Posted on 02/16/2006 6:32:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Kansas science teachers have struck a defiant stance against the science standards adopted by the State Board of Education.
The Kansas Association of Teachers of Science believe the science standards violate the separation of religion and government by promoting the teaching in public school science classes of intelligent design, an idea that science shows the existence of a creator.
“By redefining science in the Kansas Science Education Standards, the KSBE is promoting intelligent design tenets that purport supernatural explanations as valid scientific theories,” the association said Monday.
In November, the State Board of Education voted 6-4 for science standards that criticize evolution. The decision came after months of often contentious debate.
The association urges science teachers to continue to “not attribute natural phenomena to supernatural causation” and to teach students about the evidence for evolutionary theory and refute the “so-called evidence against evolution.”
Lawrence school officials have indicated that evolution would continue to be taught.
Statewide tests based on the new science standards will not take effect until 2008.
Lynda Allen, director of math and science for the Lawrence school district, said if the new standards remained in place, then at some point school officials would have to confront some of the changes.
But, she added, later this year a new board majority could be elected and change the standards back to those supportive of evolution.
“There are a lot of uncertainties,” Allen said.
The association said the Education Board was irresponsible for ignoring mainstream scientists and “substituting its own religiously motivated agenda.” It called on the board to not include items related to the disputed portions of the standards on statewide science tests.
It also said the standards conflicted with the state’s efforts to increase bioscience research.
Education Board Chairman Steve Abrams, a Republican from Arkansas City, led the charge to enact the standards, and defended them.
He said on Monday that the science teachers association was basing its assertions on a false premise.
“It’s ridiculous to even think that we are suggesting that science ought to be based upon the supernatural,” Abrams said. “Science ought to be based on what is empirical science — what is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.”
Abrams said the science standards were sound, and he indicated it was late for complaints. Referring to hearings on the standards, he said, “We asked evolutionists to come testify. They refused. If they wanted to have something to say they had an opportunity, and they didn’t,” he said.
At the time of the hearings in May, mainstream scientists boycotted the proceedings because they said they didn’t want to give any credence to intelligent design.
Education Board member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat from Topeka whose district includes Lawrence, said he was glad to see the science teachers taking a stand.
“They are being professionally responsible,” said Wagnon, who voted against the science standards.
|
Not theory, hypothesis. There is a difference.
Atheism (the no god God) is a religion too. To absolutely insist that God does not exist is taken on faith.
We must avoid Atheism being established as the state religion as well. The answer is "don't know" (which is the agnotistic position). Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion and religion CAN be discussed in general terms (with no instruction of which faith is right or wrong).
(I don't know why roses were red prior to that.)
Isn't Lawrence where that professor said he was beaten up, then was accused of a hoax? What ever happened with that?
I guess this raises the question of where in the Constitution it says the government is responsible for teaching and therefore the curriculum must be government controlled.
Do you have a cite for the professor being accused of a hoax? I didn't hear that bit, and if its true the guy should be locked up. I just heard about him getting beaten up.
I absolutely insist that little green men do not live on Mars. This is based on scientific evidence...not faith. Does that make it a religion?
I happen to believe Nature's God exists (based on faith). However, if an athiest doesn't believe in God because there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God, how does that make athiesm a religion?
Bogus argument. Teaching anything relating to God in school does not violate the "separation of church and state." ID may violate sound scientific principals, but teaching it does not violate the Constitution.
This is the first thing I could find. I googled him a couple of weeks ago to see if it had been resolved either way, but as of then it hadn't.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004080.htm
How little are those green men you say don't exist? NASA was looking into it for ANY signs of life (not biped, microbiological).
Remember the Constitution is a 'living' evolving document, and that is by extension what gives the 'life' to a dead theory via taxpayer pockets. The gods of knowledge sit supreme.
If an atheist insists that all mentions of god-talk be removed from the public square, then atheism (no god) is the state religion.
"Atheism (the no god God) is a religion too. To absolutely insist that God does not exist is taken on faith."
You're incorrect, there, weegee. If you want to know what atheists think, ask an atheist, like me.
I do not insist that deities do not exist. I simply do not believe they exist. What you believe is up to you, not me.
It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of something that is, by definition, supernatural. So why would I try?
You believe in a deity. I don't. It's that simple. I don't insist that you stop believing.
What is "teaching it" anyway?
ID is only a hypothesis.
Evolution is only a theory.
The concepts can be presented but they are not absolute scientific fact.
Perhaps you are agnostic then.
"If an atheist insists that all mentions of god-talk be removed from the public square, then atheism (no god) is the state religion."
Really? So ONE atheist who insists that deities not be mentioned in the public square is enought to establish a state religion? Wow! That must be some powerful atheist.
Go read my posts on FR. I don't mind if people bring their deities to the public square. I'm an atheist.
don't know about KS, but in the Ohio constitution, the state is charged with providing some level of education.
From the ohio constitution
The General Assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious or other sect, or sects, shall ever have any exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state.
Shhhh, leave the Constitution out of this. < /sarcasm >
"Perhaps you are agnostic then."
No, I'm not an agnostic. An agnostic says that he doesn't know whether there are deities. Agnostics also often believe that there is no way of knowing.
I'm an athiest. I simply do not believe that any deities or other supernatural entities of any kind exist.
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.