Whatever the state and local school boards decide to do about evolution, chances are that science teachers will ensure that kids still know what they need to know. But a Hays High School physics teacher made a great point in a recent Harris News Service story: “When supernatural causation is allowed to be an official scientific explanation, that opens up the door to anything and everything,” said Cheryl Shepherd-Adams. “If a student answers on a test, ‘God did it,’ and if that answer is marked wrong, what sort of consequences could we face?” More evidence that we don’t pay teachers enough.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
32 Comments
Dear Rhonda,
Why is it so hard for you to grasp the real issue? Darwin’s theory of natural selection is unprovable. Recent discoveries in molecular biology cast real scientific doubt on the evolution theory’s explanation of things.
That is all the state school board wishes to add to the standard. They don’t even mention intellegent design or (GOD FORBID!) religion.
Hank
That man evolved from a common ancestor of the monkey is proven every day in our own neighborhood, Hank. There is no “intelligent design” out here!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but do the standards state anywhere that a student can’t question scientific theories?
Or are we afraid that our children aren’t smart enough to use higher level thinking skills in what they are exposed to in school and in the world. I guess we’re only worried about the dumb ones, because far too many of the smart ones leave the state and never return. That brain drain is our loss.
Oh, and Hank, do you really want religion creeping more and more in an official way into public education? If the USA was predominantly Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, would you be as happy with those religious views being forwarded in the public schools? Believe me, so long as there are tests in schools, there will be prayer in schools. And there is nothing wrong or illegal with a student praying privately or with others if its by their own choosing, in fact isn’t that better? Which prayers do you think God pays more attention to, the louder , well-heard “official” ones, or the quiet, even silent, private prayer. Personally, clarity is better with the latter – too much noise and other extraneous things lead to lack of clarity.
I’m all for a strong religious community, but it needs to be promoted in places of worship and in the home, not in governmental entities.
Hank, nothing is provable to a closed mind. It is the nature of the scientific process to question everything that is known. That’s one reason Newtonian physics fails in light of quantum mechanics. It may be appropriate for simple, work-a-day applications, but as more is learned, the better the theory is evolved. Gravity cannot be ‘proved’. Electricity cannot be ‘proved’. And the structure of the atom cannot be ‘proved’. But, I’m content to bet my life and comfort on the current scientific theories relating to these.
The theory of evolution has undergone evolution, and is still evolving. Dinosaurs were once thought to be warm-blooded (Heresy! Or do you consider them fantasy?). Then the ‘Powers’ of the scientific community decided they had to be cold-blooded. Recent evidence seems to indicate they were warm-blooded again. Another hypothesis that is beginning to gain strength is punctuated equilibrium, which doesn’t nay-say Darwin, just enhances those ideas.
If your point is to question, by all means, let us question more. But if you posit that everything can be explained by the FM principle (Freaky Magic—God), then that is the only answer needed for anything. And when your boss asks why you spent 40 hours last week and accomplished nothing, you can use that as your response, too. See how far that will get you
Dear Mary,
I’m curious as to whom in our neighborhood you refer.
Don’t answer here! We’ll talk later.
Hank
Dear Jeff,
What does religion have to do with the school board’s proposed changes to the standards?
What in my original post led you to believe that I wished to defend ‘religion creeping’ in our public schools?
Any mainstream scientist that dares to question evolution, rather he is “Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist” is automatically labeled by the high priests of Darwinian orthodoxy as a bible thumping right wing Creationist.
I am willing to debate rather or not ‘religion creeping’ in our public schools is a good or bad thing, however, that has nothing to do with the discussion of the collapse of Darwinian evolution as a viable theory on which to build our scientific biolgy research.
Hank
Dear Bob,
Read my reply to Jeff.
Hank
Why are evolution proponents so afraid of any questioning of their precious theory?
This reminds me of the same fanatical defense of those who thought the world to be flat…
Lets teach our kids to think critically about evolution and stop indoctrinating them by teaching it as some irrefutable fact.
Evolutionists seem to be acting more dogmatic than religionists.
I love how evolutionists close ranks to forbid publication of anything questioning evolution in a major journal, then they boast that opposing viewpoints must be wrong because they’re never published in a major journal. Since this circular logic appeals so much to them, one must seriously wonder how logical their research is.
Anyway, evolution has explained some things, but it still has some unexplained holes in it. What’s wrong with admitting to them and moving forward? After all, if evolution is a done deal, all locked up and proved to the last jot and tittle, then we ought to clamor for an end to evolution research. If there’s nothing left to question in the vast field of evolution, then the government is wasting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars by giving it to evolutionists.
I say, stop their money!
The late Pope has declared that God and evolution theory do not conflict. As he was speaking as the Vicar of Christ, I must believe him, regardless what I think.
Hank, Nathan, and E.,
The changes proposed by the state school board only tangentially refer to evolution. The proposed changes to the standards reflect an attempt to change what will be taught as both the definition of science and the nature of scientific inquiry. Since the 17th century, the discipline of science has been defined as the process of determining the natural causes of natural phenomena. The changes proposed by the KSBE remove the word “natural” from the types of accepted scientific explanations, opening the door for supernatural causes. Though intelligent design does not inherently mention the Judeo-Christian god as the “designer”, ID advocates do acknowledge that the designer must be some supernatural entity, beyond the detection or control of humans. As such, ID, just like creationism, is outside the scope of accepted scientific explanations. The desire of those on the KSBE who are advocating revisions of the science standards see limiting science to “natural” explanations as an obstacle for introducing intelligent design (and creationism) into public school curricula. However, as the physics teacher in the article has correctly stated, if science is expanded to include supernatural explanations, then no judgments can be passed upon any answer a student might give. By definition, supernatural explanations cannot be scientifically tested nor refuted, so there would be no way a teacher could tell a student that his or her answer is incorrect according to accepted science. This is of course why science rejects supernatural explanations; though they may be correct, there is no way to test the validity of the explanation.
As far as evolution being a “testable” science, the theory of evolution is based upon several simple postulates and observations, each of which is testable either through experimentation, observation, or both. In essence, evolutionary theory (specifically evolution via natural selection) states the following: 1. Individuals within a population of organisms vary in genetic composition (testable and confirmed). 2. Individuals within these populations compete for limited resources (testable and confirmed). 3. Based upon genetic composition (genotype), some individuals within a population will be better suited to secure resources under particular environmental conditions (testable and confirmed). 4. The “best suited” or “fittest” individuals will likely leave more surviving offspring than other members of the population (testable and confirmed). 5. As a result of 1 – 4, over time the genetic composition of a population will change (tested and confirmed.) 6. As a result of the genotypic change which is a consequence of 1 -5, the phenotypic characteristics (the physical appearance of the organisms) will change over time (testable and confirmed). 7. When members of a population become genetically isolated (geographically, physically, or through other various mechanisms), genetic changes that accumulate in one population subset may not accumulate in the other, resulting in divergent genetic and phenotypic characteristics of each sub-population. This is the process of speciation (testable and confirmed.) The process of speciation by evolution is currently the only scientifically valid explanation of both the current and historical diversity of organisms. Creationism (in all of its myriad forms among the religions of the world) and ID, with their reliance on supernatural forces, do not qualify as science and should not be taught as science. Niether should the KSBE attempt to redefine the nature of science in order to accomodate supernatural ID and creationism in public school science classrooms.
Well said.
M. McDonald,
Thank you for the very good summary. I’ve been looking for one for a long time. It’s just too much work to pick through all the material on the intrernet to sort opinion from fact.
The debate has gotten so divergent that I havn’t found it very interesting. Indeed, it hardly matters to me whether the world was created in a big flash billions of years ago and then evolved to today’s state, or was created as we know it 6000 years ago. But I sure have a hard time with the latter. I figure God can make the world any way he wants, using all natural forces as he desires.
Roo also makes a good point. The Church of Rome is a widely respected religious authority, whether some admit it or not. Interesting that this organization — that once got into a dustup with Galileo over how to break the news about heliocentrism to the faithful — should embrace evolution so easily and completely. Catholic teaching avoids the pitfalls of literal bible interpretations and embraces the good of science. Why not? If God created the world then he also created science. Surely there is no harm in trying to observe and understand God’s world.
E. Ireland,
There is no conflict between Christians and science, the conflict is between Christians and evolution.
Having a problem with the science of evolution doesnt mean that we have a problem with science.
The problem with trying to say that evolution can be accepted in conjunction with the Bible is that you must dismiss what the scripture clearly says.
I dont care what any certain groups teaching is.
Lets look at what the scripture says.
Hank,
I believe the word you were looking for is “whether”, not “rather”. If you can’t use proper English grammar, why are you arguing about Science? Obviously our school systems are severly lacking in their ability to teach ANYTHING!!
I agree that ID is an attempt to bring religion back into the classroom. To believe ID, you must believe that something greater than nature caused the creation of the world and life as we know it. What happens to the members of our society who don’t believe in a “designer”? Is it really our place to tell them what they believe is wrong? When evolutionary theory was presented to me in school, it was presented as just that, a THEORY. As I had already been taught what a theory was, it enabled me to decide for myself whether or not I thought it was true. That is the option that we are at risk of taking away from our students. Please, let’s not make our children any more stupid than we already have!!!!
Steven, WHY must we look at what scripture says? The whole world doesn’t follow your scripture. Why must you expect everyone to bow to your beliefs? I grant you the freedom to believe what you want, but you want everyone to believe as you do. If I’m attending a private, parochial, church-based school, I would expect to be taught with my religion’s principles and beliefs in mind. In a public school, paid for by the taxpayers through the government, I want to see the separation of church and state, not God in the classroom. This country was NOT founded on Christianity, but on the freedom to worship (or not worship), yet the Christians of this country expect everyone to accept that they are right.
If you want your children to accept and believe Intelligent Design, please teach them at home. They’ll either decide that you’re one smart dad or the kook of the week. God (whether yours or anyone else’s) belongs in the church, the home, and the heart. Not in my schools.
Nathan, I’d rather not look what the scriptures say. I’d then tend to believe the world to be flat and the stars fixed in a thin metal dome over the disk of the earth (2nd Isaiah, or Isaiah 40:22 in KJV). I’m not real sure I agree with the Elijah/Jezabel story either. When I read it, it seemed that Jezabel’s people extended tolerance to Elijah’s religion and offered sanctuary. Elijah repaid by condemning Jezabel’s religion and began killing people. Ok, the part about stoning children for back-talking their parents I can kinda go along with.
Why is it that everytime someone wishes to try to attack Christianity they try to find the most obscure scripture from the Old Testament?
We are under a new covenant. If you cared to understand rather than attack Christianity you might know this.
The OT laws were for a different people in a different time before Christ came.
Lets look at your scripture though:
Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Where do you get that the earth is flat from that?
“2nd Isaiah”
What is that? You want to attack the scripture yet you dont even know what the books of the Bible are? Sigh…
Why is it that the scriptures of the Old Testament are to be disregarded, except when there’s one or two the Christians need to use to make a point?
Pick and choose, Nathan.
RD,
It is called context. Jesus came to fulfill the law. Certain scripture was written for a certain purpose or a certain people.
Why is that so hard to understand?
I guess it is easy to skip over the context when your only agenda is to attack Christianity.
RD..
YOUR schools? I thought the public schools belonged to everyone… even Christians!
If God in the classroom is so bad, then why has the Wichita State University “Metro Award” been presented to a Christian school 3 of the last 4 years?
Each year this award is given to the high school in that area that has the highest grade point average of the entering freshmen for the first semester. Seems to me these kids being taught the Bible are entering college very well prepared!
Kansassam,
The reason that those students have higher GPA’s is because those schools are college preparatory schools with a different curriculum in all classes, not just religion. And I should know, I went to one. I also attended a public school.
If you want your children to learn about religion in schools, send them to a religious school. The public school system is not the place for it. This is supposed to be the land of the free, where people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. So why is it that Kansas is so happy to forcefeed Christianity down the throats of everyone, whether that is what they believe or not???? And before you make any snide remarks, yes, I consider myself a good Christian, who attends church regularly, prays, and reads my bible. I do not, however, feel that it is my divine right to make everyone believe the same thing that I do. This is the problem that results from people not knowing the facts making decisions that should be based on fact. We are destroying our childrens future, and everyone else seems happy about it! I for one am not.
Nathan, the book of Isaiah, is not one book (at least originally), but written about 150 years apart. The 1st 39 chapers from about 700BCE, Hezekia was king of Judah. Chapter 40 was during the reign of Cyrus of Persia during the conquest of the Chaldean Empire.
Any passage taken alone can be considered obscure. How about Proverbs 8:27? It discusses placing a compass on the face of the depth. Try it with a shpere. And unless I’m mistaken, there’s a difference between a sphere and a circle–one being two dimensional. Maybe the God doesn’t know this? Also, how can you erect a tent over a sphere?
Genesis 6:13-14 says “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (you know, the other waters that came from the firmament causing Noah’s flood). This ‘fimament is a translation from Hebrew rakia–a thin, metal plate.
Out of curiosity, why do those who purport the bible to be the unerring inspiration of God always have the “except in this case” where it’s inconvenient to their beliefs. Further, they don’t allow any others the same ability.
Nathan, get over it. Man creates god in his own image. I much prefer my god over yours.
BTW, I DO have a firm belief in God, and consider myself a christian by deed, just not by name. That doesn’t mean I can’t see the significance of evolution. Nor does it mean that I should turn a blind eye to the promotion of one person’s religious views. Just please don’t try to sway my opinion using patently false data.
Nathan, a circle is two-dimensional shape, therefore can be considered “flat”. An orb is three-dimensional.
Also, if OT is no longer current, why the heated pressure to put the Ten Commandments in many places? Surely the two given personally by Jesus would be a better choice, to honor God more than anything, and to care for our neighbours as we do ourselves. I personally think this is even more relevant to other religions as well, rather than the ubiquitous John 3:16, which though sacred and form the foundation of our Christianity, are often found meaningless to others?
Bob,
The context of your saying 2nd Isaiah was not made with the knowledge of what you say now. As a Christian with knowledge of the Bible you should clearly know that there is only Isaiah.
On top of that, why are you as a Christian openly attacking the scripture the way you do?
Exactly where is it that you get your information on God from if not the Bible?
I suppose you are one of those kinds of “Christians” who merely like to call themselves one but dont really read the Bible or follow Gods word?
I dont see what you are talking about in Proverbs.
What god is it that you prefer over mine?
You say you are a Christian? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God who was sent to die for our sins.
What is it that you believe?
Roo,
I never said the OT is no longer current. I said what is in it needs to be takin in CONTEXT.
Actually, Nathan, it is quite apparent you are one of those “Christians” who don’t actually read the Bible. From my post it should be evident that I have read it, not just believed what others told me was in it.
contrary to your assertation of one Isaiah, it should be clear there were two, or the author was nearly 170 years old when he wrote after the 39th chapter. The Genesis reference and Proverbs, too, were just reinforcements of the Isaiah reference that you assert were taken out of context.
I get my concepts of God from the bible also, as well as anywhere it shows up. You must have missed the point of me being a christian (lower case intentional) by deed, not a Christian by name.
I tend to notice that those who are the most Christian (upper case) tend to be the least christian.
And I’m sure you won’t agree with me, but you’d be hard pressed to find someone to agree with your view. That is why Scriptures has no place in this discussion.
Wendy..
I’m curious what school you know of that force feeds Christianity to the students? My kids weren’t even allowed to pray in public school!
I agree that school is no place to learn religion… but I also believe that evolution has become just that! I believe that students need to know that it has never been proven that they evolved from pond scum. I really don’t think that is a “Christian” stance… it is an open minded view of the world…
Bob,
The point is not that Isaiah was/is two books. The point is that when you say “2nd Isaiah” no Bible is going to have a “2nd Isaiah.” That was my point. Which Bible version are you using which has a “2nd Isaiah” clearly marked as such?
What view of mine did I mention, which I would be hard pressed to find anyone to agree with me on?
If you get your “cencepts” of God from the Bible then why do you say scripture has no place in this discussion?
Bob,
As a christian by deed, would you not say that it would be the christian thing to do to defend the scriptures not reinforce the attacks on them?
Actually, as a christian, don’t you think I should point out blarney where it is found to keep other innocents from being duped?
Look, the Bible (here I use the proper noun) is a wonderful work. There is plenty in it to enrich your life through emulation. But, read with an open mind, there is an awful lot of bad in it, too. Any educated person reads EVERYTHING with a skeptical eye. But it also a work that has been poorly translated and re-translated, been added to or truncated to suit a particular sects views, and snippets used out of context to give an overall wrong impression of what particular passages mean. Consequently, I reiterate, the bible has NO value in this discussion.
(I just know I’m going to wake up one of these days with a cross burning on my front yard and all my dogs flailed by the religious righteous for these posts)
Bob,
Perhaps you could give some examples of all these translational errors, added parts, and snippets used?
What is the “awful amount of bad” you are talking about. An “awful amount” seems like quite a bit the way you say it.
On that note, do you determine for yourself which parts of the Bible you want to follow or listent to based on how you feel about it? Or is there some other more scientifically accurate method of determination you use to simply dismiss whatever parts you like?
Well, maybe I can agree with how certain people would take out of context certain snippets. That is actually what I am trying to discuss.
How often is it that the “religious righteous” burn crosses and flail dogs? Becuase this just seems like another attack which has no merit in the discussion.
What exactly is a “religious righteous” person anyhow? These kinds of definitions love to get thrown around, so could you enlighten me?