Skip to comments.State science standards in election spotlight (ID/Creation Kansans need to vote!)
Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
With five seats on the State Board of Education up for grabs this year, education advocates say how children learn about evolution hangs in the balance -- and who voters choose could affect Kansas' national reputation.
A frequent flip-flop between moderate and conservative majorities on the 10-member board has resulted in the state changing its science standards four times in the past eight years.
Conservatives have pushed for standards casting doubt on evolution, and moderates have said intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.
In 2007, a new 6-4 moderate majority removed standards that called evolution into question.
This year, none of the three moderates whose seats are up for election are running again. Only one of the two conservative incumbents is running for re-election...
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
What will Kansas high school graduates do when more of the top tier American universities refuse to accept students who have been been taught science based on Creationism?
This seems a little pie-in-the-sky. The evolutionists will never allow falsification to be discussed openly.
Thanks for the ping!
==What will Kansas high school graduates do when more of the top tier American universities refuse to accept students who have been been taught science based on Creationism?
What kind of wussy quesetion is that? What would you do if a publically funded university refused to accept you because of your race, religion or political philosophy?
Actually, if you read the article, the margin between conservatives and moderates/liberals is so thin, the science standards have changed four times in the last eight years. Moreover, currently there is a 6-4 split on the board in favor of censoring the scientific evidence that challenges Darwin’s ToE, but there are 5 SEATS up for grabs! So in this particular case, wresting the science standards back from the libs won’t be nearly as difficult as one might think.
You won't get far in science advocating thunder being caused by gods, nor disease caused by evil spirits.
Why do you think your personal idols and demons are any more suitable than those in a scientific setting?
A public university could not refuse admission bases on race, religion or political philosophy however, they could deny admission if a person graduated from a high school that taught them that 2+2=7
For now, the University of California has said that it will not accept students who were taught with Creationist texts, and I would expect that University of Michigan, Texas, Wisconsin, Harvard and Yale will do or are doing the same thing. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2061218/posts
Thus, Kansas high school graduates will find themselves hitting the book at S.E. Bufford County Community College.
Well shoot, we allow evolution into the science classroom, even though it's a bunch of question-begging, circularly-reasoned, assumptions-required, philosophical-substantiated hocus-pocus. What's the problem?
==You won’t get far in science advocating thunder being caused by gods, nor disease caused by evil spirits.
Then how did Darwin’s RM+NS god ever find it’s way into the science classroom?
And how about when it is raining while the sun is shining? How does science explain that?
==A public university could not refuse admission bases on race, religion or political philosophy however, they could deny admission if a person graduated from a high school that taught them that 2+2=7
The fact that they are teaching Darwin’s discredited “theory” means they are teaching 2+2=7 right now. If the students are also taught the scientific evidence that falisfies Darwin’s ToE, then they will be taught 2+2=4 and 2+2=7...and then the students can make up their own minds re: Darwin’s fairytale.
I'm used to creationists' lies, however, and your distortion is par for the course. It's also curious that the people with the strongest religious faith are not at all threatened by science.
==Well shoot, we allow evolution into the science classroom, even though it’s a bunch of question-begging, circularly-reasoned, assumptions-required, philosophical-substantiated hocus-pocus. What’s the problem?
That’s precisely what the evos fear the most—exposure!
How is science “based on” anything other than the scientific process? Can science be “based on” either creationism or evolution? If so, how do the two versions of science differ? What has evolution-based science given us that any other kind of science hasn’t?
Would you prefer that those who believe in a Creator just shut up and hide in a closet?
Yeah, that last 150 years of biology has been reaaaaal stealthy.
Now that you covered that. Could you please answer one more math question?
How is it that when I go hiking in the Texas Hill Country that I find 90,000,000 year old rocks on an earth that is only 5,743 years old?
“You won’t get far in science advocating thunder being caused by gods, nor disease caused by evil spirits.”
Show me ONE scientist who advocates I.D. who has said anything even remotely close to this.
The facts (circumstantial as they are) that support the concept of evolution don’t come close to being on par with a mathematical certainty like 2+2=4.
Which is worse:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the laws that govern them.
With no cause the universe appeared out of no where for no reason and gave rise to sentient beings who think this is plausible.
Let the teachers decide and have educational freedom. A real open mind is not one that attempts to support one dogma or another. There are scientific studies that support the concept of ID through the study of the inherent complexity not just of biological organisms but also the universe. This would not be an issue if Scientists were not constantly trying to write atheism into Science and making stupid comments about how some such and such finding rules out the concept of God.
Society has been hurt by the idea of secular reductionism on origins not just of our species but also of our universe. I personally think it is good for people to believe themselves the product of divinity and thus aspire to that. The positives far out weigh any quaint ignorance that results and it surely is better than the bitter message that distilled calls the young to not think of themselves much better than animals. Are we surprised that they often behave worse.
Human exceptionalism I believe is important. Humanity even by the analysis of someone who sticks strictly to scientific analysis and avoids the best they can the philosophical debate can clearly see that Humanity arose under very special circumstances. It was not simple modification but radical change that resulted in modern humanity and we still do not know what caused that radical change from a strictly Scientific standpoint. We know that several groups of genes involved in the development of the complexity of human brains were the product of a “special event” and that also now the evolution of genes in human brains have slowed to a crawl. There are other interesting things. Humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48. It appears that in humans a special event occurred which led chromosomes to fuse.
There is no reason for scientists to take such a hostile view to human exceptionalism. If they did not take such extreme views not supported by the evidence in an attempt to purge a God they see in a negative light then the current battle in schools and society would not be such a divisive one. They can no more disprove God than a fool can blot out the sun by putting a bucket over his head and it is not their job to do such a thing. Their job is to present their findings and leave it at that not to prove an atheist dogma or a religious dogma. Yet I can not count the times I’ve seen them go off telling evolutionary stories as if to provide some primer on atheism to young minds.
That said I do not see any great threat from belief in a creator. The foundations of all the modern sciences were the result of the pursuits of mostly religious men. Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and on and on all managed to make scientific progress all while to their deaths holding a belief in a Creator. People of faith can always take comfort that people of much greater intellect and study than they were believers and are believers.
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.