“In a free society, it should be perfectly acceptable to question what is taught and to allow for differences of opinion,” GOP gubernatorial candidate Jim Barnett said last week, defending the Kansas State Board of Education’s actions on evolution. “I believe it’s a disservice to limit the scope of what can be considered.”
Fine, but that wasn’t the issue. Teachers and students were already free to question and debate the merits of evolution, as long as schools didn’t promote religion.
But the state board’s job was to set public school science standards for the entire state. And such statewide standards should be based on what the experts consider to be the best science, not the personal religious views of board members.
Would Barnett, a physician, want medical school standards to include remedies that nearly the entire medical community rejects?
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
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
231 Comments
Damn right!
Who’s he to tell me that blood-sucking leeches don’t purge the patient of an over-abundance of black bile?
Every devout reader of the Bible knows that an epileptic seizure is caused by evil spirits. Nothing prayer and fasting can’t handle . . .
So does Barnett, like the creationists, question whether or not the earth revolves around the sun and whether or not we lived with dinosaurs like on the Flintstones? Someone who is completely clueless about basic scientific facts can’t possibly govern.
In my civics class, it is hammered that making threats of bodily harm to the head of government is federal offense. Thus, Barnett is allowing somebody to question this rule? How about the taboos? And how about in regard of religious teaching on same-sex marriages, is that questionable too then?
>Fine, but that wasn’t>the issue. Teachers and>students were already>free to question and>debate the merits of>evolution, as long as>schools didn’t promote>religion.
That’s not freedom, stupid. Creation is the opposing viewpoint to evolution and it should be allowed as a *theory* as well as evolution being allowed as a *theory*. A school is full of books anyway, some of them being purely fabricated fairy tales that are complately welcome in the classroom. Please explain why it is acceptable to read and recite Harry Potter and do a term paper on wicca but the Bible is shunned. It makes no sense to me, but then neither do Government schools.
I’m voting for Jim Barnett
>Someone who is completely >clueless about basic>scientific facts can’t>possibly govern.
You mean scientific theories.
You also fail to mention that many scientific theories mirror what the Bible already says.
>Every devout reader of the>Bible knows that an>epileptic seizure is>caused by evil spirits.
Hysteria and sarcasm will get you nowhere.
Don’t mind Bill, he’s just suffering from what Jim Barnett calls “a case of the vapours.”
Those mean liberalsTELL THE TRUTHour conservative valuesdon’t allow us to.
Topeka — Calling her an “elitist” and a “big-government liberal,” the state school board’s chairman on Friday criticized Gov. Kathleen Sebelius over her proposal to strip the board of its power to set education policy.
Steve Abrams, an Arkansas City Republican who is part of the Kansas State Board of Education’s conservative majority, took the Democratic governor to task for suggesting that its adoption last year of science standards seen as anti-evolution had damaged Kansas’ economic development efforts.
Abrams also attacked Sebelius for saying that the state has to deal with negative publicity created by the board, just as it does with the anti-gay picketing of the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. and his followers.
“The governor owes the Kansas State Board of Education as well as the citizens of the state of Kansas an apology,” Abrams said in a statement sent by e-mail to news organizations across the state. “Personal insults from this liberal governor are the only arguments she can make due to the lack of her own accomplishments.”continued….
If this guy takes the truth as an insult, then I guess it is!!
In regard to evolution Charles Darwin himself renounced the theory of evolution stating that they had never found the fossil remains of any animal in transition.The reason the so called mainstream sceintists would not attend the hearings on intelligent design is because they know that their junk science will not hold up in the light of the truth.I had a conversation with a man of good intellectual dcapabilities about evolution and he cited how animals evolve to maintain a place in their environment and I said that isn’t evolution that is simply adaption.If anyone can be taught on the complexity of the DNA molecule and still say that it evolved by chance they are totally intellectually challenged.
What’s the point here?
As a physician, Barnett knows a lot more biology than the vast majority of WEBloggers, and far more than Ms. Sebelius. But he’s not going to win next month, because Ms. Sebelius is doing an adequate job. Not an excellent job. But Kansans don’t demand excellence. Indeed, they don’t WANT excellence. Achieving it requires TOO MUCH WORK.
Evolution constitutes a very small part of the high school curriculum. The construct that humans represent the “highest result” of evolution is scientifically-unsound hubris . (See M.B. Saffo, “Accidental Elegance, How Chance Authors the Universe”, American Scholar 74 (3), 2005. ) If we assume a combination of natural selection and chance-based mutations, living organisms at any given time represent those whose characteristics correspond to their environment. For all we know, there may have been “higher IQ” beings on earth than Homo sapiens in distant past epochs.
The main thing about science is, Kansas doesn’t do very well in it. There are approximately 2000 National Academy of Sciences members nationwide. These are senior scientists in a broad variety of disciplines who have proven themselves to think originally and insightfully. They guide Congress on matters of scientific policy and shape the evolution of scientific research.
Essentially, 2000 members for a 300 million population represents 6 2/3 members per 1 million Americans. Kansas has approximately 2.8 million citizens. If it were “average” in science, it would have around 18-19 NAS members. It has 2 (TWO) NAS members, or .7 NAS members per 1 million population, which is to say ONE-TENTH of the American per-capita-population average. Both of Kansas’s NAS members, by the way are evolutionary natural historians. Charles Michener, an octagenarian, was elected in 1965. Thomas Taylor, a septuagenarian, was elected in 1994.
Our left-side neighbor Colorado has 32 NAS members. Colorado has approximately 4.6 million citizens, or 7 NAS members per million, slightly above the national per-capita-population average. 18 have been elected since 1990 (vs. 1 for Kansas) and 7 since 2000 (vs. 0 for Kansas).
Our right-side neighbor Missouri has 23 NAS members, with a state population of approximately 5.8 million, giving it a 4 NAS member/1 million population count. However, it has 11 members elected since 1990, and 3 since 2000.
New Mexico has 9 NAS members with a population of 1.9 M, or just under 5 per million. It has 4 members elected since 1990, and 3 since 2000.
Utah has 8 NAS members with a population of 2.3 million, or just under 3 per million. 6 have been elected since 1990, and 4 since 2000.
Iowa has 8 members per 2.8 million population, or 2.8 per million population. 7 have been elected since 1990, and 3 since 2000.
Oklahoma has 2 NAS members. One was elected in 1999, the other in 2002.
Kansas isn’t going anywhere in science.
How about technology? The National Academy of Engineering has about 1800 members, including a broad mix of university engineering professors, industrial leaders, consultants and government engineers.
Kansas has 4 NAE members . Colorado has 50. New Mexico 20. Utah 14. Oklahoma 15.
Kansas isn’t going anywhere in technology, which depends on science.
The preceding are the most important metrics in figuring out how a state is doing in science. Kansas gets an “F” in science.
But for those who want to focus on the relitigation of Scopes, let’s consider this. Scopes was fought in 1925 in Tennessee. Today Tennessee has about twice the population of Kansas (5.8 million). If Tennessee were in the same scientific-advancement state as Kansas, it would have 4 NAS members and 8 NAE members. It has 10 NAS members and 14 NAE members. 6 of its NAS members have been elected since 1990, and 3 since 2000.
Let’s look at North Carolina, a Bible Belt state that has developed major initiatives in science and technology starting in the 1960’s. Its 8.4 million population would predict, that if it were as scientifically advanced as Kansas, it would have 6 NAS members and 10 NAE members. But it has 44 NAS members and 30 NAE members.
Science isn’t about larnin what’s in the textbook. It’s about testing new ideas in laboratory investigations, applying them in useful ways, and debating ideas using evidence and reason.
Kansans don’t have a clue what science is, primarily because Kansas doesn’t attract adults who DO science and then promulgate to young people what science IS.
Good point heartlander. The whole Creationism thing is just one symptom of KS anti-science bent. As for Sebelius’s personal knowledge of science I know that she seeks out advice from scientists on this and other scientific issues.
Many years ago N Carolina made a committment to scientific excellence with its “reasearch triangle”. Kansas should do the same – KU-KSU-WSU.
Ted, that’s a completely laughable post.You state that the vast majority of scientists do junk science.You couldn’t back that up if you had to save your life.Whoever your intellectual source is, well they are just blowing smoke.Their only evidence is lack of evidence.You listening to Joel?
Tracy..you gotta admire the originality of the argument. I think I can sum it up:
Since we cannot understand how human life works, that PROVES there is a Christian God.
Interesting logic, don’t you think?
raptor,
Indeed. I believe it’s called the ‘argument ad ignorantum,’ otherwise known as the ‘argument from ignorance.’
As for Ted, there’s LOTS of evidence for transitional species. All the creationist objections are piffle.
ID does not have any or the requirements of a theory.I’m so sick of this teach the controversy crap.There ain’t no controversy, that’s why real scientists refused to participate in this monumental farce.This whole farce has been exposed over and over again, by judges, scientists and even clergy.People with the capability of abstract thought should be smart enough to admit that:THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION to this ‘movement’ is evangelizing in school. There is NO OTHER reason to promote this. PERIOD.
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Berman012604.htm
excerpts from the link:
The ID movement initially focuses on disproving evolution and allowing for the possibility of an unspecified designer in science (perhaps God, perhaps aliens from outer space). They claim that scientists have a naturalistic bias and that ID is scientific and not religious, despite the fact that it does not provide any description of the designer, nor any mechanistic model by which the design was effectuated. At best, this is disingenuous, as we will see from their own words.
This movement attempts to distance itself from its close relative, Genesis-based Creation Science. The goal of the creationists is to provide scientific support for the literal truth of the stories in Genesis. But at least they have a model: Genesis. And they are honest about their religious basis. Unfortunately for them, evidence conclusively demonstrates that the Genesis account is not a scientifically valid theory for cosmology, geology, physics, or biology.
When students are dealing with the basic question of where life came from, the theory of a creator should be discussed. That is all the science standards were attempting to include. Read them. Quite your ranting.
Theory of a creator? What? We were sprung from Buffalo poop? Popped out of somebody’s forehead? Teach the science. I am still voting for him. I guess you can’t have everything.
OK!
Theory does NOT mean idea.Theory is the top of the knowledge ladder!A theory is a hypothesis that has been robustly confirmed through observation or experimentation. Like the the Theory of Universal Gravitation. just because the apple falls 1000 times one cannot conclude that it will always fall.
Naming themselves ID Theory does not make it a theory for the same reason that naming you child president does not make them the president.
Evolution is a theory because it is backed up by 150 years for geological, biological, genetic and microbiological evidence. ID has no evidence supporting it,at all. ID is the same steaming load Creationists have been trying to force down our throats for decades.
If you don’t understand evolution, then pick up a book.
Its issues like this that make me un-proud that i’m from Topeka.
Ugh.
Niall Shanks impressed upon me the importance of at least TRYING to get through to people how scientific research actually works. I don’t really have his patience or style, unfortunately. But, anyway: A quick search for “scientific method” on Google turned this up:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Creationism/ID supporters: please read the link above, and comment. I think that might lead to a more productive discussion.
turner – which creator should they consider? All of them?
TURNER–I have read the standards.YOU quit whining.
Why don’t you click the link I provided and attempt to refute ANY of it?EVOLUTION IS ACCEPTED.THE JURY HAS VOTED.ID IS BREATHTAKINGLY INANE–AND DISINGENOUS.
I have no problem with a science teacher mentioning ID, creation, whatever ya’ wanna call it,In then they should also tell the TRUTH, that it is not science, there is absolutly no way to even form it into a theory.IT’s NOT SCIENCE.End of discussion/move it to a philosophy or literature class where it is pertinent to the subject they are teaching in that class.This whole thing is a monumental farce created to bring evangelism into the schools.Ho-hum.There’s some men ya’ just can’t reach.
By Dr. Marshall Berman
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement is a reincarnation of a 200-year-old idea that goes back to William Paley. That theologian wrote that the existence of a watch is tantamount to the existence of a watchmaker, since natural forces could not have created a watch. By analogy, he claimed that complex living things should require direct, divine intervention by a creator. That argument – as science – has been demolished by two centuries of scientific progress.
This essay discusses the plans and intentions of the “modern” ID leaders, frequently in their own words. Many ID advocates believe they are doing “God’s work.” But in doing so, consciously or unconsciously, they are jeopardizing the nature of science itself, our education system, and even our form of government. They do not understand that the cause many of them promote would, if successful, terminate many of the freedoms that they and we currently enjoy.
It is time for those who cherish our republic and our freedom to take a strong stand against those who would prefer a theocracy, not in Iran or Afghanistan, but in the United States.
continued….link in post above.
Granted, Darwinian evolutionary theory is accepted in the scientific community. But is it the truth????
Certainly, that has not been proven.
The mechanism of gravity has also not been proven. That is why we should be teaching “intelligent falling”
“Granted, Darwinian evolutionary theory is accepted in the scientific community. But is it the truth????”
Outie, what other possible standard for teaching something as science do you need? When the reality of something is repeatedly confirmed by the scientific method, why is that not enough?
Current evolutionary theory is the best info we have.Unless God transcends into our world and shows us proof otherwise.I will take biblical creationism as a metaphor until ID advocates can actually produce evidence.Saying that life is too complex to have been evolved without an intelligent creator is an IDEA, not a theory.
Ben: You can repeat,observe and record gravity experiments. Trying to figure out what happended in the distant past is a whole different matter. Darwinian evolution is science’s best guess about what happended.
But even though it is unproven, it is treated with the same faith and fervor by some, as the most ardent “Jesus freak” displays. I think that is hardly a scientific attitude.
outlander – that is why we use geological evidence. ALL theories are our best guess at what is happening. That is what we do; we call it the scientific method.
outie-what? It’s unscientific to debunk ID’s claims? Pshhaa!
Now, in wich I blatently steal from Josh Rosenau @ Thoughts From Kansas:
Inspirationit’s only a theory…: On the Shoulders of Giant Mistakes…:
Consider the following excerpt from a letter written by Isaac Newton to Reverend Dr. Richard Bentley in 1692, in which he describes some of the implications of his Law of Gravitation…
“To your second query I answer that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were impressed by an intelligent agent. For since comets descend into the region of our planets and here move all manner of ways, going sometimes the same way with the planets, sometimes the contrary way, and sometimes in cross ways in planes inclined to the plane of the ecliptic at all kinds of angles, it’s plain that there is no natural cause which could determine all the planets both primary and secondary to move the same way and in the same plane without any considerable variation. This must have been the effect of counsel.”
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I think it’s time to discuss my theory of intelligent falling.
I was inspired to question the Newtonist dogma on “gravity” when I learned that science cannot explain the movement of three things at once. Sure, Newton’s “laws” can explain how two things move, but Newtonists can’t explain how a third object would affect that movement.
Newtonism would be great if there were only two objects.
But Newton cannot explain even this one object: The Pioneer Spacecraft.
Newtonism would be great of it could explain the Pioneer anomaly.
Of course Newtonists claim they can predict the motion of planets and such, but if they can’t predict the motion of three objects, it’s clear this is a lie. Afterward, they can explain why they were wrong, but close only counts in horeshoes and hand grenades. Did a Newtonist ever predict where a comet would come into existence?
Newtonism would be great if they could explain where the planets come from.
Newtonism would be great if they could tell were gravity comes from.
Newtonism would be great if they knew what gravity was.
There’s a lot of little “if”s in Newtonism, and a lot of debate about “gravity.” I think those little “if”s add up to one big IF: Intelligent Falling.
IF holds that the motion of the planets and stars around the earth is too complex to be explained through natural processes alone. There must be a Pusher. If a person is just walking along and suddenly falls down, you expect that happened because he was pushed.
I believe that angels push the planets around, and control the falling of objects toward one another. If this is true, there’s no reason to teach our children the unBiblical falsehood that the earth moves around the sun. If the Pusher wanted the sun to move, there’s no reason that it couldn’t.
Newtonism is in crisis, and our children should be taught the controversy. If Newtonists can’t explain what gravity is, why not accept their “saint”’s recantation above and acknowledge that Intelligent Falling is the only credible explanation for the universe.
Please demonstrate to me how the scientific method has been employed to prove evolutionary theory. Certainly there are parts of the theory that are conjecture, and can’t be tested.
Actually, we don’t disagree on much here, Rage, Ben, Tracy. I think that it is fine to teach Darwinian evolutionary theory in science class as science’s best theory about how we all got here.
Just don’t make it more than it is. Don’t teach my child that this is the definitive truth, when it can’t be proven.
Out, what you call “fervor” is actually frustration. What’s at issue goes far beyond the narrow issue of evolution. Your redefinition of legitimate science would throw out much of biology, paleontology, geology, physics etc. etc.
You also missed Ben’s point. Despite the well-established theory of gravity, gravitons have yet to be experimentally detected. We can indirectly infer their existence, however.
Evolution, on the other hand, HAS been directly observed. In fact, bacteria are evolving resistance to current antibiotics at a alarming rate. It’s believed that if we don’t develop evolutionary strategies for new antibiotics, we could be in a world of hurt.
To do that, you need researchers. It helps to have students who understand evolution (and how science works) in the first place. Telling them that a philosophical construct like ID is equivalent to science won’t help.
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=intelligent+falling&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D1f9118241a53180f%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dintelligent%2Bfalling%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.theonion.com%252Fcontent%252Fnode%252F39512%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DMyNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fcontent%2Fnode%2F39512
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ TheoryAugust 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Definitive truth of what?
outlander – I would be happy to lend you some of my old textbooks on the subject.
Evolution is a definitive SCIENTIFIC truth. But no scientific truth–not even gravity–is set in stone. New evidence can lead to new conclusions.
Are we in agreement?
Rage: No one can deny that micro-evolution occurs. But to use that to build the whole theory of common descent requires some major assumptions and some big steps the over gaps in evidence.
Guys, I have to get some work done. Be back later.
intelligent fallingIntelligent falling (IF) is a supernatural explanation for the tendency of masses to attract each other that has its roots at least as far back as Isaac Newton. It has recently been brought to public attention as a satirical response to the ongoing “intelligent design” (ID) debate. It proposes that the scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them.
In a letter to the Reverend Dr. Richard Bentley in 1692, Isaac Newton wrote: “To your second query I answer that the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone but were impressed by an intelligent agent.” In The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design[1], Stephen C. Meyer refers to this statement as “Newton’s famous postulation of special divine intervention to stabilize the orbital motion in the solar system” in developing his argument of the methodological equivalence of naturalistic and non-naturalistic (i.e. supernatural) theories. In David Snoke’s Natural Philosophy: A Survey of Physics and Western Thought, for example, the notion of physics as natural philosophy based on Christian theology and biblical study is revived.
Modern IF “advocates” cite reasoning which closely parallels the arguments used to support “intelligent design”. They assert that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics; gravity is, therefore, a “theory in crisis”. They hold that IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so that students can make “an informed decision” on the subject …
more …
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=intelligent+falling&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D1f9118241a53180f%26clickedItemRank%3D14%26userQuery%3Dintelligent%2Bfalling%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.answers.com%252Ftopic%252Fintelligent-falling-1%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DMyNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.answers.com%2Ftopic%2Fintelligent-falling-1
out – that is why we call it RESEARCH!
For me, it is the combination of the fossil record and the genetic similarities that “seals the deal” insofar as the scientific theory of evolution is concerned. Research is needed, as one of the hallmarks of scientific theory is the ability of the theory to be shown to be false, as new data are found. This “falsification” is why ID cannot rise to the dignity of a scientific theory; IMHO, it does not qualify as a hypothesis.
Misunderstanding of the above are reasons why I am of the opinion that we do such a lousy job in educating our students. Anyone who has a high school diploma from an accredited public high school should have a basic understanding of the scientific method, the lack of such understanding is shown whenever an attack is made on any scientific theory on the basis it is just a “theory”.
Very thoughtful post Vaughn.Wish I could think in a clear straight line.Oh well, onward through the fog!!
outie, I believe they will present what evidence is available and teach our children what to do with that evidence.In science, you never present the conclusion first!!We want our children to be able to grasp the facts as presented, not speculation as to origins of life.Once they have the evidence, they can do their own speculation, AKA theory.
A restated post from above:
“Granted, the notion that the earth is round is accepted in the scientific community. But is it the truth????”
“Certainly, that has not been proven.”
Those photos from the moon, could have been faked, after all.
Dawkins, a prominent biologist, asserts that the proof supporting the theory of evolution is on par with the proof that the earth is spherical and not flat. Of course that will not be enough for some people determined to say the threory is not true. So much energy expended with so little merit…http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6210151
I would only ask that those who insist upon disagreeing with the theory of evolution only be honest about the source of their disagreement. Surely, that is not asking too much, is it?
Well, talkorigins has an extended discussion of the macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
I gather the references to “origins” that anti-evolution activists often mention refer not to the origins of life but the origins of human beings.
I guess common descent offends the view that God put us here as something special, apart from the other creatures on the planet. Science, of course, doesn’t address that at all. That is a question that belongs in the domain of theology.
And maybe it’s easier to call macroevolution a lie or a grave error than to contemplate one’s faith and existence in the light of what science has found.
One, of course, is free to be skeptical of or even reject such findings, but that is far different from pretending that the evidence is shaky–or, even worse, suppressing the information.
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society Homepage! Please, be our guest. Just sit back at your computer, and let us do the talking. We’ll tell you who we are, what we’re doing, and what we’re accomplishing in the world. You can look at some of our latest theories and insights, and, if you’re interested, you can even become an honorary member of the Flat Earth Society. So stick around.
Mission Statement-Background information on the Flat Earth SocietyThe Flat Earth Society’s purpose – why we do what we doWhy a Flat Earth?Why we don’t believe the world is roundScientific data and measurements backing up our claimsFighting the “Evidence”-Dispelling common myths about “proof” regarding round earth theoryUncovering the conspiracy to withold the truth from the publicCurrent Events-What the Flat Earth Society is doingWhat you can do to help out in your own communityJoin the Flat Earth Society-Become a member of the Flat Earth SocietyHelp dispel heretic notions and re-educate the masses!
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=flat+earth&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Def0f12ad9ec9b6aa%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dflat%2Bearth%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.alaska.net%252F%257Eclund%252Fe_djublonskopf%252FFlatearthsociety.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DMyNS%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaska.net%2F%7Eclund%2Fe_djublonskopf%2FFlatearthsociety.htm
more …
Aim: To carefully observe, think freely rediscover forgotten fact and oppose theoretical dogmatic assumptions. To help establish the United States…of the world on this flat earth. Replace the science religion…with SANITYThe International Flat Earth Society is the oldest continuous Society existing on the world today. It began with the Creation of the Creation. First the water…the face of the deep…without form or limits…just Water. Then the Land sitting in and on the Water, the Water then as now being flat and level, as is the very Nature of Water. There are, of course, mountains and valleys on the Land but since most of the World is Water, we say, “The World is Flat”. Historical accounts and spoken history tell us the Land part may have been square, all in one mass at one time, then as now, the magnetic north being the Center. Vast cataclysmic events and shaking no doubt broke the land apart, divided the Land to be our present continents or islands as they exist today. One thing we know for sure about this world…the known inhabited world is Flat, Level, a Plain World.We maintain that what is called ‘Science’ today and ’scientists’ consist of the same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the ‘Priest-Entertainers’ for the common people. ‘Science’ consists of a weird, way-out occult concoction of gibberish theory-theology…unrelated to the real world of facts, technology and inventions, tall buildings and fast cars, airplanes and other Real and Good things in life; technology is not in any way related to the web of idiotic scientific theory. ALL inventors have been anti-science. The Wright brothers said: “Science theory held us up for years. When we threw out all science, started from experiment and experience, then we invented the airplane.” By the way, airplanes all fly level on this Plane earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
“Micro deosn’t prove macro”
How ignerant is this idiot? Humans live to see only a couple generations, so any change will virtually unnoticable. But for bacteria and insects that have a much faster reproduction rate the changes are much more apparent, ie resistance to drugs. If you want to see a species evolve something macroscopic you should ask your intelligent designer to let you live a couple million years.
IF your religious ideas do not match what is observed in nature. It is your religious ideas that are wrong. Blaming nature for ruining your wishful thinking is the most bss aackwards thing a person could do.
“You mean scientific theories. You also fail to mention that many scientific theories mirror what the Bible already says.”
Bill, do you know what a theory is? A theory is based upon facts, so your comment really doesn’t make sense. Creationism isn’t a theory, there are no facts to base one upon and creationism isn’t testable. If you can actually provide a testable model of creationism I’d love to hear it as I’ve been waiting for years for a creationist to present one.
The Bible does claim that epilespy is caused by demons, that unicorns exist, the Earth is flat and resides under a copper dome with the sun and moon, and placing reeds in front of animals will change their genetic structure. I’d love to have you point out where these “theories” as you like to call them have any base in fact.
Bill – I am certain that Harry Potter is relegated to fiction, not science.
Since Josh could be considered the Godfather of IF (intelligent falling), I’m sure he can answer any questions on the subject.link:http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/
doug..”The Bible does claim that epilespy is caused by demons, that unicorns exist, the Earth is flat and resides under a copper dome with the sun and moon, and placing reeds in front of animals will change their genetic structure.”
where?
The Bible also indicates that the value of PI is 3. (Kings3 7:23)
Flat earth – Daniel. A tree so tall that can be seen from everywhere on the earth – the earth would have to be flat for that to happen.
kansasam, I’m assuming you’re another Christian who hasn’t read the Bible and must appeal to the Atheist for an education. Funny how it is that the more well read someone is about scripture the more likely they are to not believe it.
The story of the “demon possessed” child that describes conditions of epilepsy is in Mark 9:14-29.
Unicorn is mentioned in Numbers 23:22 and other locations.
The flat earth is in numerous locations, here are but a few:1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Isaiah 45:18. There are many instances where the Bible reflects the Babylonian and Egyptian view of the Earth where the flat earth is encased under a dome but one example is in Job 37:18.
As for the reeds and the breeding of animals I was mistaken. Rods were placed before them. The story is in Genesis chapter 30 about the dispute between Jacob and Laban.
I’m sure if you took the time to actually study your religion you wouldn’t have to come to Atheists like me for your religious knowledge. All of this begs the question about why creationists want this sort of nonsense taught in the schools and why Barnett still believes this outdated nonsense.
Doug…
you know what ASSume does…I have read it multiple times…
I would no more come to you for religious knowledge than I would expect you to have any spiritual understanding of what is contained in God’s Word…
I do not have time now to refute your claims… but I can.. and I’ll get around to it…
Tracy,
The report from Topeka appears to have been heavily edited. Whether one agrees, or disagrees, I think it’s important to at least be aware of the actual content of what one is commenting on. We can thank sub-standard media reporting for making it necessary to post “actual content” on blogs like this one. Following is the actual wording of the Abrams response.
Cindy
—————-October 13, 2006
Response to Governor Sebelius’ statements about Ks State Board of Education
By Steve E. Abrams, chairman, Ks State Board of Education
The Governor owes the Kansas State Board of Education as well as the citizens of the State of Kansas an apology.
Personal insults from this liberal Governor are the only arguments she can make due to the lack of her own accomplishments.
It is predictable to have differing political beliefs and policy beliefs. I expect a big government liberal like our governor to oppose conservative politics. But to infer that the State Board of Education is responsible for the lack of Economic Development in Kansas is laughable. The State Board has authority regarding education policy and teacher accreditation, but none regarding Economic Development.
Trying to place her own lack of success in Economic Development on the State Board by comparing us to Fred Phelps is another one of the Governor’s liberal red herrings, similar to her claiming on TV ads that she held the line on taxes. To find the true reason for Kansas’ comparative lack of Economic Development, she might look at the high growth rate in State employees as well as the high tax structure in Kansas… items that she has a direct influence upon.
Her demand to place the Kansas State Board of Education under the authority of a Secretary of Education, who would be on her staff, is nothing more than an unadulterated power grab from the voters by an elitist. But that is typical of an elitist, thinking they know better than the voters.
We on the Board have differing visions about education in Kansas, but at least we have a vision. The Governor has yet to talk about her vision for Kansas; she apparently prefers innuendo, name calling, deflection of responsibility and an attempt for a power grab.
The Governor owes us all an apology.
THE ‘REPORT’ was from the LJ world, I believe.
Kansasam, reading something and comphrending something is two different things. There’s no need for you to refute the Bible on my behalf, I don’t invest much interest in works of fiction. I am impressed that you already have material to refute something you just heard about a few minutes ago. Therefore I can already ASSume (as you like to spell it) that you believe the entire Bible is inerrant regardless of the content.
By all means go ahead, I will be amused by yet another fundamentalist trying to dazzle me with their ASSumed knowledge.
Cindy, yeah, that wasn’t a real good move on the Gov’s part.
Still, even you agree that the board SHOULD NOT HAVE tampered with the recommendations for the science standards.
Turned our state into a laughable, money wasting circus with their “hearings”.
I do agree with what she is saying, but her delivery left some quite pissed. Most will say oh, well the truth hurts.
And still, nobody seems willing to tackle the question of why they insisted on this in the first place. It has been proven countless times, in countless ways, that ‘the controversy’ has absolutely nothing to do with science. The ULTIMATE end to this movement, and the only logical conclusion to this movement is, once again:EVANGELISM IN THE SCHOOLS. PERIOD.Nobody will come out and refute that if they are to be honest about this.
If the board and it’s supporters want God in the classroom, then let’s propose and debate that!!God, creationism, ID, and all its cousins ARE NOT SCIENCE.No matter how you dress it up in drag, it still does not work in science.There is no falsifiable evidence to support a theory or even a controversy.Now–is there anyone that can refute that the goal is religous, not scientific? ANYONE?
Before anybody even attempts to refute my claim that this is religous in nature, please read this from the ID supporters.
In their own words:
“The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip Johnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
I’ve made this argument so many times, it’s getting boring.Cindy, you’re a religous woman, and I applaud your work and your convictions.I do believe you’ve been misguided by some well meaning individuals concerning the BOE.You want your children to think for themselves, and I want the same. The BOE has done a disservice to the state’s children, by being part of this ‘wedge’ that ID supporters have attempted in their tampering with the standards.
It is the people who believe that evolutionary theory is a reality who are ignorant. Mind you, it’s still just a theory, scientifically it’s not even a law. (e.g. law of gravity) Furthermore scientists believe it or not are just people, vulnerable to the same weaknesses as the rest of humanity. Just because some egghead tells you to believe in something doesn’t necessarily make what he says a reality. Read the Piltdown Man story and see what I mean.
I’m not ignorant (on this subject).And, Will you have not refuted anything or brought anything solid to this in favor of whatever view you have. If you wanna talk science then do so. If ya’ just wanna read insprational stories as fact, then I have no response.Read here:http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/Berman012604.htm
from the above link:
ID’s Current Strategies & Tactics
The Intelligent Design movement has already targeted several states in an attempt to alter the K-12 science standards. They have presented an array of arguments that are meant to appear “fair and balanced” but actually mask their true intentions. They want the definition of science altered to accommodate divine agency. They do not accept the essence of science; the foundation that has made it so successful as a special way of learning about the world: science as the search for natural causes for natural phenomena.
Here are some common tactics, many of which have already been employed in New Mexico, Kansas, Ohio, West Virginia, Louisiana, and many other states:
• Place ID advocates on school boards and science standards writing committees.
• Go as public as possible in print and visual media.
• Make the inclusion of ID in science classes seem like a free-speech and academic freedom issue.
• Make scientists seem like the dogmatists.
• Claim that “Darwinism” is a religion, but ID is science.
• Claim that “others” are biased, and that teaching ID is only fair.
• Cite popular poll results and ignore the scientific consensus.
• Refer to ID in scientific sounding rather than religious language.
• Redefine science to allow supernatural causes for natural phenomena.
• Settle for any change or modification in their goals, and declare anything as a victory.
• Create loopholes in state science standards, using innocuous- sounding language, to allow the presentation of socalled “evidence against evolution.”
Given the reactionary and theocratic nature underlying ID, one might think that most Americans would not lend much credence to the movement. But, in fact, ID has been spreading rapidly at both the state and national levels. The Discovery Institute now has state subsidiaries in Kansas, New Mexico, and Ohio. These subsidiaries began with the establishment of the Intelligent Design Network (IDnet) in Kansas, which has now branched out into New Mexico. New Mexico now has its own ID Web site: http://www.nmidnet.org/. The Kansas IDnet site is at: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork. org/. IDnet also helped establish another state subsidiary in Ohio, Science Excellence for All Ohioans (SEAO), http://www. sciohio.org/.
ID advocates now sit on state and local boards, in state houses, and in seats of the U.S. Congress. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is a strong opponent of evolution. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is an ID advocate with close ties to CSC fellows. He introduced language in the U.S. Senate’s No Child Left Behind Act language that sanctioned teaching the “controversy” surrounding evolution; it passed the Senate by a preliminary vote of 91 to 8 (see http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/ index.php3?program=CRSCstories &command=view&id=1172 and http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis10 7/evolution_update0601.html). A primary author of that Senate language was Phillip Johnson! That language does not appear in the final NCLB act, but survived in the committee report. Furthermore, the law itself contains prohibitions against the federal government “mandating … academic achievement standards…” (NCLB, page 55). Santorum has also criticized President John F. Kennedy for his belief in the separation of Church and State (see Alan Cooperman, Washington Post, April 25, 2003, p. A04). Other Senators and Congressmen are openly or clandestinely supportive of ID’s claims. Antievolution rhetoric and actions are the wedge to moving the U.S. toward a theocracy. Underestimating the power and influence of the ID movement would be a grave mistake.
The ID movement wants to bypass scientific peer review and go directly into public school science classrooms. But ID includes no theory other than “The Designer Did It.” No scientific article promoting ID has ever been published in any mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal. Nevertheless, they argue that it is legitimate science. To the ID supporters, supernatural interventions should be part of science. They want the scientific community to accept miracles as part of the scientific method, the exact antithesis of natural explanations of natural phenomena. But as we have seen, their objections to evolution are merely the “wedge” to ultimately completely overhaul all science, and eventually our culture. That is the real threat. Recognizing the threat is only the first step. All scientists, as well as teachers, parents, and citizens need to get involved in local and state efforts to develop strong, unequivocal science standards, to ensure high-quality textbooks, to improve science education at all levels, and to engage in politics as the need arises.
Dr. Marshall BermanPast Vice President, New Mexico State Board of Education
Sandia National Laboratories manager, retired
Founder and Past President, Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education (CESE)
Past President, New Mexico Academy of Science
Executive Director, retired, Council on Competitiveness, Washington DC
Past University of New Mexico-Sandia Distinguished Professor of Chemical and Nuclear Engineering
None of the above is untrue,And we see these tactics at work right here in our state.Please read the link, if you care at all about our children’s education.
Wow, to my knowledge the “law of gravity” has been “demoted” to a mere “theory” following the discoveries on relativity. On another note, I seem unable to recall any physical “laws” being proclaimed since around the dawn of 20th century, being superseded by the more correct word “theory.”
On the other hand, I still hav NOT heard anyone who can make distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. If micro changes do accumulate, say, a million trillion of them, can it be counted as a sizeable fraction of a change at the macro level? And that’s only 1 with 18 (24 using “English” English language) zeros.
Let’s get to the REAL point here.As described above in the ‘wedge’ document and it’s accompanying tactics.
The WHOLE PREMISE for the argument is disingenous, and thereforeA MOOT POINT.
Prove to me that this is not about religion in school,THEN we can talk about evolution and science.Until then, all the bla, bla about ID and the ‘controversy’, are secondary and unimportant.
“Almost from the outset, Woodward’s reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged.”
That’s from Wiki, but it’s also common knowledge.
Will, comparing a crank hoax that never was accepted, to the work of thousands of scientists over 150 years is pretty damn ridiculous. You need to throw away that cheat sheet.
will – what you call the “law of gravity” is a theory.
I’m sorry I couldn’t read through the posts because there just go over the same baseless facts over and over again. I know of an island in the Atlantic that is inhabited by nothing but monkeys. They day someone finds one that is evolving into a human then I will stop believing in ID and the ‘theory’ of evolution will become fact.
Ksgrm
ID and creationism are nothing more than attempts by religious loonies to use our public schools as venues for their right-wing propaganda. They don’t constitute science in any meaning of the word. You want them taught? That’s what Sunday school is for!
Pat, I’ll keep it short, to obviously match your attention span, (and grasp of the english language):
Prove to me that this is not about religion in school,THEN we can talk about evolution and science.Until then, all the bla, bla about ID and the ‘controversy’, are secondary and unimportant.
Is it not reasonable to believe that human life is much too complex to have happened by chance?
Sigh. . . . TRACY is of course correct.
Posts like the one above illustrate the problem. Such critics don’t even dispute evolution; they dispute a ridiculous parody of evolution, specifically one where speciation happens in a single generation and where humans not only evolved from monkeys (false), but would inevitably evolve from them.
You can’t argue with someone when they’re determined to argue with themselves.
Again. The REAL POINT is not ID at all.The real point is religous doctrine in schools.
If you don’t want to debate that, then there is no point in debating evolutionary theory and the science standards.This movement does not even pretend that this ‘controversy’ is nothing more than a tool for religous fundamentalism.The time for touting ID is OVER.
Tracy, there are some people who want to discuss the creation of life. I don’t know that there is any God that we can know in any personal way, but I do believe that there was a creative force or creator. That does not seems like such a crazy notion.
turner, I have already addressed the fact that this is not even about evolution and Darwinism (whatever that is).
And what you are asking is about a very interesting but unprovable IDEA, not science.We celebrate this IDEA every Sunday. Amen.
Pat,The monkeys on that island are doing just fine as monkeys. They will evolve into whatever they need to when the need arises, or go extinct.Evolution has never said that man evolved from monkeys as they currently are, but simply that they share a common ancestor, something that genetic analysis has confirmed.I realize you don’t want them in your family tree, but they are there, nevertheless. Maybe you shouldn’t be selling them so short.
Turner, believe it or not,I agree!!!!Science is at present, totally inadequate to address what caused the ‘big bang’ and where the matter and energy involved in this origin derived from.If you believe in God as the one who set off the bang, then you have the same IDEA, that I have.The very nature of God prevents us from knowing about HIM.So for a logical minded christian, theistic evolution is a great avenue to pursue.
Sigh, so many wanna-be believers, yet of little faith, for by proving the existence of God, one does not have any need for faith. Let them relegate The Almighty to a mere watchmaker. I pity them.
Tracy, I don’t know that it is unprovable. But I do know that it should be discussed when we are talking about the very basic question of where life came from in a COMPREHENSIVE theory of evolution.
“…Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Orgin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.”
Antony Flew–leading champion of atheism
Yeah, although it’s come under recent dispute, the prevaling view is that conditions prior to the Big Bang are not just unknown, but unknowable.
“It is the people who believe that evolutionary theory is a reality who are ignorant. Mind you, it’s still just a theory, scientifically it’s not even a law. (e.g. law of gravity) Furthermore scientists believe it or not are just people, vulnerable to the same weaknesses as the rest of humanity. Just because some egghead tells you to believe in something doesn’t necessarily make what he says a reality. Read the Piltdown Man story and see what I mean.”
1) Name the creationists who discovered the Piltdown fraud.
2) Do you know WHY the Piltdown fraud was discovered, and why it was inevitable that it would be? The Piltdown “fossil” created some real problems in light of other fossils.
3) There are actually quite a few hominid fossils, and primate fossils that, as they get older, show a mix of hominid and anthropoid characteristics until it is unclear whether they are closer to the chimp/bonobo line, the human line, or perhaps some other line close to the point of divergence. Later fossils clearly display features unique to hominids, including obvious signs of bipedalism, but also other traits which are clearly more similar to African great apes than to humans. These mixtures of traits can not and could not have been faked in the way that the Piltdown fossils were.
4)The meaning of theory in the scientific sense has been explained in this thread. Discussions about the validity of biological evolution (and politically, the issue all comes down to evidence of common ancestry between humans and other apes) are by definition scientific topics, and the scientific meaning of of the term theory is necessary if one is going to legitimately critique a theory. It is evident, Will, that you either still don’t know what the definition of theory is in the scientific sense, or you don’t want to accept it. Either way, your criticisms lack any sort of validity if you don’t know or accept the correct meaning of theory.
Where does the Theory of evolution ever purport to hypothesize on the origins of human life?
ANS: It doesn’t – and it never has. It’s a theory of species origination, not life origination.
To the Abrams people: you’ve apparently bought yourself a red herring introduced by ID proponents who wish to remove the teaching of evolution from public education and create a point of purchase for creationism. If they have to change the definition of science to do so, then fine.
Trouble is, science is not subject to democracy. Think about that carefully. As a tactic, redefining science in order to give ID a headstart in mainstream scientific thinking can’t work, no matter how boring today’s voters find science and the scientific method. The best you can do is suppress the scientific method in mainstream science, and you may end up having to kill a bunch of scientists to do so.
Such heavy handed tactics didn’t work on Galileo, and the Church is still paying all scientists dearly for it today. And I do mean dearly.
pedant–finally somebody GETS IT!!THANK YOU!This should not be and is not about science at all.What this is about, is the fundamentalist christians attempting to gain control in our schools.ALL OTHER DISCUSSION IS BESIDE THE POINT!!
ksag,You are mistakenly holding on to the belief that fact has some convergence with Truth. These people believe in Truth, and facts are just nuisances that get in the way. No matter what facts you present them with, they will continue to believe in the Truth, just as their daddies told it to them.
THE ENTIRE ID ARGUMENT IS UNDER FALSE PRETENSE.
They don’t give two hoots about science, they see it as a tool to further their agenda.
Even our friend CKD told the fundies on the BOE–Don’t go there.But noooooo—they just had to keep this going according to the tactics I listed above.
definitely correct jed they think that “facts are just nuisances that get in the way”
After all, as one of them said “same baseless facts over and over again” – obviously facts don’t matter!
And NOBODY is coming forward to dispute my claim that this is not about religion getting a foot in the door at our schools.NOBODY.
OOPS–CORRECTIONAnd NOBODY is coming forward to dispute my claim that this is about religion getting a foot in the door at our schools.NOBODY.
>Evolution is a theory>because it is backed>up by 150 years for>geological, biological,>genetic and microbiological >evidence.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no evidence at all to support Darwinism. None.
and there is no evidence at all to support gravity. None.
>Evolution is a definitive >SCIENTIFIC truth.
No, it is a scientific THEORY. Truth has to be proven, and evolution has never been proven.
> But no scientific truth–not >even gravity–is set in stone. >New evidence can lead to new >conclusions.
Yes, like science taught us back in the 70’s that the universe had expanded to it’s fullest and was now beginning to contract. That theory has been “disproven” and the new theory is that the universe is still expanding.
The Bible has never been disproven.
Just an observation about the monkeys on the island changing if the need arises – this is called adaptation and not evolution. Also Tracy I don’t want school teachers teaching my children relegion but I do want them to know that evolution is just a theory and not supported by fact as Mr. Darwin asserted.
Ksgrm
>Bill, do you know what a>theory is? A theory is>based upon facts, so your>comment really doesn’t make >sense.
Then you are saying that Darwinism is not a theory since there are no facts to support it?
Bill – my “theory” that the entire universe was created last night at midnight cannot be disproven either.
>The Bible does claim that >epilespy is caused by demons, >that unicorns exist, the>Earth is flat and resides>under a copper dome with>the sun and moon, and>placing reeds in front>of animals will change>their genetic structure.
Please point out such scriptures.
Only a fool says there is no evidence of evolution by natural and artificial selection.
I can hold that evidence in the form of fossils in my hands!
A FAR greater leap is to try and prove the existence of some “god” thing. Show me the evidence for the existence of any god.
Flat – from Daniel – a tree tall enough to be seen from all the earth. That would be impossible with a globe.
>Bill – I am certain that Harry >Potter is relegated to fiction, >not science.
So this makes my point. If the science freaks believe that the Bible is also fiction, why is the Bible not allowed and Harry Potter allowed?
In schools I have visited the Bible is allowed.
>”The Bible does claim that >epilespy is caused by demons, >that unicorns exist, the>Earth is flat and resides>under a copper dome with>the sun and moon, and>placing reeds in front>of animals will change>their genetic structure.”
>where?
That’s what I’m wondering. I might have missed something but I’ve never read those parts. I’m waiting for his answer.
>The Bible also indicates>that the value of PI is>3. (Kings3 7:23)
There is no Kings3 in the Bible. There is no 3rd Kings in the Bible.
Try again.
>Flat earth – Daniel. A tree>so tall that can be seen>from everywhere on the>earth – the earth would>have to be flat for that>to happen.
Daniel what??? Chapter and verse please.
JR: The fossil in your hand is evidence of nothing more than that a life form once existed. It does not tell you how it developed, whether it was created or evolved. In fact, Darwin himself acknowledged that the fossil record (lack of transitional forms)speaks against his theory.
The evidence of God IS your hand.
I found it in the Catholic version of mine at home. Don’t know the chapter/verse for Daniel. That was given to me by an ordained minister some time ago.
Kings referred to an orb “10 cubits brim to brim, round all about … a line of 30 cubits compassed it round about.”
“23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.”
Ben: That is hardly a statement of a mathematical principle. We aren’t talking exact measurements. Cubits weren’t even a precise unit of measure.
IMHO, that’s reaching a bit, my friend.
My point is that there is a lot of “not exact” stuff in there.
Your “God” must have had an interesting sense of creation.
A chimpanzee is more than 99% genetically identical to a human being. What was that a first try?
>The story of the “demon >possessed” child that>describes conditions>of epilepsy is in Mark 9:14-29.
Aha! But it does not say that epilepsy is caused by demons, only that demons can cause epileptic seizures. Thankyou for clarifying the bogus claim.
>Unicorn is mentioned in>Numbers 23:22 and other>locations.
King James:Num 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn.
Amplified:Num 23:22 God brought them forth out of Egypt; they have as it were the strength of a wild ox.
Old English referred to a wild ox as a unicorn.
>The flat earth is in>numerous locations,>here are but a few:>1 Chronicles 16:30,
1Ch 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
>Psalm 93:1,
Psa 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.
>Psalm 96:10
Psa 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
>Psalm 104:5,
Psa 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever.
>Isaiah 45:18.
Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
None of these scriptures refers to the earth being flat. Only that it is stable and cannot be moved. Don’t confuse that with revolve. Has the earth ever moved from it’s position (not counting revolve)?
>There are many instances>where the Bible reflects>the Babylonian and Egyptian>view of the Earth where the>flat earth is encased under>a dome but one example is in>Job 37:18.
Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
No flat earth and no dome.
>As for the reeds and the>breeding of animals I was >mistaken.
Well at least you admit to one.
>I’m sure if you took the>time to actually study>your religion you wouldn’t>have to come to Atheists>like me for your religious >knowledge.I really think you should devote more of your time to reading the Bible instead of thinking you know what it says when you don’t.
Dear Bible Thumpers:Stop it. When you try to make the Earth 5,000 years old you look and sound stupid. The Creation story is trying to make another point than the one you try to make with the Adam and Eve business. I guess one could say that between Adam and Eve and Moses family, we are all in-breds.
>THE ENTIRE ID ARGUMENT IS>UNDER FALSE PRETENSE.
>They don’t give two hoots>about science, they see>it as a tool to further>their agenda.
Obviously you’ve never heard of Christian Science.
Same Maker JR!
“Creation Science” is an oxy-moron. It is not science.
>and there is no evidence>at all to support gravity.>None.
You’re probably right. By all rights, being on the outside of a spinning globe, centrificle force should cause us to float out into space. However we are held to the earth by some force that is believed to be gravity. This has not been proven though.
It has also never been proven as to what force holds the atom together. The atom is a nucleus consisting of positive charged protons and neutral charged neutrons with negative charged electrons whirling around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second. The basic law of electricity states that like charges repel each other so the protons and neutrons have to be held together by the negative electrons but the electrons can be stripped from the nucleus and the nucleus will still hold together. How can this be? This basic fact has got scientists baffled.
>Bill – my “theory” that the >entire universe was created>last night at midnight cannot>be disproven either.
Your point in that sarcastic remark was…?
cetrificle force? must be quite a fickle force, for I have never heard of it…
Where does this fickle force belong amongst the strong, EM, weak, and gravity?
>I found it in the Catholic >version of mine at home.
There is no “Catholic” version of the Bible.
>Don’t know the chapter/verse>for Daniel. That was given>to me by an ordained minister >some time ago.
Oh well gee whiz I guess that proves it right there.
>Kings referred to an orb>”10 cubits brim to brim,>round all about … a line>of 30 cubits compassed it>round about.”
That reminds me of the measurments of Noah’s Ark. You sure the earth is being referred to there?
Bill, do you still believe in the raisin cake model of atom?
>My point is that there is a lot >of “not exact” stuff in there.
OK, so?
There are books in the Catholic edition that are not admited in the Protestant list. Now as a penance, say 10 Hail Mary’s, Bill!
>Your “God” must have had an >interesting sense of creation.
>A chimpanzee is more than>99% genetically identical>to a human being. What was>that a first try?
With comments like that God might have wanted to have not given it the second try.
Surprisingly, several Creation tales do mention of God’s trial and error approach.
>There are books in the>Catholic edition that>are not admited in the>Protestant list.
There is no “Catholic edition” of the Bible.>Now as a penance, say 10 Hail >Mary’s, Bill!
Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
>Surprisingly, several>Creation tales do>mention of God’s trial>and error approach.
Where?
Bill–It is a common misconception that percentage of genetic material is a kind of indicator. It is not.
Catholic’s edition includes apocrypha, Protestant’s version does not. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/catholic_protestant.htm
Check out “A Short History of Nearly Everthing” by Bill BrysonIt is facinating. Among other things you will learn is that scientists haven’t figured a lot of things out yet. They have figured out that the Universe is very, very old.
Today’s Christians, as evidenced on this topic. Criminy.
Keyrist, what’s happened to wisdom?
Get a clue. Your religion is a velvet rope. It’s very effective at pulling people to your god(s), its effectivity has been honed to a fine edge over two millenia. It’s far less effective at pushing anything anywhere – it’s actually terrible at pushing people to your god(s) – although dog knows you keep trying.
What you’re trying to do will be counterproductive to your ends in the long run.
It’s not a weapon, people. You can’t invoke your god(s) and magically somehow redefine science, make science something it’s not, that it can’t be. Your god(s) will never again hide from humans the only 100% effective improve-the-human-condition-by-yanking-bootstraps-program known to mankind: the scientific method.
If your god(s) are so powerful, let ‘em get in line like anybody else. Let’s see some evidence for creationism, or put a sock in this business of cramming your god(s) down our collective throat. Those are mutually exclusive choices, btw.
Various Creation tales from around the world.http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-story.htm
Besides, why God needs 6 days to do the whole things instead of doing it all on the first flip of the switch, so to say. That way we all get 1 day of work and 6 days of rest! ;)
Actually Bill,
Electrons do not hold the nucleus together. Binding energy does. The protons in the nucleus are actually keeping the electrons in their orbits.
The protons and the neutrons (nucleons) are held together in the nucleus by binding energy. As the atomic number of the nucledes increases the binding energy per nucleon also increases. Also the ratio of neutrons to protons also increases. This allows more binding energy to exist without adding more positive charges trying to tear the nuclus appart.
As the atomic number increases the stability of the nucleus decreases. As you approach the atomic number of around 230, the probability of spontaneous fision also increases. Also the probability that absorbing a neutron will also result in fision.
Scientists are not really ‘baffled’ by binding energy.
I used to teach post-graduate level nuclear physics to Naval Acadamie graduates when I was in the Navy. If there is any thing that has you baffled about the nucleus, let me know, I might be able to help.
Hank (a Omphalos creationist)
hOTLICK,We all share a common ancestor. numbnuts.
Douay-Rheims
>Catholic’s edition includes >apocrypha, Protestant’s>version does not.
There is no “Catholic version” of the Bible. You can search your Christian bookstore all day long and you will not find a “Catholic version” of the Bible.
You will however find the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible which the Catholics use to support their faith. You will not find a “Catholic version.”
You will also not find a “protestant version” of the Bible as the Protestants use many different version to suport their faith. I personally have five different versions that I read and cross-reference.
Tracy,
I won’t debate the motivations of the individual board members because I can’t read minds.
You are correct in that I support open inquiry in the classroom, and that includes the science classroom.
Someone hit on a very important word concerning creationism. It isn’t falsifiable. However, the theory of evolution is also not falsifiable. To my mind, that puts both theories (and a number of others) on equal ground.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with ALLOWING discussion of a variety of origin theories in the science classroom, and that is all that the revised standards would have done — allowed — but not required — open discussion of many possibilities concerning the origin of man.
Bill,The bible is used for religious purposes. Sunday is reserved for people who go to church to read and learn together. During the week, scientists have the floor. Be happy with what you get. There is no way in heaven that anything in the bible is remotely factual. I wish you and your types would go in search of biblical truth by taking an early exit..if you know what I mean. The rest of us have approx. 80 years before we crater and we don’t need our minds corrupted with heresay and prophecy. It feels ‘good’ inside our human minds to believe in God. Why? because we cannot explain how so much shit has happened. Why, because we only live for 80 years. The first 20 we shit our pants, learn to read, get drunk, shit our pants. The next 20 we hop from job to job trying to figure out how we are going to pay for a cruise to Alaska. The next 20 week are nervously trying to save money for retirement. The next 20 we have so much time on our hands that we read 5 different versions of the bible and start believing all that shit because very very soon we are dead…and by golly, we’d hate to think we just die.”Yibbidy Yibbidy, that’s all folk’s” PP
“However, the theory of evolution is also not falsifiable.”sted by: Two cents worth | October 16, 2006 at 08:52 PM
This is why it’s so hard to take ID’s proponents seriously. They tend to talk directly out of their ass.
For instance, just off the top of my head one way to disprove evolution would be to observe (ie, garner evidence for you IDers) the allele distribution of certain genes under conditions that eliminate or minimize the effects of selection (ie, in a population in equilibrium). If the fraction of the population determined to be homozygous exceeds roughly 5% (under this condition), then it can be shown that either evolution does not exist OR the binomial theorem is false. Unlike either gravity or evolution, the binomial theorem is proven true by even freshman mathematics students each fall. Routinely, in fact, if they wish to pass a beginning calculus course.
If under conditions of a Weinberg equilibrium you could account for random varation and still show that diploid allele frequencies do not distribute in a way predicted by the binomial theorem, then you easily win a Nobel prize because you’ve just proven evolution false.
Ergo, the Theory of evolution can be proven false.
Creationism, however, can never be proven false, something IDers either can’t grasp or can’t bear to acknowledge.
>The bible is used for>religious purposes.
Your point?
>Sunday is reserved for people>who go to church to read and >learn together.
Wrong. Christianity is a 24-7-365 ordeal. A person who is a different person on Sundays than he is on every other day is not a Christian.
>Be happy with what you get.
I am.
>There is no way in heaven>that anything in the bible>is remotely factual.
Wrong. The Bible has made many accurate predictions of history and events that are occuring right now. Would you like a list?
>I wish you and your types>would go in search of>biblical truth by taking>an early exit..if you know>what I mean.
I will go when God is ready for me, not when you wish me to go.
>The rest of us have approx.>80 years before we crater
You don’t know that. You may die in a car wreck on your way to work tomorrow.
>and we don’t need our minds >corrupted with heresay and >prophecy.
That’s your choice, however I shall continue speaking my mind.
>It feels ‘good’ inside our>human minds to believe in>God. Why? because we cannot >explain how so much shit has >happened.
How do you know this? You don’t believe in God. How can you speak for the people who do?
>Why, because we only>live for 80 years.
You don’t know that. You may die in a car wreck on your way to work tomorrow.
>The first 20 we shit our>pants, learn to read, get>drunk, shit our pants.
Sounds like you’ve had quite a boring life. Why don’t you try God for a change. You might just smile for once in your life.
>The next 20 we hop from>job to job trying to figure>out how we are going to pay>for a cruise to Alaska.
Then after the cruise is over you’re still not happy, are you? You still feel you need more.
>The next 20 week are>nervously trying to>save money for retirement.
Nervously? Man, what a life for you.
>The next 20 we have so>much time on our hands>that we read 5 different>versions of the bible and>start believing all that>shit because very very>soon we are dead
I started reading the Bible and believing it when I was 8 years old. I have a 40 hour job and am quite a ways off from retirement yet unless I happen to win the lottery or something, so once again you’re wrong.
>and by golly, we’d>hate to think we just die.
Question: If you had a million dollars, would you gamble it all on one pull of a slot machine? If you hit the jackpot, you would now have a billion dollars. If you didn’t, you’d be busted. You had to win the jackpot on one pull. Would you do it? Yes or no, and why?
“We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe[s,] to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act”- Charles Darwin
“because very very soon we are dead…and by golly, we’d hate to think we just die.”
No that’s what you better hope for. If you are right, you and I end up with the same end. If I and other believers are right where does that leave you?
The point of the thread was the placement of biblical teaching in schools.
“God” has never demonstrated his existence to me. “God” has never demonstrated his existence to my son. Unless and until “God” chooses to weigh in, I will oblige those who claim to speak for “God” to refrain from foisting their faith on my kid.
“Aha! But it does not say that epilepsy is caused by demons, only that demons can cause epileptic seizures. Thankyou for clarifying the bogus claim.”
??? What seizures? Epileptic seizures, hence the entire epsisode of epilepsy. So you are still holding to the notion that mental disorders are caused by demonic possession. Funny how taking medication can reduce episodes of demonic possession which is odd considering demons are spiritual and the mind is physical. Or do you believe people don’t have brains? That’s be more creation science for you.
“King James:Num 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn.
Amplified:Num 23:22 God brought them forth out of Egypt; they have as it were the strength of a wild ox.
Old English referred to a wild ox as a unicorn.”
Simple, just rewrite the Bible. If the Bible is inerrant there would be no errors to correct. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. At first I thought you’d give serious responses but I concluded too soon.
“None of these scriptures refers to the earth being flat. Only that it is stable and cannot be moved. Don’t confuse that with revolve. Has the earth ever moved from it’s position (not counting revolve)?”
So the Earth is the fixed center of the universe. That’s what creation science teaches. Contrary to your believe the theory of gravity states objects with greater mass have greater gravitational pulls. So the Earth would revolve around the sun, but it’s really just a theory like evolution.
“Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
No flat earth and no dome.”
Of course I see you clearly dismissed the descriptions of the Earth being covered by a dome. I suppose an actual understanding of the context would be too difficult for you. It’s a shame fundies don’t take the time to learn about their religion. If you take the time to read it says the earth was covered by a looking glass (polished copper was used at the time instead of glass mirrors). Looking glasses are curved to reflect a large image over a flat surface. However, optics is just a theory.
“Well at least you admit to one.”
So you are concluding that rods placed before animals change their genotype? There we have the creationist theory of genetics.
“I really think you should devote more of your time to reading the Bible instead of thinking you know what it says when you don’t.”
Clearly by your response you don’t understand your own religion. I suggest actually taking some courses in history, archeology, biology and anthropology. Of course all those fields are just theories so you’d dismiss them anyway. Thanks for proving, once again, how uneducated creationists are about just about everything.
The question at present is can creationists present a testable model for creationism? Creationists want creationism to be taught as a science so the first step would be to qualify it as a science.
Or is this mental exercise for creationists too demanding?
I wonder if all of the Bible-thumpers on here have even read the text of that which they drone on about endlessly. I can sum it up for you in two words: pure fantasy.
I’ll also bet most of the Christians on here don’t even know that much about the history of their religion and canon: that the supposed foundational texts of the New Testament were not even decided upon until more than three centuries after Christ died. That there are scores of other Gospels, some of which deny the divinity of Jesus, many of which also directly contradict the Gospels present in the New Testament (Thomas for example). That there is a general consensus among Biblical scholars that the Gospels weren’t even written by those that actually knew Jesus. For example, Paul himself didn’t know Jesus. Besides this, there were HUNDREDS of other prophets in Judea at the same time as Jesus, who preached just like Jesus, and were executed just like Jesus.
What I find most interesting about those that constantly harp about morality and Christian values is that they practice a lot of what the Bible warns against: pride bordering on arrogance; hatred against those that don’t agree with them, often justified through Jesus somehow (see the oh-so-pious Southern red states and their history of extreme hatred and racism against anyone not a WASP, always justified by the Bible and ‘Christian values’); outright hypocrisy regarding their own ‘moral’ values (eg Mark Foley, evangelicals having the highest divorce rate of the mainstream religion, oh-so-pious Southern red states having among the highest divorce and teen-pregnancy rates, oh-so-pious deep-red rural areas and the meth epidemic); the list goes on and on.
Main point – true believers and Republicans are cut from the same mold: never questioning anything they are told by their authorities, as they seem to not be equipped to do this; willing to believe any fantasy, no matter how outlandish, as long as it confirms what they already ‘know;’ and tied to this gullibility, the ability to selectively disregard information that doesn’t suit what they ‘know.’ In my opinion, Bible-thumpers/evangelicals/Republicans are just weak-minded, conformist, ‘righteous hate’-filled, willingly blind automatons, and as such, they are worthy of complete contempt.
ddub, I happen to be an atheist, but I thought I should point out the obvious, mainly that these fine folks could be completely right about the “God” question, and evolution would be still be just as valid.
I know the hardcore Bible-thumpers can be wearying, but I think your approach may do more harm than good.*********************************Well, Hank, it’s interesting that you’re talking about physics. Isn’t this the same Hank who asked me, with a presumably straight face, how a light-sensitive molecule could evolve?
The short answer (of course): molecules are produced by chemical reactions, physics writ large. No single molecule, not even DNA, ‘evolves’ per se. However, if a light-sensitive molecule is beneficial to differential reproductive success, the genes that produced it stand a fair likelihood of being preserved in the next generation.
P.S. Having said that, ddub, I think it was a very thoughtful and well-spoken post. Maybe I am too naive in thinking that minds can be changed (but, again, see my reference to Niall Shanks above. . ).
>Actually Bill,
>Electrons do not hold the>nucleus together. Binding>energy does. The protons>in the nucleus are actually >keeping the electrons in their >orbits.
Explain this “binding energy” a little further. What conditions exist that cause this “binding energy?”
Oh and one more thing: Whe science talks about the big bang and this universe at one point being the size of a pinpoint, how did that pinpoint come to be?
>”We can allow satellites, >planets, suns, universe, nay >whole systems of universe[s,]>to be governed by laws, but>the smallest insect, we wish>to be created at once by>special act”>- Charles Darwin
Governed by laws, but then he shifts the focus to creation.
“because very very soon we are >dead…and by golly, we’d>hate to think we just die.”
>No that’s what you better>hope for. If you are right,>you and I end up with the>same end. If I and other >believers are right where>does that leave you?
That’s right. If the Bible is false and there is no God, then I have nothing to lose by living a Christian life and the non-believer has nothing to lose by living a sinful life.
If the Bible is true and there is a God, then I have everything to gain by living a Christian life and the non-believer has everything to lose by living a sinful life.
Either way, I’ll either be dead or in Heaven forever. They will either be dead or burning in hell forever.
The odds are in the believer’s favor.
>??? What seizures? Epileptic >seizures, hence the entire >epsisode of epilepsy. So you>are still holding to the>notion that mental disorders>are caused by demonic >possession.
No I’m not. I never said that. Go back and re-read.
>Funny how taking medication>can reduce episodes of>demonic possession which>is odd considering demons>are spiritual and the mind>is physical. Or do you>believe people don’t have>brains? That’s be more>creation science for you.
Please spare me your sarcasm.
>Simple, just rewrite the>Bible. If the Bible is>inerrant there would be no>errors to correct.
We translate the Bible, we do not re-write it.
>At first I thought you’d give >serious responses but I>concluded too soon.
LOL! Scroll up a bit and tell me that was a serious response from you.
>Of course I see you clearly >dismissed the descriptions>of the Earth being covered>by a dome. I suppose an actual >understanding of the context >would be too difficult for you.
No it’s not too difficult for me but I can clearly see it is too difficult for you.
>So you are concluding that>rods placed before animals>change their genotype?
No.
>Clearly by your response you >don’t understand your own >religion.
What do you intend to accomplish by that remark?
Bill,I admire your knowledge and determination, but you know as well as I that debating atheists is pretty much “kicking against the goads”. They read the Bible with eyes wide shut and hardened hearts looking for errors, not truth. As you have seen, they add their own interpretations to the Scriptures to make it mean what they want (the very thing they accuse Christians of doing).
Anyway.. the only common ground where I can relate and stand together with them is that we should all lead good, decent lives for whatever reason. We should care for and give to our brothers and sisters, and do our best not to harm another human being. This being said, I must add to your last statements that this is not a gamble… there are no odds… there is a God.. PERIOD! I have seen Him in the wonders of his Word, and the miracles of his creation. I have no doubt, and nothing will ever change that! To be a believer just because “there might be a God” gains one nothing…. it denies his power and existence. So, anyone who is on that boat, it is a sinking ship, and you are no better off than being a non-believer. Do you agree with that?
Folks like Doug say “Funny how it is that the more well read someone is about scripture the more likely they are to not believe it.”
That is so far from the truth.. each time I read the Bible, I am presented with new and wondrous revelations that I did not see before. I learn more and more about God’s character and his love. Mostly, I become even more secure in my faith and that someday “every knee will bow” and justice and mercy will prevail.I used to be more like them… I was so blind!
Cindy dearest,Creation cannot be made into a theory, as there is no evidence at all concerning this IDEA.Any teacher can discuss ideas in any class. Just because I’m in english class doesn’t mean that the teacher can’t discuss current events.
As far as not being able to read minds, come on! That’s a cop-out, and you know it.
The conservatives motives is well documented, as pointed out above.There is no point in discussing creation as a scientific theory.Let’s talk about how disingenous the offending members have been regarding those motives.
If their point is to teach free thinking, then their actions have been very counter productive, as all that has ensued is polarization of the two opposing viewpoints, and hardening their stances.So, as I said earlier, It’s apparent to me that they do not give two hoots about science and/or science education.Cindy, why can’t we openly discuss the motivations? I really don’t believe that you have not had this conversation with these members!!Are you afraid to betray their trust?What about failing our children in this state? Please take them into account, as they are the ones who end up suffering by the boards deceitful actions, PLEASE.Putting their education in jeopardy does not affect you and your kids because you are not a public school.The bottom line is that they have attempted to inject religous dogma into science. And that is why they will be removed by the voters.I know in my heart that you are aware of what is going on with the unspoken agenda.Nobody can call their motives pure if it must be unspoken.
“In my opinion, Bible-thumpers/evangelicals/Republicans are just weak-minded, conformist, ‘righteous hate’-filled, willingly blind automatons, and as such, they are worthy of complete contempt.” -ddub
ddub, that is one of the more ill-informed posts that I have ever read here. Doesn’t make you a bad person though. Just misguided. (Atheist propoganda will do that to you) But God still loves you and wants a relationship with you.
Consider this. If I am wrong about God’s existance (and I’m not), I’ll never know it. But if you are wrong, well, you will find out. And in the meantime, on this earth, Christians have the peace that having a relatioship with God brings.
Why not do a little research? Maybe read a few books from a different perspective. I’d be happy to recommend a couple.
Tracy,I wish my English teacher would have used more current events to illustrate the need for clarity and eloquence in the daily communication. As it is, we end up with badly written laws and regulations, an acceptance for a president with a penchant for creating new words, and the dumbing down of public discourse.
And to be clear about this,I have no problem with religion, fundamentalists and evangelism.My only problem is a hidden agenda to bring these into schools.This is democracy, and if it can’t be openly discussed and voted into the school by a majority, then it is really, really wrong to try this ‘through the back door’.
And for the posters that continually ask if I read the standards–YES.HAVE YOU READ THE COURT RULING?Wich is entirely relevant to our situation here in Kansas.Here, read this, PLEASE.
ConclusionThe proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the factsof this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates theEstablishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed theseminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, andmoreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,antecedents.Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrockassumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theoryis antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion ingeneral. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that thetheory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by thescientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, theexistence of a divine creator.To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the factthat a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should notbe used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded inreligion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientificpropositions.The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of theBoard who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals,who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, wouldtime and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the IDPolicy.With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of IDhave bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nordo we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. Asstated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as analternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of anactivist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed factionon a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find aconstitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt animprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of theBoard’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop whichhas now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachersof the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legalmaelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by theEstablishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an orderpermanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any schoolwithin the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate ordisparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer toa religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratoryjudgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them bythe Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants toliability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominaldamages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costsincurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
Tracy: Glad to hear that you have nothing against religious folks. But I think that you overstate the so-called goals of those who advocate full-disclosure when it comes to Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.
We, well at least I, think that it is fine to teach the subject in science class. Just don’t overstate what it is. It offers evidence (interpretted from a secular world view), not proof, to support the theory of common descent.
I think that our attitude should be to teach our children the truth. And when something is taught without reservation as the truth, when it is a theory, then it smacks more of indoctrination than of truth.
Definations and discussions of the truth should be relagated to the philosophy class.The theory is taught as such.NOT as ‘the truth’.Science presents evidence, not universal truths.”Full disclosure”, as you call it, IS part of science education.There is no evidence concerning this non-controversy, creation.It is a biblical metaphor, and should be taught as such. The bible cannot and should not be taken literally word for word.Did you not read the conclusion from the Dover trial?It is CLEARLY stated what the goals, intentions, and purposes are for attempting to inject religous dogma into science class.
This really never ends, does it.Believers are believers because they do not believe the scientific evidence.As far as putting these new changes into practice, it ain’t happening.Judge Jones plainly outlines why.
This really never ends, does it?
The junk science called evolution is still popular with the unenlightened public because scientists are too afraid to speak out. See the fate of the brave Polish scientists that DID speak out. His job is at risk now. Some American scientists have lost theirs also. If you want to see the Polish Web site that presented the following (partial) article go to: http://www.polskieradio.pl/polonia/article.asp?tId=43301&j=2
THE ARTICLE, immediately below:See last paragraph.
Polish MEP calls for ’scholarly debate’ on evolutionPolish European Parliament deputy and biology professor, Maciej Giertych, is calling for an end to the monopoly of Darwinian theory in the teaching of evolution in schools.
Joanna Najfeld reports’I am a scientist, I am a geneticist, my specialty is population genetics and I reject the theory of evolution on the basis of the field of science I represent. I find that in many fields of science there are scientists who reject the theory of evolution because in their fields they also find evidence against the theory.’ says MEP Maciej Giertych.
For the past decades, biology classes in Poland and around the world have focused practically exclusively on Darwinian theory when tackling the subject of evolution. Prof. Giertych and his colleagues see room for reform in this respect.
‘Schools are teaching evolution as a fact and there seems to be very little reference to new research that would either support or negate the theory of evolution. There is so much new evidence that is being simply ignored by the school textbooks.’
But when last week in the European Parliament Giertych and a group of non-Darwinian scientists organized a conference, a whiff of controversy was in the air. Some commentators were quick to label Giertych a religious bigot, ridicule his views and boldly question his competence. Prof. Kielan-Jaworowska:
Having evidence against Darwin’s theory in no way equates to having evidence FOR creationism. Period.If there is credible scientific evidence against a theory, it will also be presented in science education.And you’re still not addressing the motives, we are well beyond the tired sound bites.The motives and methods remain the same.Their is no other logical conclusion, as Jones states, than inserting religous IDEAS into science.SCIENCE should not be the issue, the deceitful reasoning given by the BOE is the issue. Period.
This really never ends, does it?
When creationists make comments like this, “There are people who still believe that not the earth is going round the sun but the sun round the earth. His views have nothing to do with science; I would not call him a scientist. We are deeply ashamed that he got the title of a professor and that he is a biologist.”
It’s really hard to take them seriously. Do creationists really have this much of a problem with the theory of gravity? I would have figured gravity was pretty well established but creationists still insist it is a lie. No wonder the joke on a Family Guy episode where Peter comments that Christians don’t believe in gravity was so funny.
The article you mentioned J Collins doesn’t present any evidence against evolution, it doesn’t even present a theory opposing evolution. So where’s the controversy? How could someone even be a geneticist without even accepting genetic recombination?
Do creationists have a testable model for creationism? The question is asked again but again no answer is received. Creationists know science like they know their Bible, not at all.
“To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society”-Teddy Roosevelt
Moral education should be the task of parents and their churches,not public school teachers…..Tracy
Thank you Doug.You defeat these people in a logical way and they still claim victory.(One of the strategies listed above by Dr, Bermann, from the wedge document.)
The Intelligent Design movement has already targeted several states in an attempt to alter the K-12 science standards. They have presented an array of arguments that are meant to appear “fair and balanced” but actually mask their true intentions. They want the definition of science altered to accommodate divine agency. They do not accept the essence of science; the foundation that has made it so successful as a special way of learning about the world: science as the search for natural causes for natural phenomena.
Here are some common tactics, many of which have already been employed in New Mexico, Kansas, Ohio, West Virginia, Louisiana, and many other states:
• Place ID advocates on school boards and science standards writing committees.
• Go as public as possible in print and visual media.
• Make the inclusion of ID in science classes seem like a free-speech and academic freedom issue.
• Make scientists seem like the dogmatists.
• Claim that “Darwinism” is a religion, but ID is science.
• Claim that “others” are biased, and that teaching ID is only fair.
• Cite popular poll results and ignore the scientific consensus.
• Refer to ID in scientific sounding rather than religious language.
• Redefine science to allow supernatural causes for natural phenomena.
• Settle for any change or modification in their goals, and declare anything as a victory.
• Create loopholes in state science standards, using innocuous- sounding language, to allow the presentation of socalled “evidence against evolution.”
All of the above has been attempted or accomplished right here in Kansas.
Tracy,
I do not know the motives of each member of the BOE majority who chose to revise the state science standards. I know the motives of one of those members, and they match my own — open inquiry in the classroom.
See the following article for further details:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo11.html
——————————by Dr. Steve Abrams, Chairman, Kansas State Board of Education
It is a sad commentary on the state of public affairs that persons ask learned reporters and editorial Board members of the Eagle still have no clue as to what is happening with the Kansas Science Curriculum Standards.
The Eagle editorial French evolution hearings push religious agenda, many an opinion claim that these hearings have everything to do with sneaking religious views into science classroom. That is absolutely incorrect. At no time have I stated or implied that I wanted to insert creation science or intelligent design into the Science Curriculum Standards. On the contrary, I have stated that I would vote against inserting either one into the Science Curriculum Standards. Further, I have repeatedly stated that my objective is to get as much empirical science, defined as observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable into the Science Curriculum Standards as possible.
In addition, I have stated that I want to remove the dogmatic fashion with which neo-Darwinian evolution is taught. When a subject is discussed using words such as always and fact and no controversy when in actuality it’s not always, nor factual and great controversy is involved, then by definition it’s being taught as dogma.
The dogmatic approach is what is being advocated by the Majority Draft of the Kansas Science Standards.
The point of the science hearings is to show that indeed among scientists with many degrees having received many research grants have published many peer review papers and books and having accomplishments great and small, there is a great controversy about biological evolution being taught as dogma. They presented testimony that there is controversy about the factual nature of biological evolution. They also presented testimony that there’s controversy about the definition of science as used in the majority standard [sic draft -- editor].
These hearings were not about my religious views. They were about what is good science. There was a huge amount of science testimony over these three last days last week, but to read the editorial and the article anti-evolution hearings end May 8th, local and state, a person would be hard pressed to know that science was the main topic of discussion.
One had to read the editorial and article closely to find that 23 people testified, but one might get the opinion that indeed there weren’t many scientists that testified. A point of fact, of the 20 plus witnesses only two were not actively involved in science research or teaching science. Of course, the article quoted both of those who were not active in science research or science teaching.
We invited evolutionary scientists from all across Kansas and the United States to testify, but they all decided to boycott. Now, a thinking person would ask– is– is it because the hearings are rigged? Is it because of arrogance of the majority scientists, or is it because what the Majority proposes is actually full of holes?
The editorial stated the case against the conservatives of the State Board should be for educational malpractice. I find it amazing that you would say this in the face of the testimony of science teachers who testified that they were reprimanded, fired and generally put on a short leash when they discussed, not brainwashed, but discussed scientific tests that seemed to contradict the “fact” of neo-Darwinian evolution.
Further, the article referred to Jack Krebs, vice-president of Kansas Citizens for Science as a mainstream scientist. In fact, Mr. Krebs does not have a Ph.D. in science, but is instead a high school math teacher. This is not meant to demean math teachers, but generally most high school math teachers do not consider themselves mainstream scientists.
I have made no secret of my faith or the principles upon which I stand, not what I would like to see in the Kansas Science Standards, yet the Eagle persists in stating that I intend to do something that is categorically opposite of what I state. I would urge Eagles writers to become well educated about the issues.
Investigate the claim of those witnesses with lots of pedigrees who claim there are scientific problems and mainstream science does not stand up to investigation. Investigate the claims of Kansas Citizens for Science which has sought to target uneducated moderates with propaganda and proclaim the conservative State Board members as political opportunists on principle bullies, etc.
Investigate my claims when I state I do not want to insert creationism or intelligent design, but instead want to rely on empirical science.
I have tried to speak forthrightly with every reporter that comes along, but it seems that most of them, or at least their attitudes, are either want to be mind readers or have an agenda of their own.
As Thomas Cooper said, only fraud and falsehood dread examination. Truth invites it.——————————
Sorry … the entire editorial did not post. This is a second attempt:
By Dr. Steve Abrams, Chairman, Kansas State Board of Education
It is a sad commentary on the state of public affairs that persons ask learned reporters and editorial Board members of the Eagle still have no clue as to what is happening with the Kansas Science Curriculum Standards.
The Eagle editorial French evolution hearings push religious agenda, many an opinion claim that these hearings have everything to do with sneaking religious views into science classroom. That is absolutely incorrect. At no time have I stated or implied that I wanted to insert creation science or intelligent design into the Science Curriculum Standards. On the contrary, I have stated that I would vote against inserting either one into the Science Curriculum Standards. Further, I have repeatedly stated that my objective is to get as much empirical science, defined as observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable into the Science Curriculum Standards as possible.
In addition, I have stated that I want to remove the dogmatic fashion with which neo-Darwinian evolution is taught. When a subject is discussed using words such as always and fact and no controversy when in actuality it’s not always, nor factual and great controversy is involved, then by definition it’s being taught as dogma.
The dogmatic approach is what is being advocated by the Majority Draft of the Kansas Science Standards.
The point of the science hearings is to show that indeed among scientists with many degrees having received many research grants have published many peer review papers and books and having accomplishments great and small, there is a great controversy about biological evolution being taught as dogma. They presented testimony that there is controversy about the factual nature of biological evolution. They also presented testimony that there’s controversy about the definition of science as used in the majority standard [sic draft -- editor].
These hearings were not about my religious views. They were about what is good science. There was a huge amount of science testimony over these three last days last week, but to read the editorial and the article anti-evolution hearings end May 8th, local and state, a person would be hard pressed to know that science was the main topic of discussion.
One had to read the editorial and article closely to find that 23 people testified, but one might get the opinion that indeed there weren’t many scientists that testified. A point of fact, of the 20 plus witnesses only two were not actively involved in science research or teaching science. Of course, the article quoted both of those who were not active in science research or science teaching.
We invited evolutionary scientists from all across Kansas and the United States to testify, but they all decided to boycott. Now, a thinking person would ask– is– is it because the hearings are rigged? Is it because of arrogance of the majority scientists, or is it because what the Majority proposes is actually full of holes?
The editorial stated the case against the conservatives of the State Board should be for educational malpractice. I find it amazing that you would say this in the face of the testimony of science teachers who testified that they were reprimanded, fired and generally put on a short leash when they discussed, not brainwashed, but discussed scientific tests that seemed to contradict the “fact” of neo-Darwinian evolution.
Further, the article referred to Jack Krebs, vice-president of Kansas Citizens for Science as a mainstream scientist. In fact, Mr. Krebs does not have a Ph.D. in science, but is instead a high school math teacher. This is not meant to demean math teachers, but generally most high school math teachers do not consider themselves mainstream scientists.
I have made no secret of my faith or the principles upon which I stand, not what I would like to see in the Kansas Science Standards, yet the Eagle persists in stating that I intend to do something that is categorically opposite of what I state. I would urge Eagles writers to become well educated about the issues.
Investigate the claim of those witnesses with lots of pedigrees who claim there are scientific problems and mainstream science does not stand up to investigation. Investigate the claims of Kansas Citizens for Science which has sought to target uneducated moderates with propaganda and proclaim the conservative State Board members as political opportunists on principle bullies, etc.
Investigate my claims when I state I do not want to insert creationism or intelligent design, but instead want to rely on empirical science.
I have tried to speak forthrightly with every reporter that comes along, but it seems that most of them, or at least their attitudes, are either want to be mind readers or have an agenda of their own.
As Thomas Cooper said, only false– only fraud and falsehood dread examination. Truth invites it.
Let scientists determine what is science.
Let preachers determine what is religion.
When you let the former rule the latter, you get Galileo silenced.
BTW, 2centsworth, you are liar.
How many ATHETISTS support “intelligent design.” It has nothing to do with emperical science and you know it.
At least have the integrity to admit why you support it. You are a simple-minded thinker who can’t figure out how to reconcile the Genesis myth with science.
That’s your problem. Not mine or our schoolkids.
Is anyone here familiar with Occam’s Razor in it’s original form?”Do not attribute to God or Satan anything that may be explained by natural law.”-William of Occam, Archbishop of Canterbury-
“…any an opinion claim that these hearings have everything to do with sneaking religious views into science classroom. That is absolutely incorrect. At no time have I stated or implied that I wanted to insert creation science or intelligent design into the Science Curriculum Standards. On the contrary, I have stated that I would vote against inserting either one into the Science Curriculum Standards. Further, I have repeatedly stated that my objective is to get as much empirical science, defined as observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable into the Science Curriculum Standards as possible.” –Steve Abrams, cat doctor, quoted above.
What a pantload this bozo is. Could surely work “disingenuous” in there as well (”That is absolutely incorrect. At no time have I stated or implied that I wanted to insert creation science or intelligent design into the Science Curriculum Standards.”; note the second sentence is not necessarily related to the charge in the first, hence the disingenuousness).
If all the good guppie doctor wants is to increase the quality of Kansas science education, then why redefine science so to include supernatural causes for natural phenomena?
Until the good sheep doctor answers that question he is and should rightly be thought of as a total pantload in every thinking Kansans’ mind.
Go to heaven for the climate, hell for the company.–Mark Twain
Dear, dear.I’ll keep this short.Open inquiry in the classroom is WONDERFUL.As soon as a child brings this subject up, all the teacher has to do is tell the truth.DEAR STUDENT, there is no alternative theory to evolution.Creationism, ID, and all of it’s other cousins are not viable alternatives. They are metaphor from religous text. Period.Okay, any other open inquiry?Next.Cindy, if you and your friend are sure about your motives, then you are on the wrong side of the fence.This whole issue has been a terrible thing for our children’s education. And very selfish on the part of the board members who pushed for this. Sorry, but that is the truth in my opinion.As for the other members, they are not being honest about their motives, as Judge Jones points out.No matter how hard you try, you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
Moral education should be the task of parents and their churches,not public school teachers…..Tracy
This is a good quote.If that’s the case then public eduction needs to stick to the three R’s.I do really like how this is such a hot topic on here though.
And, furthermore—–IF these changes are so innocent and harmless,THEN WHY CARE IF THEY ARE REMOVED?
I believe just the number of posts here proves that this was not an innocent well meaning thing.It was just plain wrong.
KIA, they are just not being honest.Our schools have NEVER had a problem with open inquiry.That thought is completely laughable. Since it is such a poor reason or motive, what is the motive?That’s right. It’s not about our children’s academic performance,IT’S ABOUT SAVING SOULS. PERIOD.Which is a good thing when not attempted in public schools.
Given Abrams’ rationale for including anti-evolution positions in school curricula, is there any reason why Holocaust-denial shouldn’t be included in the history curriculum as well? After all, there are “reputable” historians, some of whom work at prestigious academic institutions, who deny the Holocaust entirely or in part. They too feel they are discriminated against by the academic “elite” who refuse to give their evidence against the Holocaust a “fair” hearing. Some who hold the holocaust-denial position have been “persecuted” by losing their jobs or having their tenure threatend, just because they promote an unorthodox view of history.
If it is legitimate for schools to provide an avenue for the minority of professionals who dispute evolution, isn’t the same true for those who dispute the Holocaust? Wouldn’t this be the “fairest” thing, and wouldn’t this promote an environment of open inquiry? Should it really matter that the so-called “evidence” of the holocaust-deniers has been rejected by the vast majority of historians and is not considered credible by any professional associations of historians who actively research the issue? Aren’t those who seek to suppress this “evidence” that refutes the Holocaust doing so merely because they want to retain the status quo and are afraid that if students heard “both” sides, they would realize that the evidence for the Holocaust is not as strong as they thought? By not including Holocaust-denial material in the curriculum, aren’t we cheating students of the opportunity to hear all the “evidence” and let them make up their own mind? Is it really fair to insist that Holocaust-deniers first legitimize their claims by having them published and accepted by the majority of professional historians?
Or perhaps we should actually insist that schools teach credible postions, supported by credible researchers and supported by the professional association of scientists who actively engage in research in the area. I guess Abrams’ finds that position to restrictive and unfair.
I should probably remove myself from the conversation since my kids don’t go to public school in Kansas.Out here on public schools are solely concerned with being able to pass standardized tests to keep there funding where they want it.
GREAT POST surrounded.AND along the same line,I’m quite sure we should include the theory of intelligent falling.
Controversy my butt.
Only concerned for the students my butt.
Good point KIA.If your kids are not in public schools then why should you care?
I don’t have to read minds to detect what motives are, judged on actions.
Cindy, why be involved in ANY of this?This is not your fight.Your school is not a public school.What is your interest in this?
What can you make of people who are willingly to shamelessly LIE, over and over, to win their arguments? How is this compatible with a serious committment to faith?
Okay, let’s assume that the compelling proof of evolution was given to us by Dr. Damien Lucifer (Phd., Biology, Antichrist University). But other scientists of all faiths and political persuasions replicate and confirm Lucifer’s conclusions. Would that justify LYING about the FACTS under contention?
Does that jusfify LYING about your motives, and pretending that this is about improving science education?
I really don’t get the doublethink that’s going on here. You pretend to support good science, but look who your opponents are–the scientists themselves.
And, by the way, the handful of cranks at the Discovery Institute are always free to challenge evolution within their own scientific communities. Funny thing–with the exception of one ill-regarded paper by Stephen Meyer (which gives no proof at all of ID), they haven’t. They take isolated popshots at certain claims in the literature, using them to convince an ignorant public that it’s a “theory in crisis.” And if you look up Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells etc. on the Web, you find them admitting that they motivated by a religious hostiliy to evolution.
This has NOTHING to do with better science. No intellectually honest person could claim that.
Many years ago, laws against teaching evolution were struck down. The anti-evolutionists responded with “equal time” laws, the “other side” being–absurdly–the Bible. Then the courts struck those down. Next step: creationism. Throw such scientific language into your dogma, and “Voila!” Science!
The courts didn’t buy that either.
Believing, stupidly, that the problem with creationism was the ‘G’ word (stemming from their delusion of Christian persecution), they decided to remove all references to a specific religion, and posit an “Intelligent Designer.” Like before, this a priori claim would be presented as a competing “theory,” despite its lack of even details (let alone evidence), predictions, testability, or any connection to the scientific literature. One might as well claim that the Pacific Ocean was barfed out by a giant penguin.
The purpose, of course, of this “theory” was to get around the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. It’s no wonder that it was invented by an attorney (Phillip Johnson). It had this added benefit: Anyone who rejected this “theory” (which has nothing to do with God, nope, no siree) could be accused of being an anti-Christian bigot (blackwhite thinking seems to be a prerequisite for these types).
Want to take evolution down? Get your stars like Behe, Wells etc., to actually go after its fundamentals scientifically, proving it wrong (I won’t hold my breath). Get them to convince their colleagues. They’re not now, because they know they can’t.
Quit trying to cut in line.
Thank you rage.I can’t write worth a damn.I’m glad you can.
On the contrary, sir, you’ve been very well-spoken and thoughtful on this thread. And not any noticeable typos, either.
As you can see, I just lost my patience (sorry, Niall).
If some scientist could successfully refute evolution and posit a working theory (not a notion) in it’s place, he or she would probably win a Nobel prize.So far, nobody has managed to, and the creationists/IDers haven’t even tried. If they can’t propose a working theory that stands up to scientific critique, they need to shut up and get back to work until they can. Until then, it ain’t science!
Why thank you rage.Now from the conservative (read republican) Johnson County Sun:
One of the most important state races in our area is in the 3rd District of the Kansas Board of Education. Don Weiss, a Democrat who lives in Olathe, is challenging the incumbent Republican, John W. Bacon, Olathe.
Weiss is, by far, the more qualified candidate.
Bacon is part of the notorious 6-4 Christian conservative majority that has enmeshed the board in distracting controversies such as evolution instruction, sex education and hiring Bob Corkins as education commissioner.
Corkins had no experience as a professional educator and, worse, as a paid lobbyist in the Kansas Legislature he opposed adequate funding for K-12 public education.
Bacon and his lot have continually imposed their personal values on education policies. Their antics on evolution instruction have been an embarrassment for Kansas around the world.
That is not the worst part. They have undermined Kansas’ efforts to attract top scientists to its developing bioscience and biomedical initiatives. That adversely affects the economic health of Kansas and threatens job opportunities in the state.
Among other destructive changes, Bacon and his cohorts made it more difficult for students to receive a balanced course on sex education.
Not only would Weiss be a vast improvement over Bacon. He would be a notable addition to the board.
>Bill,>I admire your knowledge>and determination, but>you know as well as I>that debating atheists>is pretty much “kicking>against the goads”. They>read the Bible with eyes>wide shut and hardened>hearts looking for errors,>not truth. As you have>seen, they add their own>interpretations to the>Scriptures to make it>mean what they want>(the very thing they>accuse Christians of>doing).
Exactly. They even add words to the Bible, then when I point out the fact that they are not there, they accuse me of misunderstanding.
No sense in trying to lead the blind when they refuse to be led.
Tracy,
I don’t have a school — public OR private. My “interest” began with my own children in public schools.
Depending upon which journalist you read and believe, most describe me as either an “education advocate” or an “education activist.”
In the past, I believe you have written about my “ego,” but I don’t believe that simply stating facts has anything at all to do with ego. SO, simply put, when I did have concerns for my own children, I read and researched about many aspects of education to the point where some (not including me :) have come to refer to me as an education expert. (There’s a lot I don’t know and I will be the first to admit it.)
Still, my activism and writings have drawn a lot of attention from all over the country. If you are not familiar with the following names, please do Google them and you will pull up plenty of information.
I have been fortunate enough to spend an afternoon and evening learning from Professor E. D. Hirsch. Diane Ravitch did a critique of the Kansas Social Studies standards for me. Professor Sandra Stotsky wrote a critique of the Kansas Language Arts Standards for me. Lynne Cheney (before her husband became our current V.P) called me and asked me to bring her up to speed on the topic of Schools to Work by faxing some of the Kansas documents to her along with some of my own writings on the topic. She used those for testimony before Congress about that issue.
My interest in all of this is good education for all — period. My primary concern, however, is for low-income and minority students who, too often, have too few voices speaking up on their behalf.
CKD
Tracy,
In an earlier post, you wrote, “What about failing our children in this state? Please take them into account, as they are the ones who end up suffering by the boards deceitful actions, PLEASE.”
During my years of “activism,” I have done what I could for the benefit of public school students.
In Wichita, we have Core Knowledge schools. I’m not sure if you are familiar with those so I’ll send more archived info through about them in a few minutes so you can read for yourself about the Wichita Core Knowledge schools and judge for yourself.
Some in this blog may faint with disbelief to know that the Core Knowledge curriculum includes teaching about religion.
It does so in a way that I support. It’s an open inquiry curriculum that encourages independent thinking and questions. It does not “cram” any particular belief down the throat of anyone.
I support that curriculum (and not just the religious component but all of it) for the very same reasons I support the revised science standards.
I want students who can think critically, but first, we have to give them something to think critically about.
Some links of interest are listed below for your review.
CKD
http://www.coreknowledge.org/CK/resrcs/lessons/05_1_ReligionYours.pdf
http://www.coreknowledge.org/CK/about/print/TchRelgn.htm
CORE KNOWLEDGE #1
Wichita Eagle, The (KS)15-Dec-97Section: LOCAL & STATEEdition: mainPage: 9A
SCHOOL IDEA MELDS DIVERSE POLITICAL VIEWS TEACHERS UNION, SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES JOIN TO PURSUE CORE-CURRICULUM SCHOOL IN WICHITA.John Ellis, The Wichita Eagle
An unlikely coalition of education activists – who share a frustration with the Wichita school system – is ready to push for a “core-knowledge” elementary school in the district.
The effort brings together social conservatives, some who have abandoned the Wichita district, and the teachers union, which is growing frustrated with the top administration.
“It’s an unholy alliance coming together here – people considered to be political conservatives and liberals,” said Cindy Duckett, a prominent conservative school activist in Wichita.
The core-knowledge curriculum is the brainchild of E.D. Hirsch, a professor at the University of Virginia and author of books including “Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know.”
Hirsch argues that every student needs to possess certain basic information – a set of culturally common core ideas – to succeed in today’s world. His Core Knowledge Foundation has been developing a list of knowledge that all students should have at each grade level.
That is certainly attractive to Alicia Moreno, who has a daughter at Black Traditional Magnet Elementary. She is dissatisfied even with that school – one set up specifically as a back-to-basics school.
“I’m not too pleased with the district right now,” she said, “but that is a school that I would choose for my daughter.”
Moreno has considered a private school or home school for her daughter, but a core-knowledge school is something that would persuade her to keep her daughter in a district school.
Parents like Moreno complain that the Wichita school system has gotten away from teaching basics in education, such as reading, writing and mathematics.
Duckett said such a school might satisfy other socially conservative parents frustrated with the Wichita district – or even woo back some who have already abandoned the district for private or home-school options.”It’s a very good curriculum,” she said, “the kind of curriculum parents across the nation are asking for.” Greg Jones, president of United Teachers of Wichita, is equally excited about the prospect.
He sees such a school as a place were teachers would be free to take Hirsch’s curriculum and implement it without interference from the central administration.
Some teachers, along with conservatives, have expressed frustration with what they see as meddling by officials who are far removed from classrooms.
Jones also hopes the school would show that teachers aren’t an impediment to learning. “We need to step forward,” he said.
Administration officials were not aware of the effort for such a school.
“I know nothing about it, and I don’t even know a lot about the philosophy of such a school,” said Dwight Jones, an assistant superintendent for the district.
Supporters hope to take the matter before the school board in January and open the school next fall. They will seek to contract with the Wichita district to operate the school, in a situation like the Edison Project, a private, for-profit company that runs three elementary schools and one middle school in the city.
At least a few board members are excited about the possibility.
“It will happen,” board member Chip Gramke said.
Gramke said he is fan of Hirsch and the core-curriculum concept. Board member Marty Marshall agreed.
“It’s a text-driven curriculum,” he said. “It’s probably what we need.”
There are more than 600 core-knowledge schools in 41 states. There are none in Kansas.
It is too early to know which school would be selected if the board approved the proposal.
The school would compete for students with Edison and the magnet schools spread across the district.
John Ellis writes about Wichita schools. He can be reached at 268-6228 or by e-mail at jellis@wichitaeagle.com.
Core-curriculum examples
Here are examples of the core-curriculum concept. These would be established benchmarks, expected to be learned by all students at each grade level:
* First grade: world history
Early civilizations such as Egypt, with focus on the importance of the Nile River, pharaohs, pyramids and mummies, animal gods and hieroglyphics.
* Third grade: math
Fractions: recognize fractions to one-tenth; identify numerator and denominator; write mixed numbers.
Geometry: identify lines as horizontal, vertical, perpendicular and parallel; identify polygons, pentagons, hexagons and octagons; compute area in square inches and square centimeters.
* Fourth grade: science
Electricity: have a knowledge of electricity and the flow of electrons, static electricity, electric current, the workings of electromagnets, and electric circuits, including closed, open and short circuits.
CORE KNOWLEDGE #2
Wichita Eagle, The (KS)1-Feb-98Section: MAIN NEWSEdition: mainPage: 1A
BACK TO BASICS CORE KNOWLEDGE IS TOUTED AS A BETTER WAY TO EDUCATE CHILDREN THIS MONTH, THE WICHITA SCHOOL BOARD WILL DISCUSS CREATING A SCHOOL BASED ON SYSTEMJohn Ellis, The Wichita Eagle
Last year, a father took Wichita teacher Christopher Atlee some books on an educational philosophy known as core knowledge.
Atlee was miffed.
“He was thinking what I was teaching was not good enough for his kid,” the teacher said.Now, Atlee is sold.
At Horace Mann this year, he is using the core knowledge curriculum to teach his third graders.”It’s very rigorous, and the kids excel,” he said.
The next convert could be the Wichita school board.
This month, the board will take its first look at creating a core knowledge elementary school. Supporters – an odd pairing of conservative education activists and the teachers’ union – hope to open the school this September.
If approved, it would be the latest in a line of more than 700 schools nationwide – and the third in Kansas – to adopt the core knowledge curriculum, which is the brainchild of E.D. Hirsch Jr.
Hirsch, a University of Virginia English professor, argues that every student needs to possess certain basic information – a set of culturally common ideas – to succeed. He emphasizes memorization, recitation, book learning, teacher-led verbal instruction and lots of testing – the kind of approach scoffed at by much of the educational establishment.
“What core knowledge is doing is, basically, connecting with reality,” he said.
The longest river in the world, the highest mountain, the lowest point, Susan B. Anthony, Buffalo Bill, Walt Whitman, E pluribus unum, the Balkans, Mecca, “make ends meet,” “bite the bullet,” rhythm, the Black Death, Alexander the Great, the Taj Mahal.
“This is the common stuff you and I know without even knowing that we know,” said William Hubert, a Hadley Middle School teacher who uses core knowledge in his lessons.
But, he added, each year less than half of his incoming students know the meaning or historical significance of such terms.n
E.D. Hirsch Jr. was doing research on literacy in the late 1970s when he stumbled on what would become a revolution.
He found that many community college students could not understand certain passages in their reading, and others did not have the background knowledge necessary to put the information into context.
Drawing on his ideas of how to reform American education, he established the Core Knowledge Foundation in 1986 and published “Cultural Literacy” a year later.Core knowledge has similarities to “back-to-basics” approaches. What sets it apart is Hirsch’s theory that knowledge builds on knowledge from one grade to the next.
His foundation has published books outlining what each student is expected to learn at each grade level from kindergarten through seventh grade (the eighth grade guide is in the works).
Egyptian history? That’s first grade. How electromagnets work? Fourth grade. Across the United States, each student in a particular grade is expected to learn the exact same material.The curriculum also introduces students to ideas and historical events at a much earlier age than most programs.
Core knowledge is meant to be used half the time, which leaves the other half to satisfy state or local learning requirements.
Hirsch has expressed dissatisfaction with current educational trends such as the “whole language” approach to reading, multi-age classrooms, ungraded work and cooperative learning.
He rejects prevailing attitudes that teach elementary students based on material found in the world around them instead of subjects such as history.
In turn, the educational mainstream has ridiculed his ideas and lambasted his book. Critics called core knowledge Eurocentric and a perfect example of the outdated “drill-and-kill” teaching methods that they said bored students to death.
His ideas, however, gained grass-roots support from parents who consider themselves conservative, and even won over the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second largest teachers union.
“Hirsch has what I call a common sense curriculum,” said Cindy Duckett, a local conservative education activist and core knowledge supporter.
More than a decade after the book was published, 710 schools in 42 states have adopted all or part of the core knowledge curriculum.
And, Hirsch points out, none has abandoned the program.
Now, the concept is catching on in Kansas.
Two schools in the Hays district began using core knowledge in the 1995-96 school year. This spring, at least a dozen administrators from the Topeka school district plan to attend a core knowledge convention in Atlanta, though there are no plans to start a school in the state’s capital. And Washburn University is thinking about developing courses useful to prospective principals of core knowledge schools.
Three Oaks Elementary School in Fort Myers, Fla., became the first core knowledge school in fall 1990.
“The teachers completely embraced it because it didn’t tell them how to teach,” said Connie Jones, former principal at Three Oaks and now director of school programs for the Core Knowledge Foundation. “It told them what the goals were, but how to get there was left up to the teacher.”
The curriculum has gained converts across the country.
“I have nothing but good to say about this reform,” said Nancy Hall, whose children used to attend the Crossroads Academy in New Hampshire.
Students like it, too.
“I like that I’m learning more than I used to,” said Morgan Brown, a fourth grader at Washington Elementary in Rochester, Minn.
Her mother, Elena, frustrated by the education of her older son, was the driving force that brought core knowledge to Rochester.
Locally, most parents – and many educators – are unfamiliar with the idea. But some say they like the little they have heard.
“I think it sounds like a good idea,” said Debbie Dent, who has children at Mueller Elementary. She added, however, that she would want to study the issue before committing.
Whether core knowledge can help more students succeed depends on how a school implements it, said Samuel Stringfield, principal research scientist at Johns Hopkins University.The curriculum, however, is solid. “Core knowledge by itself serves as a remarkable catalyst,” said Stringfield, who is conducting two studies on the the curriculum.He believes that the schools that integrate the curriculum into an environment with a strong staff and an emphasis on teaching basic reading and math show achievement improvements.
Those that do not do as well may have an older teaching staff that is not as welcoming to change, one not willing to do the extra research work needed to teach the wide base of knowledge called for, or an administration not dedicated to the concept, Stringfield said.
“If people are willing to push, they will get a lot out of core knowledge,” he said.
Critics of core knowledge paint a picture of a dull classroom where students merely parrot dates, facts and figures without developing critical thinking skills.
Those skills are often referred to as processes – reading, writing, speaking, problem-solving, critical thinking, decision-making, research – that enable students to become independent learners.
Some maintain that it takes more than just curriculum to build a successful program.
“A curriculum is only one part of a school,” said Theodore Sizer, another education reformist whose ideas have often clashed with Hirsch’s.
For Sizer – who favors teaching students independent and creative thinking and opposes standardized testing – the most important factor is the teacher. Depending on the staff, the school could be a success or a disaster, he said, and the outcome may have nothing to do with core knowledge or any other educational reform.
Supporters of a core knowledge school in Wichita believe it can succeed because the teachers’ union is behind the effort and any teachers hired would be aware of the concept.
Like Atlee, the Horace Mann teacher.
“Our kids are not coming to us with a core of basic facts,” he said, “and until they do, basically, teachers are spinning their own wheels.”Ultimately, results – probably test results – would be the final judge of any Wichita core knowledge school.For now, however, core knowledge in the district is the domain of a few teachers like Atlee and Hubert, and the dream of an aggressive group of conservative education advocates and leaders of the district’s teachers’ union.
“I’m really excited,” said Greg Jones, president of the United Teachers of Wichita. “I think it will be a home run.”
John Ellis writes about Wichita schools. He can be reached at 268-6228 or by e-mail at jellis@wichitaeagle.com.
The Wichita plan
Wichita could get its first look at a proposed core knowledge program during a Feb. 9 school board meeting. Any vote is at least three weeks away.
Details on the plan are sketchy – here is what is known so far.
Who is proposing the school? Conservative activists led by Cindy Duckett, president of Project Educate, and David Payne, executive director of the Kansas Family Research Institute, have joined forces with the United Teachers of Wichita, labor union for the district’s 3,100 teachers.
Where would it be located?
Supporters envision taking over an existing elementary school, but none has been singled out. They say they want a school with low test scores, where improvements could show off the benefits of the core knowledge curriculum. They would not ask to take over any school unless parents from that school welcomed it. Staff would be drawn from within the district.
Who could attend?
The school would compete for students just like any other magnet or specialty school.
How would it be operated?
Oversight of the school is still being discussed. It would be run on a non-profit basis, most likely under contract with the school board and independent of the central administration. Supporters hope for an arrangement much like that of the private, for-profit Edison Project, which receives state funding for each student who attends its four schools. The core knowledge school still would have to meet district education requirements.
Who can I call? For more information on the local core knowledge school, contact the United Teachers of Wichita, 262-5171. For national information, contact Connie Jones, director of school programs for the Core Knowledge Foundation, 941-466-2959.
The core knowledge curriculum is based on the theory that every student needs certain basic knowledge to succeed. It focuses on facts learned through memorization and recitation: historical names, dates and places, art, architecture, literature, vocabulary. What sets core knowledge apart is its regimented steps. Across the nation, students in the same grade are expected to learn the same material.
Here’s a sample of what kids would learn about a subject in a particular grade.
Kindergarten
In visual arts:
Painting
Matisse’s The Purple Robe
Picasso’s Le Gourmet
Diego Rivera’s Pinata
Sculpture
Statue of Liberty
Mount Rushmore
First grade
In world history:
Early civilizations
Ancient Egypt
The Nile River
Pharoahs, pyramids and mummies
Second grade
In American history:
Civil rights
Women’s rights and roles
Susan B. Anthony
Eleanor Roosevelt
Equality regardless of color
Martin Luther King, Jr
Cesar Chavez
Third grade
In math:
Fractions
Geometry
Lines: horizontal, vertical, perpendicular, parallel
Polygons: pentagons, hexagons, octagons
Fourth grade
In science
Electricity, conduction, safety, static, etc.
Fifth grade
In American history and geography
Westward exploration and expansion
Daniel Boone: Cumberland Gap and Wilderness Trail
American Indian resistance: Tecumseh attempts to unite tribes to defend their land
Sixth grade
In language arts
Stories
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
The Iliad and the Odyssey
Writing a research essay
Illustration:PHOTO:
CORE KNOWLEDGE #3
Wichita Eagle, The (KS)24-Feb-98Section: MAIN NEWSEdition: mainPage: 4A
CORE KNOWLEDGE PLAN GETS OK THREE WICHITA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS COULD BE USING THE NEW CURRICULUM THIS FALL.John Ellis, The Wichita Eagle
Forget about a single core knowledge elementary school in the Wichita school district.
How about three, instead?The Wichita school board voted to move ahead with not one, not two, but three schools using the curriculum developed by University of Virginia English professor E.D. Hirsch.
The vote Monday night was 5-2. Citing cost concerns, board members Claradine Johnson and board President Jean Schodorf voted against the plan.
Beyond the two dissenting votes, the support was solid.
“I support this concept, totally,” said board member Marty Marshall.
Earmarked to adopt the core knowledge concept, most likely this fall, are Bryant Elementary, Minneha Elementary and the Horace Mann Foreign Language complex. If it comes to fruition, Wichita’s three schools would join more than 700 others nationwide in adopting the core knowledge curriculum.Core knowledge is a curriculum concept that lays out what each child should learn at each grade. It’s heavy on recitation and memorization of facts common to American culture. What caught some by surprise was that three schools came to the board Monday asking for a core knowledge blessing.
The original concept came from an odd political alliance of the United Teachers of Wichita – union for the district’s 3,100 teachers – and conservative parents led by educational activists Cindy Duckett and David Payne, executive director of the Kansas Family Research Institute.
That group envisoned operating a core knowledge school under contract with the school board, much like the private, for-profit Edison Project, which receives state per-pupil money from the district for each student at an Edison school.
Greg Jones, president of the UTW, went to various schools to pitch the proposal. Minneha liked what it heard, and struck out on its own.
In the end, Duckett and Jones recommended Bryant, but in a scaled back plan. Both schools will be run as neighborhood magnets under the control of the administration and the school board, not as a separate school under contract with the district.
Approval of Bryant is contingent upon support of parents at the school. Another advantage, Jones said, is that Bryant feeds into Hadley Middle School, where there are already some teachers practicing the core knowledge curriculum on their own.
As for Horace Mann, supporters there just want to introduce the curriculum, but not go full out in making the school core knowledge.
Johnson and Schodorf, however, were skeptical.
“In the world of the 20th century, can we afford to teach our kids with 19th century methods?” Johnson asked.
Both Johnson and Schodorf said the core curriculum is not much different than what the district has already implemented under the new, tougher graduation requirements. Those requirements align the curriculum – what every student should know at each grade – from kindergarten through 12th grade. The students are tested at second, fifth and eighth grade, in preparation for the final test, which must be passed to graduate.
To the majority of board members, however, it is another program of choice in the district.
“There is a ground swell of parental and staff support,” said board member Marshall Jones. “The last thing I want to do is quash anybody’s energy and enthusiasm for this.”
CORE KNOWLEDGE #4
I AM PARTICULARLY PROUD OF THIS PIECE. WHEN WE PROPOSED CORE KNOWLEDGE, WE ASKED FOR 5 YEARS FOR IT TO PROVE ITSELF. THIS ARTICLE CAME ALMOST 5 YEARS AFTER CORE KNOWLEDGE WAS ADOPTED IN WICHITA — AND THE BRYANT CORE KNOWLEDGE SCHOOL WAS “MY BABY” BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED IN AN AREA WITH A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES.
Wichita Eagle, The (KS)9-Jan-03Section: MAIN NEWSEdition: mainPage: 1A
INSIDE, THREE YEARS OF LOCAL DISTRICTS’ TEST SCORESHOW DID YOUR SCHOOL DO?JOSH FUNK, The Wichita Eagle
Parents can examine three years’ worth of state test scores for the first time since the 1990s, allowing them to evaluate how well their children’s schools perform over time.
If they want, they can also compare their schools with the best achiever in the Wichita district: Bryant Core Knowledge Magnet Elementary School.
Bryant fifth-graders made the most dramatic gains in reading between 2000, when 46 percent scored passing grades of satisfactory and above, and last year, when 82.3 percent passed – well above the state average of 62.4 percent.
In math, the percentage of Bryant fourth-graders scoring well soared to 85.2 percent in 2001 before dropping back to 64.3 percent in 2002 – just below the state average.
The three-year results, which track schools’ performance since the tests were revised in 2000, are available in today’s special report, Grading Our Schools.They show:
– Scores rose consistently at about a quarter of Wichita public schools, mostly elementary schools, and dropped at another quarter. They were relatively flat or mixed at about half the schools.
– Every school in the Andover and Hesston districts exceeded the state average in percentage of students passing in reading and math. Hesston’s scores topped those of all districts, with fourth-graders improving from 82.0 percent to 91.8 percent passing in math and eighth-graders improving from 83.0 percent to 91.3 percent passing in reading.
– Nine other area districts saw all but a couple of their schools exceed the state average on the 2002 tests: Circle, Derby, Maize, Cheney, Douglass, Haven, Goddard, Mulvane and Renwick.
– Nearly all of the area’s Catholic schools outperformed the state average at all grades in reading and math. Top performers were Resurrection Catholic School with 100 percent of its eighth-graders passing in reading in 2002, and St. Anne Catholic School with 90.9 percent of its fourth-graders passing in math.
At Bryant, teachers and administrators credit the improved scores to the school’s focus on reading, writing and math, plus extensive teacher training and extra help for students who need it.
The school does daily exercises in the core subjects, brings teaching experts in to demonstrate new methods to teachers, and tutors students before, during and after school.
Superintendent Winston Brooks said the district’s flat and improved scores are remarkable given the challenges students face: Nearly 61 percent are considered low-income, and for 4,900, or 10 percent, English is not their native language. Both numbers are up since 2000.
But remaining flat doesn’t satisfy the local, state and federal expectations for annual improvement on tests.
“I wholeheartedly subscribe to the thought that we can never be satisfied with where we’re at,” Brooks said. “We should never, ever accept excuses that superintendents like myself give.”
Brooks said he expects scores to improve across the board, starting this year, as the district’s reforms take hold, and by 2005 he wants the district average for Wichita schools to be at or above the state average.
Why test scores matter
Over the next three years, the state tests will become more important as new federal performance expectations take effect.
The federal law will also expand Kansas’ annual reading and math tests in the 2005-06 school year.
When evaluating a school’s test scores, said John Poggio, who helped develop the state tests as part of the University of Kansas’ Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, it’s important to consider its demographics: the number of children from low-income homes, or who don’t speak English as a native language, or who are in special education.
Parents also should consider what a school is doing to boost achievement, he said.
Wichita parent Tom Hammond said Southeast High School’s declining reading and math scores concern him as a member of the school’s site council, but he thinks Southeast has prepared his children well for college.
“If I didn’t feel real comfortable with it, they wouldn’t be going there,” said Hammond, who has a junior at the University of Kansas, a senior at Southeast and a seventh-grader at Coleman Middle School. “I could afford to send my kids to private schools, but I chose Southeast.”
Wichita has made the most progress in its elementary schools, where its reforms have generally been in place the longest.
Its middle and high school scores are mostly flat and mixed. Brooks and other district administrators say that boosting achievement in those grades is tougher, in part because more is expected of those students.
But the district expects middle and high schools to improve as reforms take hold and as higher-performing elementary students move up through the system.
How Bryant succeeds
Bryant’s success shows what can happen when schools improve their curriculum and teacher training.
Creative things can result. On a recent morning, Alice Graddy’s fifth-graders looked as though they were practicing the motions to the song “YMCA” as they thrust their arms into the air.
Up close, it became clear that they used the arm movements to show acute, obtuse and right angles on demand as part of Graddy’s daily review of math, reading and writing concepts.
That kind of repetition helped Bryant produce its district-leading reading scores, principal Bonnie Lanoue said. So did extensive teacher training and extra help for students who perform poorly in class or on tests.
“It’s not so much what we teach, but how we teach it and how we help each other,” she said.
Bryant’s “core knowledge” curriculum, which has been in place since the fall of 1998, also helped, Lanoue said. The program is based on the concept that every student must possess certain basic information – a set of culturally common ideas – to succeed in college and in life.
To make sure its teachers are using the most effective methods, Bryant regularly brings in district resource teachers to demonstrate new ways to get kids excited about learning.
For students, the school has two paraeducators tutoring second- and fifth-graders during the day. Third- and fourth-graders can get tutoring before and after school.
A couple of times a month, Bryant’s two first-grade classes visit the fifth-graders to read together, which Graddy said encourages interest in reading.
The fifth-graders help the younger students identify characters and plots in the stories. The activity supplements the reading that students may not get at home.
“We can’t mandate what their family is, but we can do these type of things to make up for it,” Lanoue said.
Bryant also benefits from involved parents. Shawna Costello was at Bryant so much with her five children that she was eventually hired to work in the office.
Bryant site council president Jerri Schapel said the school’s tutoring program and dedicated teachers are responsible for the high achievement. Her fourth-grader has enjoyed the benefits.
“His teacher has really gone above and beyond,” Schapel said. “I feel he has definitely improved in reading.”
Lanoue said the school’s 2002 declines in math were mostly due to two first-year teachers in fourth grade when math is tested. She expects those scores to improve again.
Reach Josh Funk at 268-6573 or jfunk@wichitaeagle.com.
inside: GRADING OUR SCHOOLS
The Eagle’s special report Grading Our Schools is available in today’s Neighbors section. It contains:
– Math and reading test results for public and private schools in Sedgwick , Butler and Harvey counties for 2000 through 2003, and writing test results for 2000 and 2002. Writing was not tested in 2001.
– District-level scores for those same schools.
– Wichita’s district-level scores compared with other large districts.
The Neighbors section is in subscribers’ papers today, and in papers at newsstands in Sedgwick and Butler counties and Newton.
Grading Our Schools is also available online at http://www.kansas.com.
Test score highlights
– Tops in math: L’Ouverture Computer Technology Magnet Elementary School led all Wichita schools: 90 percent of its fourth-graders passed in 2002, up from 68 percent in 2000.
Yoder Elementary School in the Haven district led all schools in Sedgwick, Butler and Harvey counties, with 100 percent of its fourth-graders passing for the third year in a row.
The state fourth-grade average was 66.8 percent.
– Tops in reading: Bryant Core Knowledge Magnet Elementary School led Wichita schools: 82.3 percent of its fifth-graders passed in 2002, up from 46 percent in 2000. That was also the district’s biggest three-year gain.
The state fifth-grade average was 62.4 percent.
Eighth-graders at Renwick’s St. Marks Elementary School led all area schools, with 96.5 percent passing.
The state eighth-grade average was 66.1 percent.
– Wichita hits and misses: The Wichita district-level average scores continued to lag behind state averages on math and reading tests in 2002.
But 10 elementary schools, two middle schools and three high schools exceeded the state math averages.
And 15 elementary schools, four middle schools and three high schools beat the state reading averages.
– Who took the tests?
State reading and math tests are given every spring in one grade at each elementary, middle and high school.
Writing is tested in even-numbered years, and science and social studies are tested in odd-numbered years.
– How big a change in scores matters? Changes of more than 3 points from one year to the next show significant improvement at a school, testing experts say. Smaller changes could be caused by differences in the test form and the students taking the tests.
Illustration:PHOTO
CKD, you better enjoy your 15 minutes of fame.
‘Cause come november 7, you and yours are gonna be SO out on your asses.
And it’s gonna be so.much.fun.
hee hee hee
But of course, it will be only a matter of “motivation” to get your kansas board of evangelicals back in power?
You support taliban terry and connie morris?
Is there another loser for you to latch on to so you can make it a trifecta?
A loser like bobby corkins?
hee hee hee hee
Note to self, if CKD supports any of my candidates, RUN LIKE HELL in case that loser thing is catching.
Core Knowledge AND exerpts of the Stotsky review of the Kansas Language Arts Standards with exerpts of the Ravitch review of the Kansas Social Studies Standards (both of which were approved by “moderate” State BOE members, by the way)
————————Core Knowledge: Schools of the Future?By Cindy Duckett
Kansas CitizenDecember 1997
“Just as it takes money to make money, it takes knowledge to make knowledge. ‘For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath’ (Matthew 13:12). The paradox holds more inexorably for intellectual than for money capital. Those who are well educated can make money without inherited wealth, but those who lack intellectual capital are left poor indeed.”1
University of Virginia Professor E. D. Hirsch, Jr., penned these words in his most recent book, The Schools We Need & Why We Don’t Have Them. Their meaning provides the foundation for the curriculum in Core Knowledge Schools that has captured the interest of parents and educator all across the nation, including many in Kansas. The appeal of Core Knowledge schools crosses political, racial and ideological boundaries in uniting parents and educators with a common goal that they can get excited about. Because of its broad support, some people believe that the Core Knowledge concept is the best hope left for saving the nation’s floundering public school system.
Hirsch’s message is one of fairness and equality for all students, and he believes that can best be achieved through a common, academically challenging curriculum. Says Hirsch, “Bad schools hold back disadvantaged children disproportionately because disadvantaged homes are typically less able than advantaged ones to compensate for the knowledge gaps left by the schools… All children, including those of the middle class, will be poorly educated, but the negative effects will be strongest among the least privileged.”2
In early November, a forum at Washburn University in Topeka featured Hirsch as the keynote speaker. Constance Jones, a public school teacher for 21 years and Director of School Programs for the Core Knowledge Foundation, gave a workshop on Core Knowledge Content Guidelines. Educators and interested parents from all parts of the state, and some travelling from other states, were in attendance.
The fundamental principle in a Core Knowledge school is that the curriculum—WHAT is taught to students—is at the center of every decision made in a school from textbook selections to financial planning. The curriculum is coherent, sequenced and specific, offering an outlined advancement of knowledge in math, history, geography, science, language arts, and fine arts, aimed to encourage continuous scholastic progression as children increase their knowledge from one year to the next.
That approach differs significantly from what takes place in the majority of American schools, says Hirsch, because “the idea that there exists a coherent plan for teaching content within the local district, or even within the individual school, is a gravely misleading myth… Simply ask the principal of your nearest elementary school for a description of the minimal specific content that all children at a grade level are supposed to learn. Those who have tried this experiment have come away empty-handed.”3
The vast majority of schools and school districts in Kansas ask children to meet broad, vague curricular goals and objectives rather than learning specific subject matter content. That approach is failing, according to many educational experts, because it leaves too many gaps and inconsistencies in student learning, and because the standards in many states simply do not make the grade. A recent special report in Time Magazine shows a color-coded map rating the academic standards in the various states from an analysis by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Kansas is a “red state” meaning that standards are “weak” in the four core subject areas of English, history, math and science. Virginia, on the other hand, is a “green state” meaning that standards in all subject areas are strong.4 Professor Hirsch, from the University of Virginia, assisted in the development of the standards in his home state. [See side bar for comparison examples of strong and weak academic standards.]
Dr. Sandra Stotsky, a research associate at both the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Boston University School of Education concurs with AFT’s low rating of the English/Language Arts standards in Kansas. Dr. Stotsky was another speaker at the conference in Topeka, advising Kansas educational policy makers about appropriate criteria for developing effective English Language Arts/Reading Standards.
In a manuscript evaluating English standards recently developed in the various states, Dr. Stotsky used research-based criteria for rating each state’s standards. Using a scale with 0-100 possible points, the Massachusetts English standards rated highest with a score of 94. New Jersey’s standard’s ranked lowest with a score of 3. The Kansas English standards were second from the bottom, with a score of 9.5 Dr. Stotsky’s report, available on the Internet at http://www.edexcellence.net/stotsky/stottoc.html is “must reading” for anyone concerned about academic standards in Kansas.
Recently, Project Educate in Wichita secured a special review of the Kansas and Wichita standards from Dr. Stotsky along with a similar critique of the Social Studies standards from Professor Diane Ravitch, Adjunct Professor of History and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Both professors are distinguished in their respective fields.
Dr. Stotsky’s comments include:
* The document attempts to deal with language structure, but never specifies the English language as the object of language study.
* As the vignettes increase in grade level, the intellectual and linguistic demands tend to decelerate in their expectations.
* The language in this document often reads like an unintentional satire of politically correct pedagogy.
* Standards for demonstrating knowledge and skills are regularly mixed with standards that deal with behaviors, values, and attitudes.
* Many of the standards are completely unmeasurable. Many benchmarks are completely nonacademic in nature.
* This is not a content oriented document.
* If the vignettes offered in the document serve as pedagogical models, academic achievement is apt to go down in Kansas.
Of the Social Studies standards, Professor Ravitch writes:
* They are “long on process and grand but vague concepts, short on content and knowledge.”
* The Kansas and Wichita documents reflect…disdain for history.
* Pity the poor student who tries to understand the world with the slight grasp of history that the state of Kansas intends to impart.
For Hirsch, the Core Knowledge issue is one of fairness and educational justice: equality of educational opportunity. A specific curriculum guide, he says, will “enable tutors to focus on the specific knowledge that students need in order to attain grade level. Absent such specific guides, disadvantaged students and their tutors in this country play a game whose rules are never clearly defined. Soon the unlucky are consigned to slow tracks from which they can never enter the mainstream of learning or of society.”6
Because the Core Knowledge sequence is a curriculum, it can be implemented in public schools, private schools and charter schools. In Wichita, Greg Jones, President of the United Teachers of Wichita, is interested in exploring the possibility of opening a Core Knowledge charter school. Said Jones, “I’ve long been a supporter of setting high standards in two areas: academics and discipline. We need to give all kids appropriate standards to meet and they will meet them. The key is a set of high quality standards. Core Knowledge is one of the best-if not the best-example of how that’s done.”
——————————————————————————–
Cindy Duckett is President of Project Educate in Wichita and Associate Editor for Crisis in Education, a new national magazine covering educational reform issues that will premier in January 1998.
——————————————————————————–Sidebar:
Examples of strong and weak standards
HISTORY
Strong: Describe how U.S. federalism was transformed during the Great Depression by the policies of the New Deal.
Weak: Identify and explain how events and changes occurred in significant historical periods.
SCIENCE
Strong: Describe the basic process of photosynthesis and respiration and their importance to life.
Weak: Compare patterns of change and constancy in systems.
——————————————————————————–Endnotes:
1 E. D. Hirsch, Jr., The Schools We Need & Why We Don’t Have Them, p. 20, Doubleday, 1996.
2 E. D. Hirsch, Jr., The Schools We Need & Why We Don’t Have Them, p. 43, Doubleday, 1996.
3 E. D. Hirsch, Jr., The Schools We Need & Why We Don’t Have Them, p. 26, Doubleday, 1996.
4 What Makes a Good School; Standards: The States Go Their Own Ways, Time Magazine, October 27, 1997, p. 75
5 State English Standards: An Appraisal of English Language-Arts/Reading Standards in 28 States, by Sandra Stotsky, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, July 1997, p. 19.
6 Fairness and Core Knowledge, by E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Core Knowledge Foundation, 1991.
Another on Core Knowledge — with remarks by Professor Hirsch to the State BOE concerning standards and assessments put in place by (you guessed it!!) State BOE “moderates.” :)
Why don’t all you folks who want “moderates” back in control of the State BOE try to explain your reasoning to me. Been there … done that … they failed.
————————-
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, AND A CIVIL RIGHT
By Cindy Duckett
Special to The Wichita Eagle
December 1, 1997
According to some education experts, the Kansas Curriculum Standards are unacceptable. Without good standards and curriculum, a knowledge gap exists that harms all students, but especially to students who are least advantaged.
Diane Ravitch, professor of History and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, wrote a critique of the Kansas and Wichita Social Studies standards for Project Educate. She said that both documents reflect…”disdain for history…Pity the poor student who tries to understand the world with the slight grasp of history that the state of Kansas intends to impart.”
Dr. Sandra Stotsky, a research associate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education wrote a more detailed analysis rating English standards from various states. Dr. Stotsky’s state ranking placed Kansas second from the bottom.
* “Standards for demonstrating knowledge and skills are regularly mixed with standards that deal with behaviors, values, and attitudes.”
* “If the vignettes offered in the document serve as pedagogical models, academic achievement is apt to go down in Kansas.”
Stotsky, and Professor E. D. Hirsch from the University of Virginia and founder of the Core Knowledge Foundation, took time from speaking at a “Schools of the Future” symposium in Topeka recently to give recommendations to the Kansas State Board of Education.
Stotsky said the Kansas document “needs almost complete rewriting–to improve the general language of the document, to upgrade its standards, and to eliminate all its anti-literary and anti-academic requirements, recommendations, or implications.”
For Hirsch, author of the best-selling books “Cultural Literacy” and “The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them,” learning specific knowledge is an issue of educational justice. “The Schools We Need…” was named the most important book on education to appear during the last school year by the American School Board Journal. “You want schools to level the playing field,” Hirsch told the board, and using a solid academic curriculum and making policy decisions that are research-based is the way to achieve that goal.
Specific curriculum like that used in the Core Knowledge schools Hirsch’s foundation supports, enables teachers to “focus on the specific knowledge that students need in order to attain grade level,” says Hirsch. More than 600 Core Knowledge schools exist in 41 states, but none in Kansas.
The approach differs from what transpires in most American schools, Hirsch says. “The idea that there exists a coherent plan for teaching content within the local district, or even within the individual school, is a gravely misleading myth. Simply ask the principal of your nearest elementary school for a description of the minimal specific content that all children at a grade level are supposed to learn. Those who have tried this experiment have come away empty-handed.”
In other comments, Hirsch denounced such current fads as developmentally appropriate practices: “a constructivist notion where children direct their own learning”; School-to-Work “limits opportunities for too many students”; and performance assessments: “too subjective, too expensive, and too limiting in testing a wide range of knowledge.”
A divided State BOE discarded the state’s performance assessments this spring. Hirsch told the board that if he had a child taking them, not doing well, and given his knowledge of the research concerning legal implications, “I would see you in court.” He emphasized that the subjective nature of such tests is most harmful to the least advantaged students. “Sometimes,” Hirsch added, “the most progressive man is the one who recognizes a wrong direction and turns back first.”
———————————-
Cindy Duckett is President of Project Educate in Wichita and Associate Editor for Crisis in Education; a new national magazine covering educational reform issues that will premier in January 1998. Readers can contact her by email at educate@southwind.net and can review Sandra Stotsky’s reports at http://www2.southwind.net/~educate
Core Knowledge: A View from a Teacher:
Speech to the Wichita School Board
January 26, 1997
by Bill Hubert
Hadley Middle School Teacher
My name is Bill Hubert. Since 1975 I have taught rades 1 thru 8 in Wichita. Before that I taught university-level English and secondary-level at-risk students in Michigan. Presently I teach 7th grade English and history at Hadley Middle School.
The first school day each fall at Hadley, I take a knowledge inventory of all my incoming seventh graders. Sample questions:
write the 7 days of the week, in order, spelled correctly, no abbreviationswrite the 12 months of the year in ordername the continentsthe world’s longest riverthe world’s tallest mountainwrite the Golden Ruledraw a right angleexplain or draw an eclipsewhat is the Popeexplain the initials MLKwhat is a chain reactionwhat is meant by: actions speak louder than words…no man is an island…blood is thicker than water…beauty is only skin deep…a feather in your cap…a green thumb…a Trojan Horse…red tape…sacred cow…to make ends meet…RSVPwhat do you know about: Mother Goose…William Tell…John Henry…the Good Samaritan…Chief Joseph…a recessive trait…horsepower…Excalibur…King Midas…decibel…Susan B. Anthony…Gandhiwhat is a: sentence…a noun…a villain…a contraction…antonym…indentation…biography…syllablename the 5 basic vowelsThis is not arcane or highly sophisticated knowledge. This is the common stuff that you and I know without even being aware we know. This is the shared base information we rely on every day to read, to interpret newscasts, to communicate. This is the common currency of educated people. It is Core Knowledge.
Yet each year not more than a dozen of my 90 new seventh graders can answer more than 50% of these questions. 50%. Not because they are not bright or capable. But because they do not learn these things at home or at church or anywhere else. To include the apparent fact that they do not learn them in Wichita schools.
Therefore I spend the entire year teaching these and hundreds of other Core Knowledge items which I try to string out on a timeline from 4,000 B. C. to the present. The students and I work together as coach and players, our team versus ignorance.
Those who oppose Core Knowledge say that education is not mere memorization of facts, but synthesis and critical thought. Dr. Hirsch agrees. But he–and I, for what that’s worth–maintain that you cannot synthesize nothing. Critical thought does not occur in a vacuum.
Any and every sweet ripe apple of intellectual acumen begins with a core. Core Knowledge.
Lynne Cheney on School to Work including some Kansas exerpts adopted by moderates and liberal BOE members.————————
Lynne Cheney
American Enterprise Institute
Testimony before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
10:00 AM
February 3, 1998
———————————-
What’s Wrong With School-to-Work
Almost everyone agrees that schools need to do a better job of preparing students for the workplace. So the “school-to-work” programs now up and running in 37 states should be uncontroversial.
But all across the country, many parents are angry about these efforts and the $2.3 billion Federal plan that helps support them. Instead of targeting students in vocational education, these parents point out, school-to-work programs, by law, include all students. And in practice these programs assume unwarranted authority over their lives.
Kristine Jensen, a Nevada mother, told me that her daughter, an honor student who wants to work for NASA, had been advised to consider a career in sanitation or interior design. Eunice Evans, a parental-rights advocate in Pennsylvania, described a boy in her neighborhood who wanted to be a doctor but was told it would be more appropriate for him to be a gas station attendant or truck driver. Observing that school-to-work programs often try to lower the aspirations of youngsters who are thinking about high-prestige professions, Mrs. Evans asked, “Who are these people who are playing God?”
School-to-work programs not only direct job choices, they seek to inculcate attitudes supposedly good for the workplace, such as the belief that individual striving should be put aside in the name of group achievement. Having students work in teams is one way of fostering this thinking, particularly when it is reinforced by group grading. A Texas Workforce Commission document suggests that teachers give every member of a team the exam grade received by the lowest scorer as a way to encourage “supporting and assisting the low-achieving members.”
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, the federal law that sets the framework for much that is going on in the states, requires that young women be encouraged to consider”nontraditional employment.” In conformance with this mandate, a publication of the Texas Education Agency recommends that students be repeatedly tested to see whether they think some jobs are more suitable for one sex than the other. Thus it can be determined, advises the Career Development Implementation Handbook, “if growth occurs in the students’ views of non-traditional occupations” or “if there is a need for early intervention.” Concern that schools in his state would get in the business of enforcing politically correct thinking led Craig Hagen, North Dakota’s Commissioner of Labor, to resign from his state’s school-to-work management team earlier this year. “I couldn’t remain in that position with my principles,” he says.
The National Center for Education and the Economy, a non-profit group in Washington, D.C., has been the major force behind both federal school-to-work legislation and the programs in many states, including Oregon, Texas, and New York. Hillary Rodham Clinton served on the National Center’s board and before she became first lady publicly promoted school-to-work ideas–including the notion that business should pay a tax amounting to one percent of their payrolls to support school-to-work efforts. Ira Magaziner was another active board member, and the sweeping scope of school-to-work as well as its faith in central planning calls to mind the health-care proposal advanced by Clinton and Magaziner four years ago. in 1993 and 94, the concept was regional alliances to survey health care plans and decide which ones individuals should choose; now the idea is workforce boards to consider future market needs and decide what career choices schools should encourage.
But predicting workforce needs is an iffy business. In 1989, for example, a prestigious study declared that beginning in 1997, there would be a dramatic shortfall of humanities Ph.D.’s, when, in fact, there is now a glut. Redirecting schools to prepare students for jobs that central planners recommend does not guarantee the economic well-being of those students and can even be a hindrance. A student whose high-school career focuses on specific jobs in one field may discover in college that another area is more interesting and therefore more likely to inspire high achievement. But early specialization can leave the student unready to take the courses that his or her more mature interest requires.
A recent poll conducted by Public Agenda gives some notion of how misguided school-to-work programs are. When asked to identify the weaknesses of public school graduates, employers weren’t concerned with attitudes so much as with lack of basic skills. Only 35% of employees found the basic math skills of public school graduates to be excellent or good. Only 27% found their ability to write clearly excellent or good. Only 23% found their grammar and spelling excellent or good.
We need also to keep firmly in mind that schools have long been about preparing citizens as well as workers, a tradition that school-to-work programs seem determined to ignore. They typically insist that all courses, even those in elementary school, relate to the world of work. In Salida, Colorado, the entire kindergarten through fifth-grade curriculum–reading, writing, arithmetic and social studies included–recently focused on a year on careers in health care. A manual distributed at a Kansas school-to-work conference recommends that English courses concentrate on “resume’ writing, interviewing, team building, and task division,” or “literature that looks at different kinds of work and workers.”
A publication from the Department of Education and Labor, which together administer the federal school-to-work program, claims that there is a pedagogical reason to relate all subjects to the workplace: “Individuals learn best by relating what they learn in school to their experiences as workers.” But thousands of years of human experience show people eager to learn about things beautiful and improbable that have nothing to do with work. There is also a record stretching back to the Greeks that illustrates how valuable subjects like literature and history are for encouraging independent thought. The liberal arts, shoved aside and distorted in the school-to-work system, were so named because they foster the habits of mind necessary for freedom (in Latin, libera).
All across the country are people who understand that school-to-work legislation, though appealingly labeled, is a terrible idea for our schools. I urge the members of this subcommittee to listen closely to what these citizens have to say.
“Been there … done that … they failed.”
Hmmm, from the self promoting nature of the self authored articles in the self published periodical…
hehehehehh
That would seem to be YOUR opinion.
We can all produce our own writings that support our own opinions, and give our trumped up “qualifications” star billing.
hee hee hee hee hee
but I guess since you rub elbows with Mrs. Darth Cheney, that gives you street cred?
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehehehehehehehhehehehheh
Whatever happened to that old man cheney shot in the face?
Sigh. Oh for the good ol’ days when conservative scandals didnt involve church funds misappropriated and child molesters.
Give me a good old fashioned straight up shooting any day.
hee hee hee hee
Mark the date girlfriend. November 7. Write it in red
so.much.fun.
Oh, and btw, it isnt just that we WANT the moderates in charge.
They WILL BE in charge.
heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh
OOPS, I see by the clock on the wall that I need to leave this blog.
It’s time for MY motivation at the church of Jon Stewart.
He sure seems to be having better luck with “motivation” than you, ckd.
Oh, one more thing. I am sure most of us scrolled right by the “war and peace” post from ckd, but perhaps you caught this too?
“Cindy Duckett is President of Project Educate in Wichita and Associate Editor for Crisis in Education; a new national magazine covering educational reform issues that will premier in January 1998. Readers can contact her by email at educate@southwind.net”
CKD is with SOUTHWIND!!!!
Isnt that the holy grail of wingnuttia?
So tell us again this isnt about the kansas taliban…..
I bet both ckd AND values boy are gonna be distressed by this article entitled “‘Values’ voters fade as factor in midterm elections”
What say you values boy? And what say the WE editors?
NOW can we get rid of him?
Opps, forgot the link to the values voters article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/ts_nm/usa_politics_values_dc
Gosh, all that effort and ink wasted by the WE in sucking up to voters who will not likely be a factor in the election.
Better hope the WE makes better guesses before they pick the next official panderer for the sucking up job to the “next big thing” group.
Pin the tail on the wingnut anyone?
Cindy
Tracy may buy it. I won’t.
Cindy you never did do a final weigh in on the Fox threads (at least not that I saw in my limited technical capacity) I’ll call that intellectually dishonest. You were presented with facts. In your cloak and dagger manner you never addressed them (Again within the limits of what I could see)
I note the almost COMPLETE ommission of religious component of your “core knowledge” idea. Knowing you as we do, I am sure it is there.
You DID share a little of that.
Why does my kid need a teacher to tell him who the Pope is?
You are long on words plucky. But you are gonna have to show me more to convince me you are intellectually honest. Like you, I have a kid in school. What he will ultimately choose to believe or not as to religion he will not get from me or if I can help it from you. He will find it on his own.
“He will find it on his own.”
That is what they fear, JR. That is what they fear. It isnt enough that a kid could find religion.
It has to be THEIR religion.
Sounds like John Prine again. “blow up your tv’s…try and find jesus on your own.”
Good lord!
I can feel myself getting dumber reading all that horse hockey Cindy K. Duckett posted.
The “K” stands for krap, btw.
Apparently, Duckett’s “core knowledge” doesn’t include basic science.
E. D. Hirsch was stapped to the bosoms of the right-wing with hoops of steel when he first came out with his theories. They loved his “authoritarianism,” that knowledge could be put into some kind of hierarchical categories.
It can’t. E. D. Hirsch is already old news. And another educational fad bites the dust.
“It has to be THEIR religion.”
But of course! The more people, the more money. The more money, the more power. The more power…well, you know the answer to that. Nothing but simple mathematics.
Tracy,
I’m still answering your question about what my interest is in all of this. By now, you should be able to tell that my interests are wide and varied. My chief motivation is good education for ALL children. Without that, too many are doomed to a life of failure.
I don’t hide my opinions. I try to shoot straight with people. I can easily “agree to disagree,” when necessary. Most agree with my goals. Some disagree with my methods. I’ve taken shots from the political left as well as from the political right.
What really matters, in my opinion, is that I see problems and I am at least trying to do SOMETHING to make a difference for the better.
What’s happening with the State BOE, currently, really doesn’t disturb me all that much. Thus far, only one sitting member has been lost. I think that’s all that will be lost, but even if not, this is just a normal pendulum swing that will eventually swing back in the other direction.
Neither “side” is completely right or completely wrong, so I can live with whatever the outcome may be.
You were correct when you stated that my advice to the current board was “not to go there” with the science standards. That advice was not offered because I thought that the direction was wrong, but rather, because I felt that there were other, more important issues that should have been tackled first. The board, I thought, needed to establish a track record of successes and credibility BEFORE wading into controversial areas.
Apparently, they felt otherwise, and that’s that. Que’ sera, sera.
CKD
P.S. Here’s one final piece for tonight as yet another example of my interests.
——————–http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3589702.htmhttp://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/3589702.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
Kansas City StarPosted on Wed, Jul. 03, 2002
Kansas Constitution presents hurdle for voucher supporters
By JIM SULLINGERColumnist
Like Missouri, Kansas has a strict prohibition in its state constitution against sending public money to religious schools.
Before Kansas could adopt a private school voucher program like one approved last week by the U.S. Supreme Court, the state constitution would have to be changed, according to an official in the Kansas attorney general’s office.
Two years ago, Reps. Kent Glasscock of Manhattan and Ralph Tanner of Baldwin City, both Republicans, proposed a pilot voucher program to see if vouchers improved the performance of low-income children.
That effort prompted an attorney general’s opinion saying the idea was unconstitutional.
Changing the Kansas Constitution would take a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and passage by voters at a statewide election, a difficult task for an issue that is strongly opposed by the state’s powerful public school lobby.
That’s not stopping lawmakers such as Sen. Kay O’Connor, an Olathe Republican, and Rep. Brenda Landwehr, a Wichita Republican, from introducing voucher bills in the next session of the Legislature. Pro-voucher activists, however, are looking for ways around the Stovall opinion.
“Dealing with that state constitutional problem is going to be absolutely key to how successful (these) efforts might be,” said Cindy Duckett, a Wichita education activist and voucher supporter.
Duckett doesn’t agree with Stovall.
In last week’s Supreme Court case, the tax-supported vouchers were given to parents and didn’t go directly to religious schools. Duckett said the parents in Cleveland could use the money to send their children to any private school, including those with no religious ties.
“The control is in the hands of the direct recipients, and therein lies my disagreement with the attorney general’s opinion about what our state constitution declares,” Duckett said.
Duckett is not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue. She is director of Children First: CEO Kansas, which provides privately funded scholarships for low-income students in Sedgwick County to attend private schools.
That organization signed on to two of the amicus briefs that the U.S. Supreme Court considered in making last week’s ruling.
If Duckett and others can get a bill through the Legislature, which she estimated could take three to five years, it will face a stiff test in the Kansas courts.
“I do see an eventual court challenge as being inevitable, but that is much more easily pursued than trying to amend the state constitution, and the results should also come in much more quickly,” Duckett said.
She estimated that it might take 10 to 20 years for a constitutional amendment to pass.
———————————-To reach Jim Sullinger, Kansas government and Johnson County political reporter, call (816) 234-7701 or send e-mail to jsullinger@kcstar.com.———————————-
JR,
As to the Fox thread, church leaders told everyone present to stop posting church information on the blogs. We were also told not to allow ourselves to be interviewed by the press.
I honored those requests until I was able to meet with new church leadership to, hopefully, have my multitude of questions answered.
That meeting has taken place and I still know no more today than I did two months ago. Therefore, I no longer feel bound by any requests for silence.
It was a very closed and controlled meeting. No questions or comments were allowed.
A powerpoint presentation was put up that anyone could have pulled together but that proved absolutely nothing.
A lot more happened that I do not feel free to write about at this point. I saw abuse of power by city employees who should have known better. I may, yet, file a complaint about that.
My adult soon took notes from the meeting to use for a class assignment in his graduate program. Apparently, some thought that he was a reporter. He was grabbed and yanked and a deacon tried to forcibly take his notes away from him.
It was an ugly “family meeting,” and I hope to never have to see anything like it again. Families have been split and friendships have been torn apart.
On the flip side, I hear that The Summit church has been accepted into the Southern Baptist Convention, even though some members of the “other church” went there to try to prevent that from happening.
NOW, having said all of this, I find it simply AMAZING to read other posters writing in fear of me trying to cram one religious view of another down the throats of others.
NOTHING could be further from the truth. My own children have formed their own religious views and beliefs after exposure to a wide variety of viewpoints. Learning ABOUT religious ideas and viewpoints is VERY different from indoctrination into any particular religion.
For the record, I am opposed to ANY “state sanctioned” religion. I cannot support state-mandated prayer in schools, although I could support a moment of silence. Religious schools have problems of their own, just as public schools do. There is NO single “right answer” that will fix all of those problems but there are good examples of schools that work which should be tried here. I don’t have all of the answers but at least I’m trying to do something to make a difference. Can everyone else posting here make the same claim?
CKD
P.S. For whoever wrote above about E. D. Hirsch being strapped to the right wing — just for the record — Hirsch is a political liberal.
CKD’s link the the “My Religion and Yours” section pulls up a “403 forbidden error” from a direct link.
However, it can accessed from this page:http://www.coreknowledge.org/CK/resrcs/lessons/1.htm
The degree of detail to which on focuses of religious dogma is breathtaking. There is of course, nothing wrong about a elective course with religious content—-though a good one will respect the beliefs of all–but having something like this as “core” curriculum–for elementary school students?–betrays an agenda that has little to do with educating students.
CKD, I’m in Tucson now, so I don’t teally have any dog in this fight. But I remember you and Chuck all too well.
I would advise you leave it at that.
Ouch! Typos! Oh well. . it’s coherent.
Cindy, all of that was not needed for my purpose. As I’ve said before, I respect you for who you are and what you do.I am not an extremely bright man, never authored or published.My only degree is a masters in fucking up (pardon the language).BUT…..You still have not addressed what I consider to be the core issue.
1)That this is a trumped up controversy, as there has NEVER been a problem with open discussion in the class room.Closed discussion in the classroom is the silliest notion I’ve heard.
2)That the trumped up controversy has disingenous motives, as well outlined by Dr. Bermann.
3)That the only LOGICAL conclusion to the boards actions are to bring religous teaching into the curiculum.
There are NO OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS.
Even if evolution is a farce, wich it is not, until we get beyond the three points I’ve outlined, any further discussion is meaningless.
“As to the Fox thread, church leaders told everyone present to stop posting church information on the blogs. We were also told not to allow ourselves to be interviewed by the press.”
And when one is told what to do or not do by “church leaders”…
… all the good little girls obey.
WHY would you join any organization that would not tolerate questions, give answers, and would muzzle it’s members?
I guess it is easier than thinking. Or personal responsibility….
Jesus wept.
“”As to the Fox thread, church leaders told everyone present to stop posting church information on the blogs. We were also told not to allow ourselves to be interviewed by the press.”
I think that just about says it all concerning ckd, the ayatollah terry, and new ayatollahs. The artists formerly known as church leaders.
If you let them lead you THAT way, you deserve whatever you get.
And the sheeple follow…..
What? No OPEN DISCUSSION???Isn’t this what is disingenously touted as the reasoning for screwing with the standards?Hmmmm…..Do as we say…..
Somebody respond in a direct manner to the three points please.Then we can discuss science, because it’s not the issue.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Jay-Ez-Us, ole Daffy Duckett takes more words to say nothing than anyone I ever heard before! Sorry Duckie, but the idea has to come first; then you type!
I think it was just a blitz to show us her “qualifications”.
She knew we would all just scroll through it anyway.
Kinda like a toad puffs up so that big ol’ predator thinks it’s bigger than it really is.
Come to think of it, isnt that the little ayatollah terry’s tactic too?
Isnt that what he did before getting Das Boot at IBC?
hee hee hee hee hee hee
I see she learned at the foot of the master……
hee hee hee Jed. Daffy Duckett. Good one.
Maybe she needs to go to BOTH churches and get DOUBLE the motivation.
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
Plucky Cindy,
You stand accused of intellectual dishonesty. I surmised that your long winded half dozen posts extolling your devotion to education masked a religious agenda. It would appear I was correct.
You stand further accused of hypocrisy. You came to the Fox threads with much zeal and a claim to desire only the pursuit of truth. But you bailed on that just as soon as someone else told you too.
I suspect the wind has been deflated from you for a very long time. In a way that is a real shame because you are a determined person. But you do not get to skip the rest of us through a minefield without blowing yourself up.
Cindy and friends.I do admire your determination to help inner-city disadvantaged children. A noble cause indeed.
However, in every classroom I’ve ever been exposed to, open discussion is not only encouraged, many times you get extra credit for participation.If I have to, to make my point(about the three points above)I can find the news articles and quotes from the very people you mention (can’t read their minds), that prove my accusation that they have been dishonest about their motivations for tampering with science standards.I shouldn’t have to.This is the very same case that Judge Jones ruled on in Dover, Pa.
Only the names have been changed.
Tracy,
As I told you in private email, on the science standards, I think we’re going to just have to agree to disagree. It is impossible for me to “prove” the motives of others to you or to anyone else, even if I knew them for each and every board member. *I* just think it’s a good idea to present a variety of origin alternatives. I also support Christian schools teaching evolution science, so at least I’m consistent in that viewpoint. :)
I share many of your other concerns and I applaud your own personal involvement. If we had more like you willing to invest time and effort, I’m thinking that we would have much fewer problems.
I guess we’ll just have to leave this particular topic as one we will probably never see eye to eye on.
Thank you very much for the cordial dialogue. It’s been a pleasure.
CKD
ksfarmgirl,
Nope. All the good little girls don’t obey. I was raised to believe in respect for elders and for others in authority … up to a point.
I chose to respect that request until I had an opportunity to address my concerns one on one. That has now been done. My questions were not answered satisfactorily. I feel no further obligation to keep my silence.
I have to pretty much agree with you on this one with one exception. It wasn’t Terry Fox who said, “No questions. No comments. Stop posting to blogs. Don’t talk to reporters.” It was the new church leaders who set those parameters.
For what good it’s done, I’ve made it VERY clear that trying to “muzzle people” was entirely unacceptable.
That position hasn’t done much for my popularity in that place but yes, at least I can still think, speak and take personal responsibility without someone else telling me how, when and where to do it.
CKD
Tracy wrote: What? No OPEN DISCUSSION??? Isn’t this what is disingenously touted as the reasoning for screwing with the standards? Hmmmm….. Do as we say…..
CKD replies: You are absolutely correct and in both cases, I stand on the side of openness.
That I chose to remain silent for a few days out of respect (benefit of the doubt) does not mean that I agreed with the methods. That should be evident by the fact that I am communicating openly on that topic now.
CKD
No, JR, I did not “bail.” I’m still around and my thoughts have been made clearly known.
It’s almost funny. You think I have a hidden religious agenda.
Some people at my church probably regard me as a heathen.
Oh well. Thankfully, I don’t have to answer to any of those people.
CKD
Rage,
The Core Knowledge schools were approved by a 5-2 vote of the local BOE. They are hugely popular and have proven to be successful. I’m not sure what else needs to be said about that.
Your memory is good. I wonder if I would remember you if I knew your real name???
All:
To cover myself from future charges of “intellectual dishonesty” as JR charged, above, I rarely ever even read these blogs and I post to them even more rarely.
Therefore, when I “cut out” and do not return for further discussion, it’s not because I’m trying to avoid any of you. It’s because I am otherwise busy and simply don’t have time for this regularly.
During my absences, if there is something that someone feels really needs to be addressed, please contact me directly by regular email.
CKD
“Your memory is good. I wonder if I would remember you if I knew your real name??? ”
Probably not.
Magnet schools are (of course) specialized, elective, and voluntary.
Not exactly what Hirsch had in mind. And, to my memory, his ideas were not exactly adopted en toto.
Enough about that.
When you speak of a “variety of origin alternatives,” you are best profoundly ignorant of the actual issues; at worst, as JR says, intellectually dishonest, whether you’ve read anything here or not.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/another_great_intelligent_desi.html
Another Great Intelligent Design Debate On TVThis week on Think Tank (PBS): Intelligent Design vs. Evolution- Part two.
PBS doesn’t seem to think ID unworthy of discussion. I missed part one, but part two will air at 7:00 pm Sunday on KPTS here in Wichita. Watch, if you aren’t afraid of the light.