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.
You mean 150 years of Darwin’s ReignOfError? I quite agree, it’s time to pull Darwin’s discredited theory down and reopen the debate re: origins/biological change.
==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 sound very confused. The rocks are either one or the other.
Simply because I accept Evolution as fact does not mean that I am an atheist. I also understand that the School House and Church House have two very different functions and I would prefer what is taught in your church not be taught in school.
Moreover, I would prefer that my kid's be educated with a science curriculum that will not bar them from being accepted in America's top universities.
Very well said. And it should also be noted that it is the Temple of Darwin who fears a presentation of the evidence on both sides, not the other way around.
So, how old are the rocks on earth?
Less than 10,000 years old or millions or billions of years old?
==Less than 10,000 years old or millions or billions of years old?
I believe the rocks are less than 10,000 years old. And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.
If a Creator exists, then He indeed created “all this.” In fact, in truth, historically and otherwise. And such truth should be taught in both school house and church house.
Do you advocate, then, that those who believe in a Creator should not be accepted “in America’s top universities”? Do you believe in the existence of a Creator, but deny that He ever actually truly created anything?
Truth is truth.
Do you believe that man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time?
Sorry, but I replied to you when intended to address a “creationist.”
But apparently you can claim to have a PhD and advocate aliens coming to earth to create life, humans discovering time travel to go back and create themselves and any other wacky notion you can come up with.
Yes I do. Do you believe that random chance plus natural selection created all life on earth?
Under no circumstances should a person be denied admission into a university based on his faith. However, a university does the right to deny a person admission if their high school curriculum does not meet the admission their admission standards.
Therefore, an Alabama Bible college can deny admission to a person whose high school science background is based on evolution and Harvard and Yale can deny admission to a student whose high school science background is based on creationism.
Oh, there “are no scientists” on the other side of the debate.
The evo/atheist/billions of years crowd defines them as “not scientists”, avoiding, therefore, any need to address the debate.
In dating rocks, what ASSUMPTIONS are made, fellas?
Are those assumptions valid? Do you know the starting conditions, absolutely?
The guns of govt through the court system and instigated by the ACLU would prevent this.
Harvard and Yale can deny admission to a student whose high school science background is based on creationism.
Ironically, these institutions wouldn't exist without creation believing Christians.
The issue has been debated and settled.
(Your side lost. You guys are worse than Al Gore! "Just one more recount, pretty please!")
Evolutionist wacky hypotheses bump!
And remember folks, Coyoteman says that TOE works equally well under any of those scenarios.
You go get 'em tiger. The ACLU could use the money. Kansas has more than Dover.
All I know is that as a child when I watched the Flintstone’s I knew it was fiction.
As for what force or entity tipped over the first domino which led to the current array of life on earth, I will never be wise enough to know. However, I do know that what ever those forces were it all began billions of years ago.
Is there any evidence they haven't been allowed to present?
sentient beings who are sentient by some sort of random mutation process that accidentally adds information to the genome that in some way is beneficial enough to make the organism survive better than its competitors (others of the same species),
yet for some reason develops a common set of values that just happen to line up with the last 6 commandments of a religion that such a theory is said to debunk,
yet for some reason also, even if these values are “beneficial to survival”, somehow at the same time retain a desire to go against this beneficial drive.
And we’re to believe that the reasoning of the minds developed by this process is correct?
I can say with certainty that EVERY science text throughout history has been wrong about something.
Never hire the ACLU to fight a conservative fight. You’ll just be empowering and enriching communists.
Go to the ACLJ.
==All I know is that as a child when I watched the Flintstones I knew it was fiction.
Then why can’t you apply the same logic to Darwin’s discredited fairytale?
==However, I do know that what ever those forces were it all began billions of years ago.
Present your evidence of this faith. What assumptions is it based on, and do you even know?
As usual you either didn't understand the post, or you lied about it. Here is my post #650:
The theory of evolution stands independent of the origins question. Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
The theory of evolution works just fine with any of those.
Lie: claiming that I advocated any of these. They are hypotheses.
Lie: claiming that I don't have a Ph.D. You know nothing about my educational background.
Lie: claiming that the theory of evolution depends on any of these. The theory of evolution stands independent of origins in spite of creationists' misrepresentations.
==Is there any evidence they haven’t been allowed to present?
Haven’t you been paying attention? The Temple of Darwin teamed up with the Communist ACLU to prevent students from learning about both sides of the scientific debate.
We are in the majority. If we ever got our act together, all the definitions in the world wouldn’t save their state-enforced hold on power.
Within science there are not two sides to this issue, nor is there a debate.
The "debate" is creationists attacking science in an attempt to get their particular brand of superstition taught in place of science--and having the nerve to call it science! What a joke!
If that had any truth to it Darwinists would not be in fits over ID. Perhaps Darwinists themselves are unaware that the TOE is independent of origins.