Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A column about Kansas Science Standards
EducationNews.org ^ | November 14, 2005 | State Board Chairman Steve Abrams, DVM

Posted on 11/14/2005 8:06:26 AM PST by Exigence

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-281 next last
For all of those Freepers who, themselves, continue to misrepresent what the new Kansas science standards are actually doing.
1 posted on 11/14/2005 8:06:27 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Exigence

Way to go, Steve Abrams and KS Board of Education!


2 posted on 11/14/2005 8:10:55 AM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

"unless of course, your only defense really is baseless character assassination."

Now we all know evos would never stoop to something like this, don't we?


3 posted on 11/14/2005 8:10:59 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Why they never would! Every one of them are fine upstanding PhD holding sincere christians who would never insult anybody who disagrees with there point of view! /sarcasm off


4 posted on 11/14/2005 8:12:38 AM PST by aft_lizard (I need a new tagline since Miers is done for, any help would be appreciated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Hmmm I wonder where the evos are on this one, they attack everything about the KBOE standards, they cant show up and refute him?


5 posted on 11/14/2005 8:18:52 AM PST by aft_lizard (I need a new tagline since Miers is done for, any help would be appreciated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

> I wonder where the evos are on this one

What, you can't wait six posts? Sheesh.


6 posted on 11/14/2005 8:22:38 AM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

pigning PH


7 posted on 11/14/2005 8:23:15 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

Oh, they are alive and working hard and places like the Kansas City Star, (smaller rags such as the Johnson County Sun Newspapers) each and every local television station manager, the KS Governor's Office, the KS House of Represenataives and Senate, the Kansas National Education Association and many umbrella sham organizations run under them, the University of Kansas, Kansas State University, etc.


8 posted on 11/14/2005 8:24:39 AM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
Hmmm I wonder where the evos are on this one ===> Placemarker <===
9 posted on 11/14/2005 8:24:58 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

Wait a minute, that's not fair. You actually expect people to read something before they criticize it? </sarc>


10 posted on 11/14/2005 8:25:16 AM PST by TravisBickle (The War on Terror: Win It There or Fight It Here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

"Evolutionists do not want students to know about or in any way to think about scientific criticisms of evolution."

This is the most damning thing Abrams could ahve possibly said. However, it damns *himself,* as it is an astonishingly blatant LIE.

"Evolutionists" are *constantly* publicizing scientific criticisms of various aspects of evolution. And if some good science came along that criticised evolution itself, that would get openly debated as well.


11 posted on 11/14/2005 8:26:42 AM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
Evolution Ping

The List-O-Links
A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 320 names.
See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit,
and How to argue against a scientific theory.

12 posted on 11/14/2005 8:29:16 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
"Evolutionists" are *constantly* publicizing scientific criticisms of various aspects of evolution. And if some good science came along that criticised evolution itself, that would get openly debated as well.

You are exactly correct. That is how science is suppose to be and is practiced unlike what a few on this board seem to think.

13 posted on 11/14/2005 8:30:14 AM PST by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature.

I'm curious, what are the uppoer/lower bounds of permitted gentic change in a species? What happens when it reaches the maximum allowed changes in that species? Does some flag get set off that says, "Woah there! You can't have any less body hair than that!" Or, "You can't have teeth any sharper than that ... no meat-eating scavenging for you!" At what point do non-harmful mutations somehow get edited out as being too far beyond a (man-made) "species" delimiter?

I mean this to be a legitimate question ... I'm curious as to the answers ...

14 posted on 11/14/2005 8:32:43 AM PST by bobhoskins (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
Obviously, that is one of the reasons that we tried to further define evolution. We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature.

Translation: We wanted to insert into science class a bogus distinction made only in creationist talking points and not by real scientists in the peer-reviewed literature.

15 posted on 11/14/2005 8:35:05 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
"Evolutionists" are *constantly* publicizing scientific criticisms of various aspects of evolution. And if some good science came along that criticised evolution itself, that would get openly debated as well.

Really? Then why did you post that no such criticisms existed here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1511195/posts?q=1&&page=251?

I quote:
There are no scientific criticisms of evolution at this point, just ID and similar religious beliefs.

Methinks you may be tripping in your own rhetoric...

16 posted on 11/14/2005 8:35:33 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
We want to provide more clarity to this inflamed issue and we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding...

Not that we're creationists or anything...

17 posted on 11/14/2005 8:36:42 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

From: http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/miller1.html

"In the last turn of events, 3 members of the Board rewrote the standards to produce a "compromise" document. While not including the more objectionable parts of the alternate proposal, it still eliminated the theory of evolution as a model for understanding the history and diversity of life. Furthermore it does not mention cosmology (Big Bang) or the Age of the Earth. It also includes errors of fact and misrepresentations of scientific methodology and content. This version passed the Board on August 12th by a 6 to 4 vote. The original standards document written and unanimously endorsed by the appointed committee was not even brought to a vote. This decision was made in opposition to the recommendations of virtually every scientific and educational body in the state. The Governor of Kansas and all of the presidents of the regents institutions (state universities) appealed to the Board to reject the alternate document. The academic and educational communities are very irritated by the current situation.

"The new science standards do not require or mandate teachers to teach anything. They certainly do not mandate the inclusion of creationism. What they do is establish the content of statewide assessment tests, and thus serve as recommendations for which topics and principles should be emphasized at each grade level from K-12. Teachers and local school boards are free to establish their own curricula. However the exclusion of evolutionary theory as an explanatory framework for the history of life and as a unifying concept in the biological sciences, the exclusion of theories of the origin of the universe (Big Bang model of cosmology), and the removal of references to a very ancient Earth history from the standards have significant implications. These omissions are critical, and remove the core unifying concepts from the sciences of biology, geology, and astronomy. Since they will not be subject to state assessment tests, these concepts are much less likely to be taught in districts where there is vocal opposition. By throwing the issue to "local control" the state board leaves teachers much more vulnerable to complaints by parents or administrators eager to avoid controversy. Furthermore, the decision is already having an impact on textbook publishers. Since the decision, one publisher has removed an introductory chapter on the geologic history of Kansas from a history textbook for fear that it would limit sales."

Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University


18 posted on 11/14/2005 8:37:30 AM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hawkaw
You are exactly correct. That is how science is suppose to be and is practiced unlike what a few on this board seem to think.

Except in Kansas... or at least, except in Kansas until the Board wisely amended our standards to allow such criticism. The old standards forbade it... which one should know before launching criticism at the new standards.

19 posted on 11/14/2005 8:37:31 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

> Methinks you may be tripping in your own rhetoric...

Actually, it appears more likely that you are suffering from some reading comprehension troubles. Read the two sentences of mine again: "Evolutionists" are *constantly* publicizing scientific criticisms of various aspects of evolution. And if some good science came along that criticised evolution itself, that would get openly debated as well."

Can you figure out the distinction?

Come back to us when you've figured it out.


20 posted on 11/14/2005 8:39:31 AM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
By throwing the issue to "local control" the state board leaves teachers much more vulnerable to complaints by parents or administrators eager to avoid controversy.

Well, of course you would be against local control. What would the world come to if Freepers believed they should have local control of their government bodies and taxes? Perish the thought. /sarc

21 posted on 11/14/2005 8:39:57 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Please remove me from your ping list, thanks.


22 posted on 11/14/2005 8:41:36 AM PST by TheForceOfOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature.

The word "quantity" comes to mind.

23 posted on 11/14/2005 8:42:18 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Translation: We wanted to insert into science class a bogus distinction made only in creationist talking points and not by real scientists in the peer-reviewed literature.

There are real scientists holding real doctrates from real universities who are endorsing these standards. Just because someone disagrees with the god of naturalism does not make them "unreal" scientists to the intellectually honest parties in a debate. That is an ad hominem attack, but, unfortunately, par for the course...

24 posted on 11/14/2005 8:42:29 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

> Well, of course you would be against local control.

In some things, yes. The Constitution lays out some things as absolutes regardless of locality. The state school board sets standards. Abdicating responsibilities here has led to a hodge-podge of unConstitutional local gun laws as well as allowing schools to become urban cesspits of crime and stupidity in some places and rural cesspits of superstition and stupidity in others.


25 posted on 11/14/2005 8:43:25 AM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

> Just because someone disagrees with the god of naturalism ...

Do you understand how silly that makes you look?


26 posted on 11/14/2005 8:44:13 AM PST by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bobhoskins

Not sure what you mean, but if the population of a single species gets seperated (say by geology -- earthquake or flood or something), and are seperated long enough with no cross-breeding, the seperated species often eventually change into two species.

This can be chance --- like, say if the population was 50% black and 50% white --- then the "event" (say flood with a new river) occurs, and you end up with a population that is 60% white on one side and 60% black on the other --- you'd generally get two distinct populations of black and white whatevers.

(They recently found a population of frogs where this happened that recently go re-mixed --- they generally don't cross breed, although physically very similar, apparently b/c cross-bred offspring are not very viable -- croaks being the only ready distinction)

Or, to use the more typical form of evolition, if one type of predator is one one side and not on the other, that population would start to pre-dispose whatever trait helped avoid that preditor (assuming any live, that is).

As far as "how far can they go" and not be the same species? (which I think is the question) --- the answer is, it depends.

The simplified definition of a species is usually: can they have viable children?

And the answer to that is: just depends on how far the DNA changes, on a case-by-case basis.


27 posted on 11/14/2005 8:44:32 AM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature. We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature. We want to provide more clarity to this inflamed issue and we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding, but they prefer to misinform the media and assassinate the character of qualified scientists who are willing to shed some light.

This micro/macro evolution distinction has zero scientific backing. The dear Chairman let his agenda show.

28 posted on 11/14/2005 8:44:34 AM PST by sumocide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

Here's one.

Let's look at that "harmless" science standard.

"Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

...."more adequate... is not the same as scientific and leaves the door open to supernatural explanations.

That's what's wrong.


29 posted on 11/14/2005 8:44:40 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
Can you figure out the distinction?

Got it. You said there were no criticisms and now you're backpeddaling and trying to blame me for your previous misstep. I see the distinction. It's called: CYA on your part. lol

30 posted on 11/14/2005 8:44:48 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
it is about the last 5 words of indicator 7… “scientific criticisms of those explanations.”

If you have to go outside the scientific literature to get the "scientific criticisms," then this is indeed the mislabeling its critics attack it as being. Hint: if your scientific criticisms are compiled by Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, Philip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer, or a quote salad compiled by any of the preceding, they don't belong in biology class.

I have never seen an attempted collection of "scientific criticisms of those explanations" which would be anything more than what we have in creation/ID presentations on FR, an exercize in playing "find the gimmick." We shouldn't ask the ninth-graders to play that and win with their education on the line.

31 posted on 11/14/2005 8:44:54 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

It never ceases to amaze me what some people try to pass off as rational thought. Just an idle observation!


32 posted on 11/14/2005 8:46:49 AM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sumocide
This micro/macro evolution distinction has zero scientific backing.

Really? My staunch "evolution explains everything" prof for my undergrad evolutionary biology course said there was a distinction. Even he was intellectually honest enough to admit that -- and to cover the same criticisms of evolution in our course that Kansas science teachers were previously forbidden to utter. Very curious...

33 posted on 11/14/2005 8:47:33 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Exigence; PatrickHenry
Has anybody here actually seen the new science standards? The closest that I have come is a copy of the docs for the meeting where they were adopted. I don't want to comment on these standards until I have actually read them. I don't care what the NYT says that they say, I don't care what this guy says that they say, I want to read them for myself. Why wont they publish them? I assumed that they had. I can't find them. Has anybody actually seen them?
34 posted on 11/14/2005 8:47:54 AM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Just an idle observation!

I agree... it's a very "idle" observation... *g*

35 posted on 11/14/2005 8:48:15 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Don't forget the Right Reverend William Paley!


36 posted on 11/14/2005 8:48:54 AM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

Here I am again.

Note the following from the article:

"The critics also claim that in the scientific community, there is no controversy about evolution. They then proceed to explain that I ought to understand something about this, because surely I can see that over a period of time, over many generations, a pair of dogs will "evolve". There is a high likelihood that the progeny several generations down the line will not look like the original pair of dogs. And then some of the critics will claim that this proves that all living creatures came from some original set of cells."

A thoroughly dishonest representation of most scientists' views on evolution and no attribution given.


37 posted on 11/14/2005 8:48:59 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp
Has anybody here actually seen the new science standards?

Maybe if you read the article I posted. The one above with the link to the standards that Abrams is urging everyone to read before they begin discussing the same.

38 posted on 11/14/2005 8:49:26 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
There are real scientists holding real doctrates from real universities who are endorsing these standards.

Gish has a degree in engineering. Behe is a real biochemist. Wow! That's one. Wells got some sort of biology degree to help Papa Sun Myung Moon destroy Darwinism from within. That's two. Johnson is a lawyer.

Yeah. Just call them the experts and ignore the world.

39 posted on 11/14/2005 8:49:26 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
There are real scientists holding real doctrates [sic] from real universities who are endorsing these standards. Just because someone disagrees with the god of naturalism does not make them "unreal" scientists to the intellectually honest parties in a debate. That is an ad hominem attack, but, unfortunately, par for the course...

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "ad hominem." The sentence that you were responding to is not an ad hominem attack, but actually addresses a substantive issue. Hint: ad hominem is a personal attack to distract from the substance of the topic being argued.

And before you say it, yes, I realize that the sentence implied a distinction between "real scientists" and the advocates of the KSB standards. However, this is, in fact, one of the substantive issues in this context.

40 posted on 11/14/2005 8:49:34 AM PST by Chiapet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

Then I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that it was your post #30 that inspired it.


41 posted on 11/14/2005 8:49:49 AM PST by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
... we ask that the evolutionists reveal what they are doggedly hiding, ...

There is nothing being hidden. This is one of the facets of scientific inquiry; it's all published (unless The Government suppress things about weapons or something.) Mr Abrams's claim is vacuous. If he wants to make claims of things hidden, he can publish his research on the topics.

42 posted on 11/14/2005 8:50:34 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
Just because someone disagrees with the god of naturalism...

Yet another example of a creationist trying to insult evolution by calling it a religion. Tells you a lot about them....

43 posted on 11/14/2005 8:50:46 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

I'l ba-aack.

Here's another gem:

Obviously, that is one of the reasons that we tried to further define evolution. We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature. "

In other words we would like to redefine evolution out of existence and hide behind a flurry of words whilewe do so.


44 posted on 11/14/2005 8:51:57 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

I think that the Kansas state board has drafts posted on their website. Try google.


45 posted on 11/14/2005 8:52:38 AM PST by Chiapet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Probably at a DU fundraiser.


46 posted on 11/14/2005 8:53:42 AM PST by Mamzelle (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

You are hardly a neutral source


47 posted on 11/14/2005 8:54:59 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
Maybe if you read the article I posted.

I did read what you posted. Next time you post an excerpt, identify it as such. I always go to the source if the post is an excerpt.

48 posted on 11/14/2005 8:55:22 AM PST by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
The simplified definition of a species is usually: can they have viable children?

Too simplified to be operational; it doesn't apply to two men but it does to two earthworms.

49 posted on 11/14/2005 8:56:53 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Yeah. Just call them the experts and ignore the world.

I named no one, so go ahead and "cherry pick" those who you think fit your argument. That's not an intellectually honest method, but, hey, all loose reasoning is fair when we're talking about "science," eh?

Let's not forget the Board chair holds a doctrate in the sciences and I have friends and acquaintances on the faculties of or who are alums with doctrates in the sciences from major universities who have no problem with the new standards... they just can't get interviewed by the "unbiased" press.

It's also interesting how foreign science journals are more honest about printing research that might chip away at evolution. Only the politically motivated US journals man the portal of scientific publications so voraciously and politically. Of course, that has no effect on "science," right? Long live the god of naturalism, eh?

(And, of course, we know that university profs as a body are diverse in their views. It's not like it's hard to get tenure if you hold different viewpoints than the liberal agenda dictates, right?)

50 posted on 11/14/2005 8:57:57 AM PST by Exigence
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-281 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson