TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Kansas "educators" doubts evolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kansas "educators" doubts evolution

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9967813/

Revisiting a topic that exposed Kansas to nationwide ridicule six years ago, the state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The board’s 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent-design advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that some aspects of the universe are so complex that their development must have been directed by an superintelligent agent.
post #2 of 29
Wasn't Kansas the state involved in the Scopes trial?
post #3 of 29
If I remember correctly, Dayton, Tennessee was the site of the Scopes trial.



Excuse me while I whip out my soapbox.

One of the problems is a lack of understanding by the general public of the scientific definition of "theory." In science, a theory is something that has been researched, tested, and pretty well proven. In the vernacular, "theory" means a hunch or idea that hasn't been proven. A scientist would call this a hypothosis.
Before scientists elevate a hypothosis to "theory" status, they must first test it. The hypothoses that stand up to rigorous scientific testing then become theories. A theory is testable and provable (or disprovable) by scientific method.

Why are some scientific theories are accepted by the religious establishment while some are not? Evolution is one of the soundest theories in science. There is plenty of evidence for it. Why is it so hard to look at the complexity of life and the evidence for where it evolved from, and deny all that hard, testable evidence?
"Intelligent design" has no place in science class. It is not a scientific theory. It is untestable and unprovable. It is nothing more than creationism in sheep's clothing. It will teach children that science is not to be trusted, that scientists don't have a clue...it will set our nation's progress in science back YEARS.
Oh, and this bunk about "teaching the controversy" is just that...bunk. There is no controversy in the scientific community. The controversy has been created (no pun intended) by religious fundamentalists. How will these "ID" proponents answer when asked who they think the "designer" is? Will they say it was extra-terrestrials? Will they say it was Brahma? Allah? The ancestors? Doubt it. They will refer to the Judeo-Christian version.

For anyone interested, this website is an excellent resource to learn about evolution and what the "ID" and "creation science" movements try to pass off as science.
Talkorigins.org
post #4 of 29
I am a biology student. I am also a God-believer. I'm sorry but what you state about letting in creationism into the schools will NOT set back science. It's just another theory and if one is allowed, the other should be too IMO. LIke me, if someone doesn't like what is taught - they take what they like or makes sense and go with that and ignore the rest.
post #5 of 29
(the kitten in your siggy is SOOO cute!!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffysimba
It's just another theory and if one is allowed, the other should be too IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe'n'MissKitty
"Intelligent design" is not a scientific theory. It is untestable and unprovable.

Science does not seek to disprove, discourage or repress religion. It seeks only to explain the natural world through physical evidence.
post #6 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffysimba
I am a biology student. I am also a God-believer. I'm sorry but what you state about letting in creationism into the schools will NOT set back science. It's just another theory and if one is allowed, the other should be too IMO. LIke me, if someone doesn't like what is taught - they take what they like or makes sense and go with that and ignore the rest.
The difference is, as Zoe'n'MissKitty pointed out, that one is a theory and is testable by science, and the other is not. Creationism is a philosophy, not a science. Philosophy should not be taught in a science class any more than numerology should be taught in mathematics or astrology in astronomy. If there is a desire to discuss philosophies about the origin of life, then include a separate course on philosophy and/or world religions. I am a biologist and I also believe in God, but I quite firmly oppose including such philosphy, including the Christian religion I follow, into a science classroom.
post #7 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obi
The difference is, as Zoe'n'MissKitty pointed out, that one is a theory and is testable by science, and the other is not. Creationism is a philosophy, not a science. Philosophy should not be taught in a science class any more than numerology should be taught in mathematics or astrology in astronomy. If there is a desire to discuss philosophies about the origin of life, then include a separate course on philosophy and/or world religions. I am a biologist and I also believe in God, but I quite firmly oppose including such philosphy, including the Christian religion I follow, into a science classroom.

If Christian theology is taught in science, what about various Pagan beliefs, Buddhism, Muslim, Hindu? Should their Theology be taught also about their version of creation? Creationism should never ever be taught in a public school. To me to teach that in state and federally funded school crosses the line of church and state plain and simple. This is one subject as a science buff that I will stand firm. Religious beliefs should be taught somewhere else besides a publicly funded school
post #8 of 29
Thread Starter 
Let me explain in a slightly different manner.

1) Proper Class
Intelligent Design / Creationism does not belong in a Science class much in the same way that History does not belong in a Science class. If one seeks to teach it then at best it should be included in a class relating to a comparative study of religion.

2) Alternative: Why not Science?
Intelligent Design is NOT an alternative science theory because it adds nothing to science although it may add to study of religion. This is because the answer it provides does not really solve or explain the issue.

Let us take an analogy from the CatSite. When someone comes to ask about why do their cats scratch up the furniture or why feeding them cow's milk is dangerous, the answer provided is not "It is because God so design it." From a religious perspective that may be absolutely correct but from a science or a simple practical perspective, such a reply offers no solution or explaination to the problem.

3) Holes of Attraction
Evolution has been criticised because there are gaps that cannot be explained. Such a problem actually occurs for gravity too. But more importantly, the attraction to Science is the lure of discovery, which obviously suggests that there is so much more we do not know and seek to discover. Intelligent Design however does not operate in such a way but rather claims that everything that we do not know at this moment must thus be attributed to God.

Conclusion:
If the basis of Intelligent Design is that life is so complicated that there must be some supreme being in charge then the question to ask is who then created the supreme being who must be as or more complicated than life.
post #9 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe'n'MissKitty
"Intelligent design" has no place in science class. It is not a scientific theory. It is untestable and unprovable. It is nothing more than creationism in sheep's clothing. It will teach children that science is not to be trusted, that scientists don't have a clue...it will set our nation's progress in science back YEARS.
Talkorigins.org
By this definition you are absolutely correct. ID is not a science.

However,
Evolution vs ID is one of the last foot holds that people who follow a religion have to keep some faith and expose young people to a higher morality.

If not science class…where? I agree that it is not a science, but lawyers and people who constantly bash “religious fundamentalists†have taken God out of every aspect of our life. If im not mistaken, the whole reason any of our forefathers came here is so that we may be able to worship how we choose without prosecution.
You cannot say prayers in class, you cannot say prayers at sporting events, the religious freedom taught about forefathers is out of history class, there is no room for God and church in English, PE or foreign language; you cannot have a public school with a religion class or even a religion club. It has been litigated and legally removed from all corners of our life. Once where there was freedom to worship, now we are teaching our children that there is no God and he/she has no place in our lifes.
God is being taken out of the pledge of allegiance, or taking the pledge out all together.
I am all for respecting peoples rights to independent thought regarding religion. But it has become politically correct to bash people who have faith in a higher power.
I do not understand for the life of me, why anyone would not want to have their kids exposed to religion and its many facets so that they may make their own decisions. Is it so horrible to have a sense of moral accountability to a higher power? Are the 10 commandments or the golden rule that difficult to follow that we do not want our kids to learn about them?

Evolution teaches about survival of the fittest. It informs our children that only the strong survive, that we are only automatons of our genes and nothing more. We are nothing beyond the sum of our collective DNA without purpose, hope or design. There is no room in evolution to account for morality, emotions, or even our soul(ID, conscience, etc)
It makes no sense. I agree with most people positions on extreme religious views, No one should be forced to accommodate another persons view of anything.
But this is exactly is what is happening to people who worship. People who want a God in their life are being told that they can have him, but only in the privacy of their homes.
However we are being forced to accept that Homosexuality is ok. Our children are being taught this at school. There are even classes to inform young grade school children in public schools about the homosexual lifestyle and choice. You cannot teach about God, monogamous relations, or birth control. But it is acceptable to teach about Adam and Steve not Adam and Eve.
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0

If Christian theology is taught in science, what about various Pagan beliefs, Buddhism, Muslim, Hindu? Should their Theology be taught also about their version of creation? Creationism should never ever be taught in a public school. To me to teach that in state and federally funded school crosses the line of church and state plain and simple. This is one subject as a science buff that I will stand firm. Religious beliefs should be taught somewhere else besides a publicly funded school
ID is not specifically a Christian theology.

"Creationism should never ever be taught in a public school. To me to teach that in state and federally funded school crosses the line of church and state plain and simple."

Besides all the media against it, schools funded by states or private institutions are not proteced from separation of church/state under the consititution. Freedom of religon and oppresive views are. The separation of church and state in the constitution was intended to protect the people from being subjected to any one religion as dictated by the government. such as why our forefathers fled from europe. It is being used as a cop out for people with anti-religous views to impress their will by taking advantage of the "letter of the law" vs the "spirit of the law."

Here is a thought for you, whos ideals are protecting anyway? your own self obtained views by insight and research or that being projected by the media, litigators and self serving groups trying to protect us from the demons known as religion?


If religion in general of all aspects were tought in school, would that be a bad thing? We are talking educating here not preaching. THere is a difference.

If you tought about Buddhism, Muslim, Hindu, Christian and its many facets, we all would have a better understanding of the world we live in and the people who fill it. Like it or not, those 4 faiths far excede any number of people trying to oppress their views. And again we are talking about educating children not preaching to them.
post #11 of 29
It's fascinating and telling to me that this discussion about what is being taught in a science class is once again turning into a "but there are no prayers in our school and homosexuality is rampant" discussion about religion. Nevermind that I don't agree, we are not talking about any of those other things, we are talking about science.

I have never heard any scientific proof for intelligent design. Ever.

I have ONLY heard people trying to tear down evolutionary theory.

Attempting to disprove evolution does not make intelligent design valid.

I think Obi put it best:

Quote:
The difference is, as Zoe'n'MissKitty pointed out, that one is a theory and is testable by science, and the other is not. Creationism is a philosophy, not a science. Philosophy should not be taught in a science class any more than numerology should be taught in mathematics or astrology in astronomy. If there is a desire to discuss philosophies about the origin of life, then include a separate course on philosophy and/or world religions. I am a biologist and I also believe in God, but I quite firmly oppose including such philosphy, including the Christian religion I follow, into a science classroom.
Although I found what Bumpy had to say interesting as well:

Quote:
Let us take an analogy from the CatSite. When someone comes to ask about why do their cats scratch up the furniture or why feeding them cow's milk is dangerous, the answer provided is not "It is because God so design it." From a religious perspective that may be absolutely correct but from a science or a simple practical perspective, such a reply offers no solution or explaination to the problem.
And I've yet to hear anyone disprove those ideas.
post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatrawfish
It's fascinating and telling to me that this discussion about what is being taught in a science class is once again turning into a "but there are no prayers in our school and homosexuality is rampant" discussion about religion. Nevermind that I don't agree, we are not talking about any of those other things, we are talking about science.
it quickly becomes that way, as people wish to "fine line" the debate and stand on one side and pose the issue regarding ID not being science.

The black/white of this issue is that evolution is a scientific theory and ID is not a provable scientific theory due to the diety factor.

All the other points arise due to this issue is not black and white. These other "rampant" views have no place to rest but on this one issue of teaching ID. All other avenues have been closed.

If it is "telling" to you i hope that it is telling you that there are many people whos views are being apathetically oppressed under the guise of
Its not science and no church and state.

If you wish to make a more persoanal attack on me and take my statements to extremeism feel free to PM me.
post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffysimba
I am a biology student. I am also a God-believer. I'm sorry but what you state about letting in creationism into the schools will NOT set back science. It's just another theory and if one is allowed, the other should be too IMO. LIke me, if someone doesn't like what is taught - they take what they like or makes sense and go with that and ignore the rest.
You go girl. I love your kitty's pic BTW.

Evolution has holes in it also.

Nothing wrong with I.D.

Scientists have been wrong plenty.
I am not going to debate this. Same tired subject.
I think Kansas did good.
post #14 of 29
The religious persecution that the early colonists faced in their homelands was facilitated by official "state" religions. IMHO, religion is a private matter, and thus has no place in a public or "state" school, even through the back door in the guise of ID. If people want their children to learn theology, they can send them to parochial schools, Bible, Torah, etc., study classes which are offered by many religious groups, or simply see that they get relevant reading material and discuss it with them.
Germany teaches religion in its public schools, with the children divided into Protestant and Catholic groups, and those belonging to religious minorities shut out. More and more school districts are offering "ethics" classes as an alternative, and in most cases that is what the parents and pupils choose.
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middletown
All the other points arise due to this issue is not black and white. These other "rampant" views have no place to rest but on this one issue of teaching ID. All other avenues have been closed.

...

If you wish to make a more persoanal attack on me and take my statements to extremeism feel free to PM me.

I did not attack you personally, though I am sorry if you took it that way, I attacked your arguement as well as others.

And I still fail to see what homosexuality has to do with ID. And why ID has any bearing in a science class.
post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
Evolution has holes in it also.

Nothing wrong with I.D.

Scientists have been wrong plenty.
I am not going to debate this. Same tired subject.
I think Kansas did good.
1) While evolution may have "holes" in them and anyone can offer a proper or better solution however, ID does not offer a scientific solution at all. Or for a more light hearted situation relating to the teaching of Intelligent Falling to replace Gravity given its holes in the theory. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

2) Nothing wrong with ID ... in a religious class but it is plenty wrong in the science class.

3) Science has been wrong before but that is what gives it credibility, and attracts people to it. The chance to come up with a even better solution or reason. The problem is that ID is not that better solution which offers a better understanding.

4) It IS the same tired subject for last 100 years since the scope trial but yet somehow people still are unable to understand the basics of evolution.

In other development:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9973228/
Voters came down hard Tuesday on school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

Alternative theories if they are scientifically valid should be taught but if one is to teach any alternative such as ID there is nothing really to stop the teaching of the FSM too:
http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

Finally, will end off with the one of the main problem but not only problem with ID again:
Who created the Intelligent Being behind the Intelligent Design?
post #17 of 29
That is your opinion and I have mine. I think I am right and you think you are right. Quite the impasse.
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middletown
By this definition you are absolutely correct. ID is not a science.

However,
Evolution vs ID is one of the last foot holds that people who follow a religion have to keep some faith and expose young people to a higher morality.

If not science class…where? I agree that it is not a science, but lawyers and people who constantly bash “religious fundamentalists†have taken God out of every aspect of our life. If im not mistaken, the whole reason any of our forefathers came here is so that we may be able to worship how we choose without prosecution.
You cannot say prayers in class, you cannot say prayers at sporting events, the religious freedom taught about forefathers is out of history class, there is no room for God and church in English, PE or foreign language; you cannot have a public school with a religion class or even a religion club. It has been litigated and legally removed from all corners of our life. Once where there was freedom to worship, now we are teaching our children that there is no God and he/she has no place in our lifes.
God is being taken out of the pledge of allegiance, or taking the pledge out all together.
I am all for respecting peoples rights to independent thought regarding religion. But it has become politically correct to bash people who have faith in a higher power.
I do not understand for the life of me, why anyone would not want to have their kids exposed to religion and its many facets so that they may make their own decisions. Is it so horrible to have a sense of moral accountability to a higher power? Are the 10 commandments or the golden rule that difficult to follow that we do not want our kids to learn about them?

Evolution teaches about survival of the fittest. It informs our children that only the strong survive, that we are only automatons of our genes and nothing more. We are nothing beyond the sum of our collective DNA without purpose, hope or design. There is no room in evolution to account for morality, emotions, or even our soul(ID, conscience, etc)
It makes no sense. I agree with most people positions on extreme religious views, No one should be forced to accommodate another persons view of anything.
But this is exactly is what is happening to people who worship. People who want a God in their life are being told that they can have him, but only in the privacy of their homes.
However we are being forced to accept that Homosexuality is ok. Our children are being taught this at school. There are even classes to inform young grade school children in public schools about the homosexual lifestyle and choice. You cannot teach about God, monogamous relations, or birth control. But it is acceptable to teach about Adam and Steve not Adam and Eve.
I hear ya Middletown. I feel if people would expend even HALF the energy they expend trying to erase God from everthing on something worthwhile like erasing pedophiles from society our children might be safe one day.
post #19 of 29
Oh my, what a row!! It's so good to see us thinking and debating. Just remember everybody: Don't take it personally!!!! Nobody's making any personal attacks here. I was afraid of that at first, but I came to understand this.

I do think that ID may have a place in school, perhaps in a philosophy class or paired with the Big Bang theory. But it should be presented as just a possible cause of life. I DO NOT think that biblical teaching should be included as fact in any discussion of this matter.

There are many different theories as to how life ended up here, but there is no absolute TRUTH that we know of. I don't know if there would be any real discussion of ID in science class because it is just a belief, with no related studies or explanations of phenomenon.

For example: I think it's important to know about how certain processes occur in our bodies, such as digestion, how synapses or formed, how bodies function chemically. I am not interested in hearing "well, God made you this way." Maybe so, but I want to know exactly what is going on in me, in very concrete terms, since these mechanisms are known and have been observed and studied.

I am VERY VERY skeptical of people believing that the bible is absolute truth. I don't want that taught to my children in school. At least traditional science encourages questioning. I feel that the bible does not.
post #20 of 29
I believe in the Holy Bible as absolute truth.
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
I believe in the Holy Bible as absolute truth.

A lot of people do, and that is OK - there is a lot of good stuff in there. I just thinking learning involves a lot of questioning, testing, exprerimenting, etc. I'm not attacking the bible - holding on to any book as absolute truth is difficult for me. I want my children to be free and independent thinkers who decide what's best for them based on thier own exprerience and beliefs, as opposed to unquestioning believers of ANYTHING without seeing why those beliefs make sense in thier lives.

i guess you and I are pretty different in idealogy too, but I respect you fully.
No disrespect intended.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv
Evolution has holes in it also.

Yes, evolution has holes in it. However, these holes are in what could be best considered the "fine details" rather than the theory of evolution as a whole. There is much discussion on whether evolution occurs at a steady rate or whether it occurs in bursts. Anti-evolutionists have trumped up these very interesting scientific debates to make it seem as if scientists themselves can't agree on evolution. The fact is they *do* agree that evolution has occurred in the past, is occurring right now in our lifetimes, and will occur in the future. They are just ironing out the small details. But as many people have pointed out, because evolution is a *scientific* theory we can raise questions about it, study them and come to answers. ID, as a religious belief, cannot in any way be investigated in a scientific manner.
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatrawfish
I have never heard any scientific proof for intelligent design. Ever.
Interesting that you say this....I've never heard or seen proof that it has been DISproved.

AND they still can't find the "link" between man and beast but claim that there is one...it's not been proven but it's in the books as theory.
post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffysimba
Interesting that you say this....I've never heard or seen proof that it has been DISproved.

AND they still can't find the "link" between man and beast but claim that there is one...it's not been proven but it's in the books as theory.
Yeah, it's in there as a theory. What specific link are you looking for? A living creature that looks something between a beast and a person? No, you're right, we won't find that.

No one has disproved the FSM, as Bumpy pointed out earlier, so we may as well teach about him in science class as well:
http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

I have heard compelling disproofs of ID myself.
post #25 of 29
They won't find it but they BELIEVE they will find the "missing link".

I sure saw a LOT of FSM on that website...I guess they must exist too.
*snort*
*giggle giggle*
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluffysimba
Interesting that you say this....I've never heard or seen proof that it has been DISproved.

AND they still can't find the "link" between man and beast but claim that there is one...it's not been proven but it's in the books as theory.
You'll never disprove ID, the existence of the Christian god, or the FSM (yhaaarg) because they are all philosophies, not science. Which is why it shouldn't be in a science class! The FSM and any other god (made up for kicks or seriously believed in) are equally valid. You just have to decide what to believe in, because there is no way to provide any kind of testable, verifiable proof. That is, after all, why it is called FAITH. I have faith, but I don't want my faith, or anyone else's faith, placed into a science class.

The idea of the "missing link" is something that bugs me, because it isn't that simple. It seems to imply the following story: there was an ape-like creature, and then it changed into an intermediate between humans and the ape-like creature, and then there were humans. Of course, evolution works through small changes that acrue over time, so you won't find one "missing link", you'll find a whole series of homonids that all look slightly and progressively different from one another. It is impossible that every single last transitional form managed to become fossilized, but what we do have is compelling. There are excellent books devoted to the subject. I recommend you read at least one of them before forming an opinion on the subject, just like I tell people to read the Bible before they make remarks about the groundings of my faith. And I don't mean to sound testy about that (I think it may scan that way); I mean it wholeheartedly and goodnaturedly.
post #27 of 29
Thread Starter 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/

Pat Robertson warned them [voters who voted out Dover school board members for introducing ID] not to be surprised if disaster struck saying "if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God..."
post #28 of 29
Omg I would be so embrassed if I lived there!
post #29 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arg0

If Christian theology is taught in science, what about various Pagan beliefs, Buddhism, Muslim, Hindu? Should their Theology be taught also about their version of creation? Creationism should never ever be taught in a public school. To me to teach that in state and federally funded school crosses the line of church and state plain and simple. This is one subject as a science buff that I will stand firm. Religious beliefs should be taught somewhere else besides a publicly funded school
One of the most fascinating classes that I ever attending in school was an English class that taught from the all of the major religious books of faith - starting from earliest recorded languages to present day, regardless of whether that faith was still alive in the current world. We covered creation theory from dozens of perspectives.

My opposition to creation theory in schools today is that 1) it should be done as a philosphy or literature class and not a science class for all the reasons previously given, and 2) it should be balanced with the other theories prevalent in all aspects of society today. Placing the christian theory above all others is very arrogant.

Someone said earlier that our nation was founded to escape religious persecution. By forcing one perspective into classrooms is discrediting all of the other religious doctrines in our country. I wouldn't go so far as calling this prosecution, but how does persecution start? One step at a time.

And btw....if you haven't read it, the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" is a very interesting read.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Kansas "educators" doubts evolution