Proper Education Standards Prevail

[A_Wanderer]

Conservative Republicans who approved new classroom standards that call evolution into question lost control of the State Board of Education in Tuesday's primary election.

A victory by pro-evolution Republican candidate Jana Shaver over conservative Republican Brad Patzer, who supported the standards treating evolution as a flawed theory, meant conservatives would at best have five of 10 seats on the board.

Five seats were up for election in the primary, the latest skirmish in a seesawing battle between faith and science that has opened Kansas up to international ridicule.

Conservative Republican John Bacon kept his seat by besting two pro-evolution challengers. But Shaver's win split the makeup of the board between evolution supporters and opponents. She won a seat that was vacant because a conservative Republican evolution opponent was retiring.

Besides Bacon and Shaver's races, the seats of two conservative Republicans who oppose evolution were up for grabs, along with that of a Democrat who favors evolution.

Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat who opposed the new standards, defeated a more conservative Democrat who favored the anti-evolution language with 65 percent of the vote.

One conservative incumbent, Ken Willard, held on to his seat, but another, Connie Morris, was losing to a pro-evolution candidate.

Morris' race in western Kansas was the most closely watched. The former teacher has described evolution as "an age-old fairy tale" and "a nice bedtime story" unsupported by science.

link

Good to see a defeat against a state curriculum that would violate the first amendment.

 

[verte76]

I'm glad the evolutionists are making a comeback. Creationism is not something they should teach in the schools, that's for church.

 

[Liesje]

This issue seems like such a waste of time. Who cares of evolution theory is flawed? Religion or not, no human being can ever really have a definite answer. If ID is so important to these Republicans, they can start an ID Bible study group at their church or something.

I still find it ironic that this is actually an issue for public schools. Each of the private schools I went to taught evolution theory, as well as three or four other theories of creation. My highschool bio teacher was so into evolution, you'd think he was a collegue of Darwin's. What's that? Christians DO believe in evolution and ARE open to learning about it?

 

[80sU2isBest]

You know what they oughtta do to solve this whole mess?

Just tell the kids this:

"It is now time to study the Origins Of Life. There is plenty of information about this subject on the internet, the library, and other places. If you are curious about the origins of life, please do your own research and believe what you think is most correct. Now, on to the next subject..."

 

[coemgen]

I live in the same city as John Bacon. He's a boob.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm surprised we would look at any educational matter using a "who cares if it is flawed" standard. Any challenge to evolution is considered by many to be a religious act - which is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Liesje]

I'm surprised we would look at any educational matter using a "who cares if it is flawed" standard.

Well, we learn about plenty of flawed theories through the school years: people who thought the earth was flat, people who thought the solar system revolved around the earth, etc....any number of "flawed" scientific theories.. The point is not that you're going to memorize the theory and get behing it 100%, it demonstrates the human thought process and gives you a starting point for further thought and research. I can't say whether evolution is flawed or not because I'm not a scientist and I haven't studied science in years. If some Republican politician decides (based on his political agenda) that a scientific theory is inherently flawed, I don't think school curriculum needs to instantly change.

 

[nbcrusader]

This is not an either/or proposition.

History shows us how scientific theories are changed, redefined or simply tossed out. It is an end result of continued examination and discussion.

For political reasons, there is a strong desire to end all discussion.

 

[verte76]

All scientific theories are flawed. Copernicus was right in contending that the earth went around the sun and not vice versa, but he also thought the planets made perfect circles around the sun. This was wrong, of course, they're elliptical. Evolution may be a flawed theory but it's the strongest one out there right now. ID belongs in church.

 

[Irvine511]

This is not an either/or proposition.

History shows us how scientific theories are changed, redefined or simply tossed out. It is an end result of continued examination and discussion.

For political reasons, there is a strong desire to end all discussion.

do you really think that Creationism/ID is an effective means of changing, redefining, or tossing out something as fundamental to biology as evolution?

would you champion the same "challenges" to other theories as fundamental to other areas of science such as plate tectonics?

or is it the hysterical jumping up and down and pointing and screaming "theory! just a theory!" ONLY when it comes to evolution the true political act? is it also a political act to view the challenging of a non-scientific challenge to science as "silencing"?

 

[Liesje]

History shows us how scientific theories are changed, redefined or simply tossed out. It is an end result of continued examination and discussion.

Exactly! So why are these politicians arguing that evolution theory be treated like a bedtime story simply because it may or may not be flawed?

 

[nbcrusader]

I think many are trying to get a discussion to occur in the classroom. We've seen repeated statements (in our FYM history on this subject) that the discussion should not even occur.

 

[Muggsy]

I think many are trying to get a discussion to occur in the classroom. We've seen repeated statements (in our FYM history on this subject) that the discussion should not even occur.

I think that the discussion is valid, but giving to each thing its proper place. I attended a catholic school runned by nuns . and that discussion about the theories of the origin of the universe was present there, they taught us about the creationism and the evolution theory and they explain to us that the "Genesis" is a story that show how God is behind our existence and how He took His time ("His notion of Time is different from ours") to made all the things appear and grow. that story is a metaphore, the people who wrote it didn't have the intention to give us a "scientific" point of view, but they had the intuition of a benevolent and allmighty being behind their world, and that's (at least for me) the truth that they were trying to comunicate.

I think that both theories can be told to the students, but in the right place. The Evolution theory is science, because it has been elaborated from the scientific method, and the creationism would be better in philophy or Religion, because is an spiritual view of the world. Giving some time to comfront and discuss those theories will stimulate the inteligence of the students and they will be able to elaborate their own (and respetable) conclusions.

Besides, I think it is not right to considerate school as a place to teach the absolute TRUTH (because in the first place there aren't absolute truths) but a place to construct our intelligence, to theach kids to question their reality and the things that we the adults try to impose as the Truth.

 

[Irvine511]

I think many are trying to get a discussion to occur in the classroom. We've seen repeated statements (in our FYM history on this subject) that the discussion should not even occur.

would you discuss astrology in an astronomy class?

 

[BVS]

You know what they oughtta do to solve this whole mess?

Just tell the kids this:

"It is now time to study the Origins Of Life. There is plenty of information about this subject on the internet, the library, and other places. If you are curious about the origins of life, please do your own research and believe what you think is most correct. Now, on to the next subject..."

With this line of thinking no one would ever learn anything. What if you did this with slavery, holocaust, or health?

 

[Liesje]

I think many are trying to get a discussion to occur in the classroom. We've seen repeated statements (in our FYM history on this subject) that the discussion should not even occur.

If the quality of the education is really what these politicians are after, then I support it. Like I said before, I went to schools that presented four very different theories of creation. We studied each with equal weight and had several class discussions.

Honestly I don't understand why the public schools are so against doing this. Presenting ID as a possibility is not the same as exclusively teaching ID or arguing it has greater weight than more scientific theories. Plenty of theories found in a wide range of subjects are based on or spawned off of considering things from a religious point of view (not exclusively Christian) and these ideas are studied. I've never understood why creation is a bigger deal than anything else.

If ID is just too religious to even mention, then fine, get rid of it altogether. What bugged me about the article in this thread is that it sounded like these politicians are arguing in favor of presenting ID not on its own merrits, but by trying to make evolution look like a theory not worth considering so all we're left with is ID. Not cool.

 

[80sU2isBest]

With this line of thinking no one would ever learn anything. What if you did this with slavery, holocaust, or health?

It's silly to compare those issues to evolution. Slavery happened. The holocaust happened. We do not know that macroevolution of the human being happened (although that doesn't stop some people from teaching it as fact instead of theory).

My idea provides resolution to an argument that will otherwise never cease, simply by providing no resolution and letting the student come up with his own resolution. The reason the argument will never cease is because evolutionists won't even entertain the idea of teaching alternative theories, even though most creationists are only demanding equal time.

 

[BVS]

It's silly to compare those issues to evolution. Slavery happened. The holocaust happened. We do not know that macroevolution of the human being happened (although that doesn't stop some people from teaching it as fact instead of theory).

Slavery did exist, but the repercussions and how evil it was is still in question by many. And the holocaust, you still have many who deny...

My idea provides resolution to an argument that will otherwise never cease, simply by providing no resolution and letting the student come up with his own resolution. The reason the argument will never cease is because evolutionists won't even entertain the idea of teaching alternative theories, even though most creationists are only demanding equal time. [/B][/QUOTE]

What I find funny about this statement is that there's enough evidence in this world to teach evolution as a theory, evidence that so many Biblical literalist just ignore. Yet how do you teach creation, what evidence do you have? The Bible, sorry pal not enough to teach in an academic setting.

You can't demand equal time with something that has SOME tangible evidence to something that is pure faith.

 

[Liesje]

What I find funny about this statement is that there's enough evidence in this world to teach evolution as a theory, evidence that so many Biblical literalist just ignore.

Especially the part in Genesis where there are two Hebrew words used for "creation": one always refers to God as the creator and the other always refers to life itself evolving because of it's own nature to do so ("evolution").

 

[BVS]

Especially the part in Genesis where there are two Hebrew words used for "creation": one always refers to God as the creator and the other always refers to life itself evolving because of it's own nature to do so ("evolution").

We don't like to go the original source in here...

 

[anitram]

If you want to have a "discussion" in the classroom, feel free to have it in philosophy class, or alternately, a religious studies class.

Biology is for quantifiable science, not religious nonsense. Period.

 

[Liesje]

We don't like to go the original source in here...

Yeah, go figure!

 

[Irvine511]

Biology is for quantifiable science, not religious nonsense. Period.

whatever.

you just want to silence the astrologists. why are you so threatened by alternative viewpoints?

 

[80sU2isBest]

We don't like to go the original source in here...

BVS,
Did you go to the original source yourself for the "2 meanings of creation" or are you just putting your trust in LivLuv being correct?

In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word for creation is BARAH and means "to create something from nothing."

Where is this other meaning?

 

[Bono'sTyee]

I don't think either side will ever be happy. The pro-evolution folks will be angry at the thought of creation being taught and the pro-creation folks will be upset that evolution is being taught. And if you get rid of one but not the other than there's a problem...

 

[Irvine511]

I don't think either side will ever be happy. The pro-evolution folks will be angry at the thought of creation being taught and the pro-creation folks will be upset that evolution is being taught. And if you get rid of one but not the other than there's a problem...

but doesn't this set up a false equivocation between the two?

they are not equally worthy subjects in the eyes of science, and even the presentation of creationism/ID as a possible alternative to evolution gives creationism/ID a patena of academic credibility that it does not deserve.

 

[nbcrusader]

Honestly I don't understand why the public schools are so against doing this. Presenting ID as a possibility is not the same as exclusively teaching ID or arguing it has greater weight than more scientific theories. Plenty of theories found in a wide range of subjects are based on or spawned off of considering things from a religious point of view (not exclusively Christian) and these ideas are studied. I've never understood why creation is a bigger deal than anything else.

I agree with you here.

As you can tell from the instant discussion, questioning evolution is labeled as an endorsement of ID.

 

[Liesje]

I agree with you here.

As you can tell from the instant discussion, questioning evolution is labeled as an endorsement of ID.

...which is unfair, I agree. Also unfair = assuming that accepting evolution excludes genuine belief in ID.

 

[HeartlandGirl]

I'm a teacher, so maybe I can shed some light on why many of us are so resistant to having ID taught in science classes.

Until intelligent design is thoroughly investigated in a structured and scientific manner like evolution, it isn't science, and simply, therefore, should not be taught in a science class. The scientific evidence supporting evolution so far overwhelms any scientific evidence of ID that it's ridiculous to consider them deserving of equal time in a SCIENCE class. My job as a teacher is to give my students the best available information and evidence. Anyone who has studied evolution in depth realizes that the evidence for it is overwhelming. Until ID can present a legitimate challenge to evolution based on scientific evidence, it doesn't need to be in the classroom.

And for those who say we might as well not teach anything about it and just tell people to research it for themselves and make up their own minds...that's ridiculous. That's like telling a student, "There are a lot of translations of this Latin poem on the Internet, so go find one and teach yourself some Latin." There is no substitution for learning in the classroom under the guidance of a more expert mentor.

Parents are, of course, advised to monitor what their children are learning in school, and if they want to, they can supplement those teachings with their own religious context--a religious context that does not need to be, and should not be, presented as science in public, non-religious schools.

 

[u2popmofo]

I personally attended and graduated from a private religious university. Our school taught evolution in all of it's scienced based curriculum, as the basic idea of evolution does not really oppose anything in Christianity. The origin of man and evolution are unfortunately frequently mistaken and confused by most conservatives/religion-based groups.

While I think intelligent design should not be taught in schools, I also think that teachers should not teach evolution as a way to "disprove the Bible or Christianity" as somehow unfairly seems to be more acceptable in a class room setting. As intelligent design can not (presently at least) be proven scientifically, evolution can also not spiritually or scientifically (presently at least) disprove anything taught in the Bible or religion. Both of these ideas are separate in my opinion, and I have problems with one form of "teaching" to somehow be acceptable while the other is not.