrooms gradually, with some teachers feeling freer to discuss criticisms of evolution. “These changes are not targeted at changing the hearts and minds of the Darwin fundamentalists,” Calvert said. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports challenges to Darwinian evolutionary theory, praised the Kansas effort. “Students will learn more about evolution, not less as some Darwinists have falsely claimed,” institute spokesman Casey Luskin said in a written statement. The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology. In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. In 1999, the board eliminated most references to evolution. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that was akin to teaching “American history without Lincoln.” Bill Nye, the “Science Guy” of children’s television, called it “harebrained” and “nutty.” And a Washington Post columnist imagined God saying to the Kansas board members: “Man, I gave you a brain. Use it, OK?” Two years later, after voters replaced three members, the board reverted to evolution-friendly standards. Elections in 2002 and 2004 changed the board’s composition again, making it more conservative. The Kansas board’s action is part of a national debate. In Pennsylvania, a judge is expected to rule soon in a lawsuit against the Dover school board’s policy of requiring high school students to learn about intelligent design in biology class. In August, President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution. There's also a nice and concise time-line on the second page of the article, of this whole issue. posted by ryder |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsKansas Board of Education Okays Teaching ID |
|
|||
 I really think where we're heading in America is back to the old elitist days of science, when only a highly-educated few understood contemporary thought on the complexities of the way the universe worked. This time, however, the elitism will not be due to a lack of access to scientific books and teachers, as it was in the past, but rather due to self-segregation, where the majority of the population refuses to accept the advice of scientists on matters of basic theory because it conflicts with a scriptural dogma the population accepts blindly. I really think crappy popular culture and a lack of desire to learn is to blame for things like the Kansas issue, not any fault of science. And in fact scientists have everything to gain from a radical takeover of the public school system by religious zealots, namely the benefits of being an elite class all to themselves, like the clergy were in Europe during the Middle Ages. And of course, scientists can always go abroad to publish and teach, where evolution is much more highly regarded than in the US. I must say I welcome the assault on fundamental science; it clears the vandalism-prone rabble out of the delicate cathedral of God's creation and leaves the important matters to the people qualified to discuss them. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS PICTURE] posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 MindSlave: And in fact scientists have everything to gain from a radical takeover of the public school system by religious zealots, namely the benefits of being an elite class all to themselves, like the clergy were in Europe during the Middle Ages. Except that if the 'rabble' is opposed to science, true scientists will have to leave the country to avoid a repeat of the Monkey Trials on a nation-wide scale. And with the recent intensification of nationalistic imperialism in the US, how long do you think out own religious extremists will confine their influence to America? Europe has its own share of problems, and Asia does too, or soon will. MindSlave: I must say I welcome the assault on fundamental science; it clears the vandalism-prone rabble out of the delicate cathedral of God's creation and leaves the important matters to the people qualified to discuss them. The 'people qualified to discuss' science are educated people, correct? Perhaps this situation would have its advantages in the short term, but if the zealots take over the education system, there won't be anyone left who's suitably "qualified". posted by Sharaith |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sharaith: Except that if the 'rabble' is opposed to science, true scientists will have to leave the country to avoid a repeat of the Monkey Trials on a nation-wide scale. And with the recent intensification of nationalistic imperialism in the US, how long do you think out own religious extremists will confine their influence to America? Europe has its own share of problems, and Asia does too, or soon will. That's an alarmist statement; you are taking two minor incidents in the US (the Kansas controversy and the Scopes trial) and blowing them up into some kind of worldwide conspiracy. The Scopes trial happened because of a state law (different from a federal law) forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools. There is no indication that any law will ever be passed again forbidding such teaching, nor could it be due to today's stricter interpretation of the US Constitution with its First Amendment protections against government legislating religious issues. Here, in case you have never read it, is the full text of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. That seems pretty clear to me. Also, I can't speak for Europe because I don't know much about the law there, but I would guess that a country like France which even bans conspicuous religious symbols in schools would be quite loath to allow the teaching of creationism there. The status of creationism in Asia is a mystery to me; maybe ryder can fill us in. Sharaith: The 'people qualified to discuss' science are educated people, correct? Perhaps this situation would have its advantages in the short term, but if the zealots take over the education system, there won't be anyone left who's suitably "qualified". Well most of the greatest scientists in history have been self-taught scientists. Maybe if there were fewer people who really understood science, as seems to be the goal of creationists, it would regain the mystique it had in earlier times, as a kind of forbidden sorcery practiced by strange old men. I see no clear indication that the massive scientific establishment as it currently exists does anything that a select few could not do if given a greater share of the total funding available for science. So if there were fewer scientists, the result would be...fewer scientists with more funding! 
Absolutely no problem with that. Now if someone tried somehow to make science an illegal discipline, that would be a problem. But that would never happen in the modern era of the US or Europe; maybe in the imaginations of science fiction writers, but never in reality. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlave: That's an alarmist statement; you are taking two minor incidents in the US (the Kansas controversy and the Scopes trial) and blowing them up into some kind of worldwide conspiracy. Wtf? I was replying to your theoretical situation - namely, "a radical takeover of the public school system by religious zealots". That situation would seem to imply a "worldwide conspiracy" (or at least a nationwide one), wouldn't you think? MindSlave: I see no clear indication that the massive scientific establishment as it currently exists does anything that a select few could not do if given a greater share of the total funding available for science. So if there were fewer scientists, the result would be...fewer scientists with more funding! This is, again, a theoretical situation, and one even more ridiculous than the first. First, you completely ignore the enormous body of scientists in modern industry - programmers, enviromentalists, engineers, etc. Could you program a computer from scratch with only one scientist, no matter how many grunts were hired to do the heavy lifting? Could one engineer design a road system for a new town/city/region all by himself? Modern industy requires huge amounts of professional employees, that combine their efforts and inspirations into a whole. Perhaps you only see a 'scientist' as a genius like Galileo, Neuton or Einstien, who are famous for personal leaps on inspiration. Not all scientists are like this. Most are just specially trained people who do jobs that require more intellect and paperwork than the average construction worker. Second, you ignore the basic politics of funding. Do you really think that the government will put all the money it spends each year on medicine, infrastructure, technology, weapons, etc., and give it all to just a handful of scientists (even if they are self-taught geniuses)? I certainly can't see that happening. ... Personally, I don't have any objection to ID being taught in classrooms - but only if it is presented as an alternate theory. Evolution has yet to be disproved, but so has intelligent design. What is disturbing is the thought that the teachers in Kansas might distort this ruling to allow themselves to teach ID as the only "correct" theory. posted by Sharaith |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sharaith: Wtf? I was replying to your theoretical situation - namely, "a radical takeover of the public school system by religious zealots". That situation would seem to imply a "worldwide conspiracy" (or at least a nationwide one), wouldn't you think? No, I don't think it does. The whole point of my post was to say that the situation with evolution and creationism is unique to the United States , and that scientific progress will continue outside of the United States no matter what stupid things some religious people do here. If the whole world was like the United States in this respect, there would be a worldwide conspiracy. Sharaith: MindSlave: I see no clear indication that the massive scientific establishment as it currently exists does anything that a select few could not do if given a greater share of the total funding available for science. So if there were fewer scientists, the result would be...fewer scientists with more funding! This is, again, a theoretical situation, and one even more ridiculous than the first. First, you completely ignore the enormous body of scientists in modern industry - programmers, enviromentalists, engineers, etc. Those are technicians, not scientists. Sharaith: Could you program a computer from scratch with only one scientist, no matter how many grunts were hired to do the heavy lifting? Yes, one person could program a computer if it were designed efficiently; even now it happens all the time. Sharaith: Could one engineer design a road system for a new town/city/region all by himself? Yes. Sharaith: Modern industy requires huge amounts of professional employees, that combine their efforts and inspirations into a whole. That's the problem with modern industry. It requires too many people, thus we have had a problem on this planet with overpopulation since the Industrial Revolution. Sharaith: Perhaps you only see a 'scientist' as a genius like Galileo, Neuton or Einstien, who are famous for personal leaps on inspiration. Not all scientists are like this. Most are just specially trained people who do jobs that require more intellect and paperwork than the average construction worker. Yes, yes I know. Believe it or not, Sharaith, I do know a thing or two about scientists. Sharaith: Second, you ignore the basic politics of funding. Do you really think that the government will put all the money it spends each year on medicine, infrastructure, technology, weapons, etc., and give it all to just a handful of scientists (even if they are self-taught geniuses)? I certainly can't see that happening. The only point you have regarding the need for more scientists is to produce advanced weapons systems like the US National Missile Defense ♣, and those are unecessary and even useless in today's world. Also, the almighty "government" is not the only funding source for really worthwhile science in the world: Howard Hughes Medical Institute ♣ Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation ♣ Just to name two major, private funding sources for useful science. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Sharaith: Evolution has yet to be disproved, but so has intelligent design. This is not correct. A theory has to be PROVEN, either theoretically or via workability. Other wise you can claim: "Saturn is surrounded by millions of cheeseburgers" and this would stay valid until disproven. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
MindSlave: The whole point of my post was to say that the situation with evolution and creationism is unique to the United States , and that scientific progress will continue outside of the United States no matter what stupid things some religious people do here. What I understood from your post was, a takeover of the school system will be good for scientists, and if they don't like it, they can leave the US. Obviously, I disagree with both of those, as I said in my post. Perhaps we both missed each other's points on the way, but any way you look at them, yours don't make sense. Besides, to adress your point, I can tell you from experience that the US is not the only country having conflicts over the separation of religion and state. Israel, for example, had the conflict brought to the surface this summer, over the disengagement. And what about the Arab countries? Every country has this conflict in the government and in the people, and sooner or later, it will come to the surface. Technology is advancing at such a rate that we're going to reach a state that's unacceptable to anyone even slightly religous. Perhaps the US shows it more, but it's a problem (or will be a problem) in European countries too. MindSlave: Those are technicians, not scientists. Check this out: sci·en·tist: n. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science. Covers both technicians and researchers. Both are important in modern industry. MindSlave: The only point you have regarding the need for more scientists is to produce advanced weapons systems like the US National Missile Defense, and those are unecessary and even useless in today's world. Not true. Medical research, improved communications, better computers, economics, geologists, meteorologists... take your pick. All fields that you need a large body of specialists in to make it work. Also, less scientists does not mean more funding to go around. While the government is not the only source of funding, as you say, it is still a major contributer. There's no way that private funding sources can cover the expenses of advances in the abovementioned fields. And, seriously, I doubt that the public will be quite so generous to science if there are far fewer scientists around. There's only so much you can do with funding, if you don't have qualified people around to hire. knn: A theory has to be PROVEN, either theoretically or via workability. A theory has to be proven before it can be accepted as proof. However, a theory can also be disproven before it has actually been proven. Neither evolution nor ID have been disproven, but neither have they been proven. Therefore, both of them could be correct. posted by Sharaith |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sharaith: Neither evolution nor ID have been disproven, but neither have they been proven. Therefore, both of them could be correct. You should post at IMO → Creationism vs Evolution posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know why someone didn't mark your post offtopic, Sharaith, since only a few lines of it address the topic at hand, but I'm going to answer it anyway. Sharaith: Besides, to adress your point, I can tell you from experience that the US is not the only country having conflicts over the separation of religion and state. Israel, for example, had the conflict brought to the surface this summer, over the disengagement. And what about the Arab countries? Well, at the risk of offending your national pride, who the fu-ck in the real world cares about Israel? Israel is famous , not important. If there weren't so much historical controversy over Israel, it would be a meaninglessly blood-soaked strip of arid land that has few natural or geographic resources, a miniscule population, and, to be honest and get back to the topic, no real intellectual or scientific importance to speak of either. The Arab countries are eminent in a geopolitical sense because of only two things: terrorism and petroleum, neither of which requires scientists. LOL, if ethnic strife and religious fanaticism required scientists, Israel and the Arab world would be the destinations of science graduate students from all around the world. But when was the last time you heard of a talented graduate student going to Israel or the Arab world to study hard science? (And no, studying Jew-hatred or Muslim-hatred in a religious school does not count! )Sharaith: Every country has this conflict in the government and in the people, and sooner or later, it will come to the surface. Technology is advancing at such a rate that we're going to reach a state that's unacceptable to anyone even slightly religous. Perhaps the US shows it more, but it's a problem (or will be a problem) in European countries too. More anti-faith alarmism from a pontificating child. Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf ♣? Sharaith: Check this out: sci·en·tist: n. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science. Oh please. dictionary.com is shit and no one cares about it except people like you, who wrongly think a dictionary is good for something besides spelling. Now you check this out: A scientist is a person who is an expert in at least on area of science and who uses the scientific method to research that area. None of the occupations you list ("programmers, enviromentalists, engineers") require a person to be a scientist. It should have been obvious to you before you posted that, because you should know that programming a computer does not necessarily require the scientific method, so you can be a computer programmer and a scientist, but programming a computer alone does not make you a scientist. It merely makes you a technician, as I said before. Sharaith: MindSlave: The only point you have regarding the need for more scientists is to produce advanced weapons systems like the US National Missile Defense, and those are unecessary and even useless in today's world. Not true. Medical research, improved communications, better computers, economics, geologists, meteorologists... take your pick. All fields that you need a large body of specialists in to make it work. You obviously have no clue (1) what science is, or (2) how it works. Practical discoveries are made by a select few scientists and then adopted by many scientists (in order to try to become one of the select few) and many technicians (in order to produce every complex product available today). Take away the many scientists, and you still have just as many practical discoveries made by the select few and just as many technicians to produce your product. Sharaith: Also, less scientists does not mean more funding to go around. While the government is not the only source of funding, as you say, it is still a major contributer. There's no way that private funding sources can cover the expenses of advances in the abovementioned fields. And your proof is? How do you know that science absolutely cannot make advances without government funding? If science was made worth the public's while, meaning if they had a stake in its success, there would be no issue of Intelligent Design, because people would have a desire to see scientific advances made as quickly as possible. I admit, with fewer scientists, progress would be harder to make, but there is no evidence that progress would be any slower. The select few scientists would just have to work harder, I say. Sharaith: And, seriously, I doubt that the public will be quite so generous to science if there are far fewer scientists around. There's only so much you can do with funding, if you don't have qualified people around to hire. Again, this is an unwarranted conjecture! You have presented no proof of that. How could you have? You were too busy misdefining and misrepresenting science as it is currently constituted. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 MindSlave: I don't know why someone didn't mark your post offtopic Don't think! Look and Do! posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Honestly, MindSlave, if you're really naive enough to believe what you're saying, I don't see any point in replying here. Since you seem to feel this discussion is off-topic, if you would like to continue it, PM me or start a new thread. Your points have reached such a point of utter nonsense that I don't see any point in cluttering up this thread further. To get back on topic, I think this article provides an interesting view of the debate (albeit a very anti ID one) that compares the issues in this debate to the basic ideals of America, and mentions some recent events in the conflict. "This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution," "This country was founded on Christianity, and our students should be taught as such." ~ Dover Pennsylvania School Board member Bill Buckingham, chair of the curriculum committee, started this fight. He objects to Darwinism. He wants a science book that teaches Christian creationism.
" The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." ~ George Washington "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." and "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." ~ Thomas Jefferson "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." ~ James Madison "The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." ~ Abraham Lincoln posted by Sharaith |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sharaith: Honestly, MindSlave, if you're really naive enough to believe what you're saying, I don't see any point in replying here. Since you seem to feel this discussion is off-topic, if you would like to continue it, PM me or start a new thread. Your points have reached such a point of utter nonsense that I don't see any point in cluttering up this thread further. "Nonsense," huh? Well, then you should have no problem answering my points in new threads. It seems only fair to address the following two points in new topics before you describe them as "nonsense": (1) The only countries where separation of church and state, as demonstrated by the Intelligent Design issure, is a serious problem are the United States (my example) and Israel and the Islamic World (your example.) How is it nonsense to point out that Israel and the Arab world are irrelevant to the discussion because they make very few important scientific contributions anyway? (2) You defined the following types of workers as "scientists": "programmers, enviromentalists, engineers." You then attempted to reinforce this definition by introducing a quotation from an online dictionary. There is no nonsense in pointing out that just because someone is an "environmentalist," for example, this doesn't necessarily mean they are a scientist. The rest of my post that you describe as "nonsense" is fair debate in this topic. Please feel free to address my points in this thread. They are: (1) My main point was that even if there were many fewer scientists in the United States or any other country, it would not slow scientific progress one bit since most scientific discoveries are made by only a select few scientists anyway. (2) My secondary point was to ask for proof for your assertion that scientists would receive less support from private citizens or organizations than they would from the government if there were no government funding of science. Until you address these last two points, expect me to keep bringing them up here no matter to what you try to change the subject. posted by MindSlave |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 MindSlave: (1) My main point was that even if there were many fewer scientists in the United States or any other country, it would not slow scientific progress one bit since most scientific discoveries are made by only a select few scientists anyway. For science to progress you don't just need geniuses. You need a large number of intelligent researchers. You also want research to be as unbiased as humanly possible. You would agree that scientific progress requires the gathering of evidence and experimentation wouldn't you? MindSlave: (2) My secondary point was to ask for proof for your assertion that scientists would receive less support from private citizens or organizations than they would from the government if there were no government funding of science. Well I can't say I that I can support the statement you have put there. I would say, however, that the government OUGHT to be funding science and that private funding is less likely in cases where there are no clear money to be made through the investment. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sharaith: knn: A theory has to be PROVEN, either theoretically or via workability. A theory has to be proven before it can be accepted as proof. However, a theory can also be disproven before it has actually been proven. Neither evolution nor ID have been disproven, but neither have they been proven. Therefore, both of them could be correct. Um what crap is this. There is no absolute proof for any scientific theory. That is not how science works. For example, gravity is not 'proven' in this absolute sense - but no one is about to deny the truth of the theory because it IS proven in the sense of the word used in science. The kind of proof required for science is, as knn says, a theoretical proof (presumably mathematical proof or suchlike) or a proof through workability. Evolution has, at very least, the latter of these two. Intelligent Design has not got either of them. Positing a creator of the universe is simply not scientific. You simply cannot consider a God through the workability of the evidence. Intelligent Design has not been disproven, but then again it has not been proven scientifically as Evolution has. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 24 May 2012, 21:55 php B.B. |