http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_ ... ion_debate



"DOGMA"? the only dogma is that these clowns think they're doing the right thing.

I thought this was going to be a Futurama thread.

i wish. then it would be a lot funnier.

Then we'd just be able to blame everything on Zoidberg.

remind me why i am an evolutionary biologist, again? sometimes i think i should just quit and brew beer.


edit: in reference to the aforementioned kansans

you can continue to be, just stay far away from kansas. not like you had any plans to go there anyway.

Can't we do that anyway?

well how does texas feel about you being an evolutionary biologist? Well, texas minus the bush family?

Are you still thinking about that wedding?

BTW, Pat still hasn't invited me

Why the hell are you an evolutionary biologist? Maybe you should quit and brew beer in Kansas.

evolutionary beer

No. Cain't use that thar word in Kansas.

Intelligently brewed beer.

I was hoping this too, like it was getting picked up again or something.

i dont see a huge problem just mentioning this theory in school but it shouldn't get a whole lot of coverage.

well that can only be good.

To all of those who have pre-judged us all here in Kansas... I, a public school teacher in the state of Kansas spent the entire day discussing with my students the philosophical, theological, political and economic ramifications of today’s decision. More than you did I'd wager. These rather insightful and rather open-minded 15 and 16 year old students actually weighed the pros and cons of this decision and a vast majority are angered and frustrated that a small group of ideologues have taken their education and their future admissions into college’s hostage.

Many in my classroom, community and state are deeply religious and some are not totally ready to sacrifice faith for science, but a great many on all sides of the argument are deeply troubled by the inability of most of the adults here and those out there nationwide to work towards a rational, logical compromise - to actually acknowledge the other side may have some valid points that your side cannot easily dismiss. "I do not have all the answers," said one worried girl today, "but I'm ready to acknowledge my open mind on these issues, and that is sure a lot more than most people I've encountered."

For all of you ready to call me and mine backward and inbred - have you looked at our states standardized test scores? Have you seen how consistently we Kansans kick the crap out of quite a few of you coasters out there? We may be hayseeds and rural bumpkins, but we are not as illiterate and under-performing educationally as a lot of the rest of the nation happens to be. In fact we typically score quite well, have numerous National Merit Finalists and Semi-finalists, score pretty decent on the SAT, ACT, and numerous Advanced Placement tests.

We are not perfect, we do not have all the answers, and quite frankly with all the zealots and assholes out there I'm frightened it'll be a long time until we do sort it out, but know this... the New, revised and reviled standards do not go into effect until 2007. Most of the six zealots who pushed this agenda are up for re-election, and like the last time they tried this stunt, WILL BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE! in 2006. Level heads will prevail, the ship will be righted. We Kansans do not stand for political grandstanding, and we Kansas public school teachers will not start holding Christian Dogma classes.

If nothing else, this controversy has brought about – at least in our classrooms in Kansas, discourse. We, unlike many, have tried to see all sides of the issue and have tried to be respectful of both science and faith, without caving to those pricks leading their Pollyanna-ish putsch. A great many of us Kansans – even the religiously conservative ones do not see any educational value in what these six have done – a good science teacher acknowledges that Evolution is somewhat speculative and still theoretical – essentially what the new standards require.

I purposefully put off beginning the unit on the Scientific Revolution until today because I knew I could use the controversy to spark real, genuine discourse, to begin a Socratic dialogue on the importance of science in our society over the last 400 years. On my chalkboard today was one quote, from Alexander Pope, a rather well respected English poet. It reads...
"Nature and Nature's Laws lay hid in night. God said let Newton be! And all was light."
Most of my students got the quote immediately and too expressed their appreciation for the sciences and for the scientific method for a rather final arbiter of empirical truths. So what did you all talk about today?

Shit's still pretty funny though. You guys should build me an Ark.

I don't understand the commonly held belief that evolution is fact. After all the years that evolution has been discussed, as far as I knew, it has remained a theory, quite absent of undisputable facts. There are just as many loose ends in the evolutionary theory, it seems, as in the Christian religion. Now, why is it that the mention of creationism(as a theory) is all of a sudden put into the rhetoric of dogma and conservativism?

And for those of you who are teachers, I would hope that one of your main goals as a teacher is not to produce mindless drones comparable to those in a Brave New World, but rather to increase the critical thinking capabilities of the students. If we want to have an open-minded society filled with open-minded adults, then we should allow each and every individual student look at ALL theories in existance about the origin of the universe and let them decide. Teach them to think critically and seek truth. Do not force feed them one side of the story. And believe me, you have to have just as much faith in the theory of evolution as you do to be a professor of six-day creationism. Just because you mention that one particular theory requires a faith in God or an "Intelligent Design" in no way means you are requiring students to have that necessary faith.

I don't understand, really, what everyone is so afraid of. I do believe that the converse is true as well. For instance, if a student goes to a private christian/religious high school or college, they should not just be force-fed creationism, especially when that means the only mention of evolution is in terms of "proving it wrong". It doesn't make sense that something that is not completely verifiable by indisputable factual data(the theory of evolution in this context) can be "proven" wrong -- it hasn't even been "proven" right.

I would prefer to send my child to a school that allows them to analyze all aspects of all things and allow them to recognize truth based on their own fine-tuned critical thinking skills as opposed to the desire of a select group of people perpetuating their beliefs. Trust me, I know it is impossible to be completely objective in anything. There is always rhetoric and personal agenda. However, as a teacher, much like a historian, I believe their job is to present all options, all views, and all oppositions to "commonly held beliefs" so that they can make up their own mind. By hindering the adolescent and young adult population from doing so, one is communicating that children and those being educated are incapable of coming to the correct and truthful answer. How can you have discussion if you do not allow anything other than one belief to be stated.

Pluralism is the solution here, if you ask me. Everyone has a say, but one has to accept the fact that there is one answer. Once relativism slips in, everything becomes a slippery slope.

So does that mean that we should teach these bright young minds about reincarnation as a science "theory"? Or what about teaching them that all dead souls go up to heaven? These are all "scientific theories"right? Or with a little modification in language or positioning can be made into a plausable theory.

Yeah, let's open the floodgates to ALL "theories" that have enough backing by a few zealots. That wil be good for our youngsters.

Critical thinking is fine but that is NOT what is being promoted in our schools. "standardized" tests do NOT promote critical thinking, but in fact, the opposite.
A standardized test has a right and wrong answer only. No critical thinking is allowed and no opportunity is given to to provide an answer other than those deemed to be right or wrong.

I don't have a problem with discussing creationism. even in schools. but to do so within the context of SCIENCE, I feel is wrong. Teach it in history, philosphy, whatever. But it is NOT a science. By doing so you risk confusing our kids about what science really is. Which in the end is probably what they are after anyway.

I agree with this. However, I was not attempting to imply that creationism was a science. However, I think that evolution belongs in the philosophy/history arena as well. I do not believe that evolution is solely scientific whereas creationism is solely religious. There is science in creationism just as there is "religion" in evolution.

I understand your remark about teaching reincarnation and all that jazz...however, the debate is not evolution vs. reincarnation. The debate is evolution vs. creation. all in all, both theories involve discussing the origin of life....so the line between philosophy and science is significantly blurred.

And in this country, despite your greatest hopes, there are more than "a few zealots" that adhere to creationism.

i was a kansas public school student the last time they pulled this, and it had basically no impact whatsoever. the state science standards are not the final arbiter of what gets taught in the classroom--they just speak to what the students are tested over on state assessments. i took biology a couple of years before they removed evolution from the standards the first time around (this time they didn't, they just added intelligent design) and our teacher briefly discussed creationism. she mentioned that some people believed it, many managed to reconcile the two beliefs, and then she moved on to the science. while i am completely against intelligent design being taught as scientific theory, i do think it's appropriate for science teachers to discuss the debates about scientific theory--not just their validity, but the moral, ethical, and even religious issues they implicate. most science teachers will mention the debates surrounding human cloning, for instance, and that has as much to do with religion as evolution. the net impact of this change in the standards will be zero--nothing was stopping teachers from talking about intelligent design before, nothing is requiring them to teach it now. the only thing that changes is we get way more shit from all you high-fallutin' blue staters, what with yer fancy shoes and yer hybrid cars and yer activist judge jew homosexual conspiracy...

People misunderstand the word theory

Scientific Theory =/=' just a theory' (in the common use of the word)

quoting my wife: (who got REALLY PISSED OFF AT THIS Cliche Predjudice of Kansans)

Oh, gosh, Chris has been trying to type for me, but maybe (please be gentle, I am a newbie to this forum) am compelled to pipe up.
I was raised in Kansas during the best and most formative years of my life, educated in Manhattan KS public schools: from 4th to HS graduation (ahem a 4.0) and then continued on to Tulane and TADA now chef of this mucho fun mucho crazy restaurant. I was blessed, in my opinion, because my father taught at KState and the nature of college towns is much more liberal (mostly). Here's the rub, I loved growing up in Kansas where small town values (i.e. don't lock your door at night and your neighbors watch out for you as a kid...) were COOL. I found Kansas to be a great place to grow up. I also had two parents who were educators.

BUT, I KNOW every town, every state and every country can be challenging and constricting and I believe that it is OUR responsibility to define who we are and who we want to be. Kansas seems to me, to be an easy target, and a place and time and issue which should be targeted.

Now, I have to go mop the floor. And maybe make some tiramisu parfaits or wash my dog. My choice!


OK, that's what Jen had to say...now back to regularly scheduled progamming.

I don't want to single out Kansas for simplistic ridicule - as it has been stated, there are many ways in which the education system in KS is ahead of other states. Rather, I would bemoan the ways in which the "culture wars" are negatively affecting education in the US. ID and creation "science" doesn't seem to me to be appropriate for science classrooms, as it fails to adhere to Popperian methodology (point out for me a testable hypothesis that ID will provide). The ID "debate" seems to me to be eminently appropriate for spawning discussion, particularly in philosophy or sociology classes. But to rewrite the definition of science?!? I really think that it does not do justice to the students.

I come from a fundamentalist Christian family, and my parents tell their congregation that I am an "ecologist," rather than that I am a student of evolution. However, I know plenty of evolutionary biologists who are deeply religious but have nothing but scorn for this attack on critical rationalism - there's the Orthodox Jew upstairs, there's the Catholic theoretician down the hall . . . while Gould's idea of nonoverlapping magisteria has substantial flaws, there is a lot to be said for the idea that science and faaith address different things and should leave each other alone. Despite this conciliatory attitude, I don't really think that all religious views are useful, and those that seek to destroy and dominate and manipulate are particularly pernicious, and that is what we are seeing here.

What Chuck D and onebrownjeff said.

Also, what happens when a New Age teacher in Kansas exposes What the Bleep... concepts to Christian kids claiming that it falls under ID?