As expected, the Kansas State Board of Education ignored the recommendations of its science standards committee and the overwhelming opinion of the world’s scientists and voted this afternoon to include criticisms of evolution in the state’s science standards and to change the definition of science to allow for supernatural explanations. Fortunately, state tests won’t reflect these junk standards for another two years, so there is still time to elect an new board majority next year whose members will put academic integrity and our state’s education reputation before their own religious ideologies.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
45 Comments
Would someone please supply the names of the offending members and include what area they are from, so that I can be SURE to do just what Phillip has suggested.
Why don’t you get your head out of your ass and do your own research!
Do you even know which one is your Board Member?
I guess esod’s multiple personality medication is wearing off or the mail order drug place is a little late in delivering.
This wierdo has got a problem hasn’t he? How many ways can someone say GO AWAY AND LEAVE ME ALONE!
You are in a public BLOG Tracy.
Live with it or you are free to leave.
http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdmem.html
This link has the names and map for the board. If you click on the people it takes you to their addresses, phone, email, etc…
So far I haven’t been able to get anything other than the 6-4 vote total…if I do I’ll post it.
Thank you Nicki.That was nice and I appreciate it.
Yep, that’s my board member.Active Republican.Bible college graduate.
Gee, can anyone guess which way this member voted?
No problem Tracy…not a biggie at all.
I would guess they voted to uphold science as science and not pander to philosphy……yeah, probably not.
Shall we have a moment of silence for the death of separation of church and state? While we are at it, we might as well mourn common sense as well. At least as long as the current BOE is sitting, laughing their butts off at the rest of the state/nation.
The bible teaches Christians to spread the gospel. This really pisses off Muslims. Trying to put it back in the schools is one of their safer projects. Just ask our local missionary, Grace Burnam. But it is still a long way from establishing a state religion. That is all the constitution promises, you know.
Ok, I’m from North Carolina, not Kansas, but I have to ask Kansans a simple question:
Why did you let them do it AGAIN?? Wasn’t embarrassing enough in 1999?
Maybe you shouldn’t vote for (R) for school board anymore?
David,The member from my district voted no on the proposed standards. Unfortunately, the fundies have made inroads into the rural redneck areas, and got churches to endorse the election of morons, so here we are!
It’s a simple process for simple people. You just convince them that they’re voting for “God’s Will”. In Kansas, it seems the majority will fall for it every time.
I know I’m beating my very own dead horse here…
…but this is what you get when you let government control education. Perhaps some of you big government types should dwell on this one for a while.
The libertarian/Proudman logic:
Premise one – if the goverment is involved with something, it will be messed up;
Premise two – The government is involved with public education;
Therefore – Conclusion: Public education is messed up.
Ah, if the world were only so simple.
There are more reasons why the above is an obscene over-simplication than I would ever have time to refute. So, just let me say that, while I think Proudman is well-meaning, he just doesn’t get it. And reflexively reiterating the tired old “the government is the enemy” line may work in Northern Idaho campfire group hugs – it is not real useful in the day-to-day struggle to re-make Kansas into what it has historically represented to the rest of the country.
Yes, Proudman, I am guilty of being over-educated. But, I fail to see how that makes my points here any less relevant.
Kansas has been and will, I hope, always be, a leader in public education. This irritation can be, as Phillip points out, resolved by the good sense of Kansas voters.
I look forward to the next School Board election day.
Here’s a straight forward thought from the simpleton Steven, your second premise is wrong. The government is not ‘involved’ in public education, they are the public education system. Government builds the buildings, pays the staff, and sets the agenda in the public schools. I’m really happy that your ‘over-education’ helps you understand the difference between involvement and total dominance.
In Dover, Penn they are having the same problems with their educational board trying to put ID in the schools. Well in yesterday’s election, 8 of the 9 board members were voted out and 8 more moderate (non-ID promoting) board members were voted in.This just proved that only a minority of the Christrian right want ID in schools.Next year…we will see how many of our BOE are left standing.
Right on, Jana, we WILL get final say on this BOE nonsense…it is nice to know the BOE member from Wichita voted against the religious endorsement.
I wonder how many posters here have actually read and understand the changes that were made to the standards? Someone who has, please point out to me the specific wording that introduces religion into the standards.
Sam–It is more than the legalese of the wording. It is the intent and motivation behind it. People like Connie Morris going overboard, claiming no single part of evolution has any basis in fact, that her religious teachings prove that to her. She has publicly stated that since she is a Christian, that she knows evolution is completely wrong. That is the dangerous part of it, people in elected positions getting carried away with making decisions based on their beliefs, and ignoring the facts.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, if these zealots are not stopped now, they will continue their evangelical ways.
Sam,
It’s pretty clear isn’t it? The standards suggest discussion of the weaknesses of evolution theory and introduction of alternate theories like intelligent design. Who exactly is the intelligent designer? Are you going to say it could be an alien from an advanced culture? I doubt it. The designer is clearly the deity. A rose by any other name…
Actually, point 3 in the Summary says it expressly EXCLUDES intelligent design from the standards while making it clear that exclusion is not intended to prohibit discussion of the topic.
It looks to me that this could be more of a media circus than an outright attack on evolution. Maybe I’m just not seeing it…
I think I said that…discussion of ID and others is encouraged. And when the kid asks “who is the designer?”, what will the answer be?
It makes no difference if 67% of Kansans aggree with the Board when it comes to ID, or if the Board members actually campaigned on promoting evolution as a theory instead of fact, if you disagree with the elite minority that is afraid of even mentioning that evolution is still a theory, you are a nut.
Nothing in the new standards will changes the way evolution is taught. Nothing in the new standards will change the test questions concerning evolution. The new standards merely suggest that ID can be mentioned. It is not required.
I aggree, if you don’t like the Board members vote them out. At least come to the debate honestly.
ID has no place whatsoever in public school science classes. Let the educators “mention” it in religion class where it belongs. If parents want their kids to have a faith based education, they need to send them to parochial schools.
Look to Pennsylvania. We can do the same thing in Kansas. Vote the morons out, Morris and Abrams in particular. Until then, let’s just ignore the stupidity.
Madder,Unfortunately, there’s an awful lot of it to ignore!
Proudman,
Thanks for pointing out the error of my thinking.
I think the greater fundamental difference in our premises is that I view “the government” as “us” (meaning you, me, and the rest of the United States citizenry) as opposed “them” (who are somehow enemies).
Steve E.,
I would define our differences by saying you favor the group while I favor the individual.
Well.. I’m not too worried that high school biology teachers are going to start teaching Creation just because the new standard allows students to question evolution. I think any discussion of ID will be short and if it leads to the question of “Who is the designer?”, the proper answer is “That cannot be determined scientifically”.Anyone else actually read the standards besides Brian? It looks to me like the testing is going to change very little.
Sam,
You’ve answered your own question. You just said the theory is unscientific in that no answer can be scientifically supplied as to the designer nor can any experiment be designed to determine the answer.
Brian..Hey.. don’t give me credit.. I borrowed that question from you… LOL. Anyway… no science teacher is going to pursue any other answer to the question, so why worry? I’m just saying that the standards do not replace evolution with ID, and if the media would let it go… classes will be taught just as they always have been. Much ado about nothing I would say. Now if some teacher starts teaching Creation, which is not likely… then there are legal grounds for action.
Actually Brian, its better said that “we cannot give a scientific answer today as to who the designer would be nor can we presently devise an experiment to determine the answer”.
Proudman,
I am not sure I’d agree. 1) I think individual responsibility is important. AND, 2) I think being able to work with groups/others who are different from me, is important, as well. Leaving off the first part would not be my position, and I hope leaving off the second would not be yours.
I think extreme obsession with individual rights can lead to unhealthy isolation and paranoia. Whereas, extreme obsession on group rights can lead to Political correctness and stupidity.
As the intellectual, Dr. Seuss, said:”Life is a great balancing act.”
“Actually Brian, its better said that ‘we cannot give a scientific answer today as to who the designer would be nor can we presently devise an experiment to determine the answer’.”
The above seems like a conceptual “double-exposure”. I read it as presuming we will some day be able to answer religious questions (the existence of God) with scientific methodology. I suppose this is in the realm of possibility. I do not expect that my grandchildren’s grandchildren will live long enough to see such an event.
ProudMan,
The underlying working hypothesis for ID is that there is an intelligent designer. This is an outright claim of the ‘theory’. If there is no experiment that can be devised to falsify this hypothesis then it cannot be accepted as anything more, scientifically speaking, than a philosophical speculation…which is fine, but it has no place in a science curriculum.
darn it..somehow when I typed the salutation it also ended up replacing my name ..must have hit some button accidentally, sorry.
I like this letter that was sent in to the Eagle a few days back:
Definition of theory
I have read much in the paper about the Kansas State Board of Education’s debate over evolution. As a former scientist, I have noticed that a great deal of misinformation is being spouted as fact.
One main problem with the recent discussion is that many people are clearly unfamiliar with the definition of a scientific theory. Many have stated that scientists consider theories, such as the “theory of evolution,” as irrefutable fact. That is simply false. My elementary son’s Usborne book “The Mysteries and Marvels of Science” says the following: “To scientists, a theory is a guess that has stood the test of time. For instance, in 1686, the scientist Isaac Newton published his theory of gravity, explaining how things fall and how the planets orbit the sun. Newton’s theory was a success for hundreds of years. Yet in the 20th century, the scientist Albert Einstein published a theory that better explains how gravity works in extreme conditions. This does not overturn Newton’s theory, but it shows why even the best theories are never called facts: New evidence may always be found.”
Thus, when the theory of evolution is taught by science teachers, it should be clear that evolution is simply a theory that may at some point be disproved or superseded by other evidence and facts.
KELLEY ROGERS-GRAHAMWichita
NoJoCo,Saw this same letter and the writer makes good points. The truth in science is always provisional and subject to enhancement by data and or better theory.
Having said that, Darwin’s theory of evolution has withstood nearly 150 years of scrutiny and nothing has emerged which can challenge it as the prevailing paradigm that it is for the field of biology. Period. Sorry there are religious fundamentalists who don’t like what it says — those contrary opinions have no bearing on the theory’s adequacy.
We are all, each one of us, descended from apes. For proof, look at the residents of the White House, the KBOE, the majority of bloggers at this site and my next-door neighbor, Jedthro.He, in particular, is descended from howler monkeys. I’m the strong, silent type, so my ancestors are probably closly related to Gorillas.Bush, Cheney and friends are definitely Baboons. And I really hate it when Baboons run the country. We need to elect a spider monkey in 2008. A Rhesus would be okay by me also.
Since we’re on the subject, how about birds? Aren’t they people too? Lets elect a flaminco the the KBOE. Or better yet, some endangered species. That would, like, so rock, dude.
Of course the new “non-evolution” standards don’t undercut evolution. Conservatives say so, so it must be true. Trust us, drink your Kool-aid, move along…nothing to see here.http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/goodbye_kansas.html
Brian and Steve E.,
All I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t discount something just because we cannot prove it to be true or false.
Proudman,
Some of the most profoundly spiritual people were scientists. Acceptance of scientific evidence does not mean automatic rejection of the spiritual. In fact, it probably leads to a deeper and more reverent feeling than does the rather naive notion (imho) of a guy in the sky who gets his shorts in a twist and sends an innocent person to die because that’s the only thing that will relieve his anger.
Brian and Steve E.,
All I’m trying to say is that we shouldn’t discount something just because we cannot prove it to be true or false.
PM,Would agree. Faith is a good thing. It is just not science.