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 previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-281 next last
To: Antonello

No, memories trigger smell and smell triggers memories.

I imagine you can call up a memory of grandma's kitchen and smell cookies (or something), too, if you tried.

The second strongest triggers are songs, BTW.

So you have both going in this example.


151 posted on 11/14/2005 2:18:14 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: GOPPachyderm

> Based on the response to these few words, as outlined in the article, it appears that evolution is not open to criticism.

Sure it is. It's when you lie, as this feller has done, that people tend to get snippy.

Read the literature: evolutionary biologists and paleontologists are forever sniping at each others theories. But while there's considerable debate, discussion and criticism over various aspects of evolutionary theory and evidence, there is as yet no scientific criticism of evolution as a whole. Just as planetary scientists snipe at each other regarding this aspect of Martian geology or that, they don't debate that Mars is *there*.


152 posted on 11/14/2005 2:21:53 PM 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 150 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
So you have both going in this example.

All I know is it drives me batty at times. I didn't much care for those songs to begin with. :-p

153 posted on 11/14/2005 2:23:46 PM PST by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

changes within kinds and changing from one kind to another. Again, as previously stated, evolutionists want nothing to do with trying to clarify terms and meanings.

I hope he somewhere someplace sometime clarifies his meaning of his scientific definition of kind.

154 posted on 11/14/2005 2:25:38 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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...

Hmmm. I guess I know where this guy stands on evolution and 'evolutionists'. I guess he thinks hundreds of thousands of 'evolutionist' scientists have been 'hiding' something the past 150 years. Is it just me or does this sound paranoid?

155 posted on 11/14/2005 2:36:27 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Answers in Genesis, a purely creationist site, lists the Second Law as an argument creationists should not use.

Yet curiously and fantastically enough, here's an article from Answer in Genesis explaining how evolution violates the 2nd law.

I've come to expect little, though, from a website that claims T. Rex was created as a vegetarian and that all known species of wild cats evolved from a common ancestor on Noah's Ark within the last 5000 years.

156 posted on 11/14/2005 2:37:18 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

The effect is called a "Proustian Memory" and can be quite dramatic, bringing back whole floods of emotion.

There are actually therapies to make it stop (say adults that were abused who can't stand the touch of a wooden spoon or somesuch), if it really gets on your nerves.

You could probably do it yourself by listening to the music for 10 days straight while doing something entirely different.


157 posted on 11/14/2005 2:49:37 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
I take my faith very seriously and do accept the entire Bible as the Word of God.

The "Christians" who twist and modify the Word to fit their pre-conceived agenda and notions of the world sadden me greatly. They remind me of the pharasees (my ancestors) who rejected Christ because they read the prophecies with an agenda that did not fit the God's reality.

Indeed, I would venture as far as saying that they are willing or unknowing agents of Satan, in that they are making Christians look dishonest or stupid or both.


I likwise am a Christian and take my Bible seriously. Indeed, I have a doctorate in theology, and worked on two major Bible translations. I hope you realize the danger of the last statement.
158 posted on 11/14/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
Since you have a Doctorate in Theology, then you should know you shouldn't lie.

People can debate all day about evolution quite legitimately.

Old canards like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you either peddle or adopt are dishonest and no Christian would knowingly peddle such transparent lies --- as they are easily debunked, making Christians look stupid.

You now know better about the 2nd law.

The test is if you repeat the lie again.
159 posted on 11/14/2005 3:14:04 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
"Now we all know evos would never stoop to something like this, don't we?"

Nope! Never! The Creationist/IDers have all the best seats on that bus.

160 posted on 11/14/2005 3:17:52 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

Oh, and why did you paste together two seperate posts, deleting the reference to the 2nd law, which was in reference to the statement about which you complain?

Surely, you are not modifying, selectively deleting, and misquoting to try to pursuade?

Sounds like what the serpant did to poor Adam, to me.


161 posted on 11/14/2005 3:19:08 PM PST by MeanWestTexan (Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

"As anyone can see, Intelligent Design is not included. But many of our critics already know this. This is not about Biblical creation or Intelligent Design… it is about the last 5 words of indicator 7… “scientific criticisms of those explanations.”

That lying sob. In their opening remarks in the standards they no less than two times refer to ID as "scientific". No doubt where they are trying to go.


162 posted on 11/14/2005 4:05:32 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Ichneumon; Junior; js1138; jennyp; VadeRetro
(Note, I'm not in the habit of pinging lots of people, but I'm just slopping some names in the To: field who I've talked to before on this topic and I think might find this interesting. Please disregard if you are too busy, or tired of it all, or have to go make dinner, or shave your cat, or something.)

Thank you, Patrick, for the link. I believe it is revealing to compare these standards with the previous ones.

Here is a link to the previous standards, adopted in 2001. I found this document by using the search function on their website, and typing in "science standards."

Science Education Standards. Please note that this is a PDF document and somewhat largish.

Starting on page 74, the standards read for high school life sciences:

Benchmark 3: Students will understand the major concepts of the theory of biological evolution.* (see p. 76)

1. That the theory of evolution is both the history of descent, with modification of different lineages of organisms from common ancestors, and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes (modified from Futuyma, et al., 1999).

2. That biologists use evolution theory to explain the earth's present day biodiversity, the number, variety and variability of organisms.

Example:

Patterns of diversification and extinction of organisms are documented in the fossil record. The fossil record provides evidence of simple, bacteria-like life as far back as 3.8+ billion years ago. Natural selection, and other processes, can cause populations to change from one generation to the next. A single population can separate into two or more independent populations. Over time, these populations can also become very different from each other. If the isolation continues, the genetic separation may become irreversible. This process is called speciation. Populations, and entire lineages, can go extinct. One effect of extinction is to increase the apparent differences between populations. As intermediate populations go extinct, the surviving lineages can become more distinct from one another.

3. That biologists recognize that the primary mechanisms of evolution are natural selection and genetic drift.

Example:

Natural selection includes the following concepts: 1) heritable variation exists in every species; 2) some heritable traits are more advantageous to reproduction and/or survival than are others; 3) there is a finite supply of resources required for life; not all progeny survive; 4) individuals with advantageous traits generally survive to reproduce; 5) the advantageous heritable traits increase in the population through time.

4. The sources and value of variation.

Examples:

Variation of organisms within and among species increases the likelihood that some members will survive under changed environmental conditions. New heritable traits primarily result from new combinations of genes and secondarily from mutations or changes in the reproductive cells; changes in other cells of a sexual organism are not passed to the next generation.

5. That evolution is a broad, unifying theoretical framework in biology.

Examples:

Evolution provides the context in which to ask research questions and yields valuable insights, especially in agriculture and medicine. The common ancestry of living things allows them to be classified into a hierarchy of groups; these classifications or family trees follow rules of nomenclature; scientific names have unique definitions and value. Natural selection and its evolutionary consequences provide a scientific explanation for the fossil record that correlates with geochemical (e.g., radioisotope) dating results. The distribution of fossil and modern organisms is related to geological and ecological changes (i.e. plate tectonics, migration).

[Note this disclaimer - LC]

*Understand: "Understand" does not mandate "belief." While students may be required to understand some concepts that researchers use to conduct research and solve practical problems, they may accept or reject the scientific concepts presented. This applies particularly where students' and/or parents' beliefs may be at odds with current scientific theories or concepts. See Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, National Academy of Sciences, 1998, page 59.

End cite.

Now, following the link that you gave, Patrick, I compared the new standards, also for high school life sciences starting around page 75:

Benchmark 3: Students will understand the major concepts of the theory of biological evolution.

[...snip... -LC]

f. The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by:
i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view.
ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity, and
iii. Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.

End cite. Notice, in the new standards the disclaimer of "understanding" is absent.

But in the article, Steve Abrams claims: In spite of the fact that the State Board approved Science Curriculum Standards that endorses critical analysis of evolution (supported by unrefuted testimony from many credentialed scientists at the Science Hearings) and does NOT include Intelligent Design...

How can this be so, when they have included in the high school life sciences benchmark key creationist/intelligent design talking points: that comparitive genomics disagrees with the fossil record, and the Cambrian Explosion complexity argument, and the notion that evolution has been "challenged in recent years."

I would have to say when Mr Abrams claims "But, if one takes the time to read the Science Curriculum Standards, they would see that Intelligent Design is not included" that he is talking through his teeth.

163 posted on 11/14/2005 4:07:07 PM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
Michael Shelton is a rocket scientist, and currently works as an Aerospace Engineer Naval Surface Warfare Center on Tomahawk missiles.

And that makes him an authority on biology how?

164 posted on 11/14/2005 4:07:38 PM PST by curiosity (Cronyism is not conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
and worked on two major Bible translations.

Then you should know full well how dishonest people can distort the bible to read what they want it to ...

165 posted on 11/14/2005 4:09:05 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

Did you read their two page forward about how ID is credible science?


166 posted on 11/14/2005 4:10:39 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
I would have to say when Mr Abrams claims "But, if one takes the time to read the Science Curriculum Standards, they would see that Intelligent Design is not included" that he is talking through his teeth.

Abrams is in a different category from the typical creationist poster here on this website. The typical creationist we encounter isn't steeped in the issues. He's basically going with some old misinformation, and for some reason he doesn't want to learn that he may be wrong. This is, by my standards, a peculiar intellectual position, but it's not evil.

Abrams, on the other hand, is what I'd regard as a "professional" creationist. He's had a few years of intense exposure to the issues. So he knows the issues, and unless he's a case of walking brain-death, he also knows that his position isn't scientific, and that it doesn't belong in a science curriculum. So as to him (as with the folks who maintain creationist websites), I conclude that he's either intentionally lying, or else he's insane. Possibly both, but an insane person can't control himself.

The people of Kansas deserve better. Perhaps, as in Dover, the electorate will wake up and toss these fools out. And I hope the GOP gets the message they were sent in Dover -- ID is an electoral loser. It's gotta be dumped.

167 posted on 11/14/2005 4:23:41 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Exigence
No doubt what these moron intend on doing.

"Rationale of the State Board for Adopting these Science Curriculum Standards

We believe it is in the best interest of educating Kansas students that all students have a good working knowledge of science: particularly what defines good science, how science moves forward, what holds science back, and how to critically analyze the conclusions that scientists make. Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory. These curriculum standards reflect the Board’s objective of: 1) to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence and 3) to ensure that science education in our state is “secular, neutral, and non-ideological.”

From the testimony and submissions we have received, we are aware that the study and discussion of the origin and development of life may raise deep personal and philosophical questions for many people on all sides of the debate. But as interesting as these personal questions may be, the personal questions are not covered by these curriculum standards nor are they the basis for the Board’s actions in this area.

Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory.

All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. We therefore think it is important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates and for the Science Curriculum Standards to include information about them. In choosing this approach to the science curriculum standards, we are encouraged by the similar approach taken by other states, whose new science standards incorporate scientific criticisms into the science curriculum that describes the scientific case for the theory of evolution.

We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreementwith the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.

Finally, we would like to thank the Science Standards Committee for their commitment and dedication in their work toward the standards.

168 posted on 11/14/2005 4:25:29 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan
Since you have a Doctorate in Theology, then you should know you shouldn't lie.

But, But, But a "soldier of God" is allowed to lie for the cause.

169 posted on 11/14/2005 4:27:26 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Possibly both, but an insane person can't control himself.

I take exception to that. I'm probably as nuts as they come and yet I evince amazing self-control.

170 posted on 11/14/2005 4:43:00 PM PST by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Festival of the Professional Anti-Evo


171 posted on 11/14/2005 4:44:09 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

" Kansas Science Standards"


There's an oxymoron!


172 posted on 11/14/2005 4:44:25 PM PST by Blzbba (For a man who does not know to which port he is sailing, no wind is favorable - Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Yes, and that's true of most creationists too. I was thinking of the kind of lunatic who barks like a dog and stuff like that. Not responsible for his actions. Perhaps the Kansas School Board has some of those.


173 posted on 11/14/2005 4:46:11 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Exigence

The world would be a much more knowledgable place if all the Creationoids refused all medical advances that are due to evolution.

I.E. No more antibiotics and flu shots!


174 posted on 11/14/2005 4:46:18 PM PST by Blzbba (For a man who does not know to which port he is sailing, no wind is favorable - Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I think you're misreading the Answers in Genesis site; the arguments Christians should NOT use is that the 2nd Law began as a part of Fall. The site points out some benefits from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The fact that there is entropy (i.e., order to disorder) is just one of the many reasons why it is implausible to believe that millions of chance beneficial occurrences could produce the order we observe in animals and humans.
175 posted on 11/14/2005 4:50:50 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

he also knows that his position isn't scientific, and that it doesn't belong in a science curriculum. So as to him (as with the folks who maintain creationist websites), I conclude that he's either intentionally lying, or else he's insane.

My vote goes to intentionally lying, rationalized by a perceived dispensation because it's a fight to the death against being the 'evil' of evolution. I think a good cross examiner will bring this out under oath , if it comes to that.

176 posted on 11/14/2005 4:58:01 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

I finally figured out the definition and limits of micro-evolution.

It's evolution that goes just to the level that produces benefits anti-evolutions want...but not beyond.


177 posted on 11/14/2005 4:59:12 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
I don't know about the cartoon parodying creationism, if it does so what. But I used the cartoon as more about illustrating how very much is not known, and how yet how very much some insist what is known on evolution and cosmology. Science parodies itself these fields.

Take the theory of flight.
Bernoulli's Principle played not the role they thought, and the principle of equal transit times was flat out wrong and demonstrated clearly in any flight vehicle with smoke added. I guarantee you any aircraft designed with strict adherence to these faulty scientific concepts (in the theory of flight) would not fly, so they were not. Yet this theory of flight was stated as absolute as the theory of gravity for many years.

Newtonian theory of gravity contradicted Einstein's theory, Einstein's theory needs tied together with string theory ad infinitum.

Wolf
178 posted on 11/14/2005 5:14:04 PM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

I finally figured out the definition and limits of micro-evolution.

It's when micro-evolution becomes unkind.

179 posted on 11/14/2005 5:20:06 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Correction

Newtonian theory of gravity contradicted by Einstein's theory, Einstein's theory needs tied together with string theory ad infinitum.

Then 30 years in the future, these are all debunked or altered by the new MyEgoUon inverted anti-quark theory. Science will be all a-ga-ga with the elegant mathematics generated for this theory

This will inferred as absolute and anything else will be laughed out of the peer review boards.

Wolf
180 posted on 11/14/2005 5:26:11 PM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Yes, people can distort the Bible, but I have not.


181 posted on 11/14/2005 5:30:35 PM PST by GarySpFc (Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc
Yes, people can distort the Bible, but I have not.

You are only human.

182 posted on 11/14/2005 5:39:25 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
" Then 30 years in the future, these are all debunked or altered by the new MyEgoUon inverted anti-quark theory. Science will be all a-ga-ga with the elegant mathematics generated for this theory."

Do you think that science can ever advance or does it just go round and round in circles, discarding old theories with ones that don't have any more explanatory power than the replaced one? When a new theory is accepted, does that wipe out all of the observations that were part of the old theory or are they incorporated into the new theory?
183 posted on 11/14/2005 5:40:35 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Take the theory of flight.

Creationism 101: Angels hold the planes aloft.

184 posted on 11/14/2005 5:41:13 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
I guarantee you any aircraft designed with strict adherence to these faulty scientific concepts (in the theory of flight) would not fly, so they were not. Yet this theory of flight was stated as absolute as the theory of gravity for many years.

If this theory of flight was so absolute for so many years, how come all the planes could fly. This is another of your many ignorant distortions based on your scientific ignorance.

185 posted on 11/14/2005 5:52:04 PM PST by WildTurkey (True Creationism makes intelligent design actually seem intelligent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey


The scientific case against powered flight

1. For thousands of years, powered flight has been known to be impossible.
2. If God meant man to fly, He'd have given us wings.
3. There is no evidence of powered flight. None at all.
4. Those who claim to have flown are liars, in it for the money.
5. Things seen in the sky other than birds are, in truth, evidence of supernatural beings.
6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out heavier-than-air flight.
7. Powered flight upsets the natural order, and leads to sexual promiscuity.
8. Powered flight is not mentioned in the Bible.
9. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), a highly regarded scientist and president of the Royal Society of London, stated flatly in 1885, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
10. It takes more faith to believe in powered flight than to believe in the tooth fairy. Teach the controversy!

186 posted on 11/14/2005 6:01:50 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
9. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), a highly regarded scientist and president of the Royal Society of London, stated flatly in 1885, "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

You have to wonder if anyone asked Kelvin about birds and insects.

187 posted on 11/14/2005 6:29:11 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Lord Kelvin also said "Radio has no future" which turned out to be utter nonsense. However, he also said "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science."


188 posted on 11/14/2005 6:35:53 PM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three laws:

Clarke's Law, later the first of the three laws, was proposed by Arthur C. Clarke in the essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", in Profiles of the Future (1962). The second law is offered as a simple observation in the same essay; its status as Clarke's Second Law was conferred on it by others.

In a revised edition of Profiles of the Future (1973), Clarke acknowledged the Second Law and proposed the Third in order to round out the numbers, adding "As three laws were good enough for Newton, I have modestly decided to stop there."

189 posted on 11/14/2005 6:36:13 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion — the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right.
-- Isaac Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law

190 posted on 11/14/2005 6:45:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I'm with you. I don't think that average folks who post on these threads are practicing deception. If someone tells me they believe the way they do because that is what their faith tells them, I don't have any problem with that.

But you're absolutely right that Mr Abrams should know better. He was elected, and draws a taxpayer salary, based on the premise that he knows what science is, and what the schools ought to be teaching. That he has injected his own personal beliefs into the curriculum shows that he has abandonded professional standards.


191 posted on 11/14/2005 6:59:23 PM PST by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
7. Powered flight upsets the natural order, and leads to sexual promiscuity.

Ahhh; that would explain the "Hot Nympho Stewardess" erotic film genre...

192 posted on 11/14/2005 7:47:06 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Exactly. The quoted passage from the Kansas BOR standards spoke only about criticism of origin of life theories, hence my question if that was what the row was about, and whether anyone had other omitted quotations.


193 posted on 11/14/2005 7:49:49 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Science parodies itself these fields.

Not really. The science of evolution has improved dramatically since Darwin's time, and the science of cosmology has improved dramatically since Hubble's time, much like the theories of flight and gravity that you also reference.

You seem to be under the false impression that evolution and cosmology have not advanced since their inception. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our knowledge in both these areas have grown tremendously with the new evidence.

Newtonian theory of gravity contradicted Einstein's theory, Einstein's theory needs tied together with string theory ad infinitum

A more accurate statement would be that Newton's theory is a subset of Einstein's theory; Einstein's theory is a subset of string theory. Newton's theory was not rendered invalid by Einstein, only determined to be valid in a limited dynamic realm. Einstein improved Newton's theory, he didn't abolish it.

Similarly, Darwin's theory hasn't been abolished, it has merely been improved upon. Darwin had no concept of genetics, for example, but everything we have learned about genetics has only reinforced the basic precepts of evolution. Original pioneers of the Big Bang theory had no concept of inflationary theory in cosmology, either, but once again, that does not render invalid the theory, it only extends it. Yes, there are still gaps in our knowledge in various places, but not the uncrossable chasm that you seem to be portraying. Science has accomplished a lot, and I don't see any purpose in scrapping that knowledge just because it may unpalatable to some.

194 posted on 11/14/2005 8:31:06 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
hence my question if that was what the row was about, and whether anyone had other omitted quotations.

See post #18. The author of the article that is the subject of the post has omitted other quotations. I don't think anyone is objecting to the abiogenesis part of the standards.

195 posted on 11/14/2005 9:26:55 PM PST by curiosity (Cronyism is not conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I have the answer, but I want to wait and see what your answer is. If your are what you say you are, then you already know. If your only answer is what you said here after your 2 hypothetical questions, then it is nothing. In fact your questions may reveal already, but I will wait for you.

See thats part of it, lets try to have a real dialog here. Or are you a scientist or not?

Wolf
196 posted on 11/14/2005 9:44:42 PM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
I meant to say it more like that. I will get back to you. But I had links to sources that even the scientists here would have difficult time discounting. And those said part of Newtons laws were contradicted by Einstein's.

But your last paragraph. You acknowledge gaps in the theories and also say the one theory extends another (I add into infinity), then you conclude that this is knowledge. You can certainly hang onto your knowledge. I say it is nothing close to reality but very far fetched theory. We just have the tiniest subsets of reality and you guys are calling game, it does you poorly IMO.

All Darwin observed is speciation, turtles becoming other turtles, iguanas becoming other iguanas, et al, nothing else. Therefore the conclusions drawn from that were a great reach, and I say wrong. Genetics only reinforces that conclusion in the minds of those that have adopted that conclusion, then they see their conclusion in the evidence.

See thats one problem many people see with the contemporary scientists, maybe its in the presentation of the scientists.

As a 17 year old, I put an arrow (with a 45lb re-curve) within 6" of a flying pheasant 50' away and with a limited understanding of the 'physics' involved, we now send a vehicles to intercept Titan. Very fantastic yes, but see my analogy?

Wolf
197 posted on 11/14/2005 10:25:33 PM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I would never vote for a candidate that didn't support introducing ID. And if a Democrat supported it, they would get my vote. I'm sure I'm not alone.


198 posted on 11/15/2005 2:26:03 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
For me parts of the "Kansas Science Education Standards" are just copied out of a creationist textbook.

page 75ff
Additional Specificity:
1.c ...However, in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution.
f. The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by:

i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view.
ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity, and
iii. Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.
...
3. d. Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial. These kinds of macroevolutionary explanations generally are not based on direct observations and often reflect historical narratives based on inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence.
...
7. Some of the scientific criticisms include:
a A lack of empirical evidence for a “primordial soup” or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;
b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, thesequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells; and
c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.

page 105

Glossary:
Biological evolution: a scientific theory that accounts for present day similarity and diversity among living organisms and changes in non-living entities over time. With respect to living organisms, evolution has two major perspectives: The longterm perspective focuses on the branching of lineages; the short-term perspective centers on changes within lineages. In the long term, evolution is the descent with modification of different lineages from common ancestors. In the short term, evolution is the on-going adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.


The glossary is just a strawman for the creationistic mirco-macro nonsense.
199 posted on 11/15/2005 2:47:39 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

200


200 posted on 11/15/2005 3:22:58 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-281 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