Slashdot Mirror
Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design
An anonymous reader writes "The National Academies' National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association are using the power of copyright to ensure that students in Kansas receive a robust education. They're backed by the AAS: The American Association for the Advancement of Science." From the release: "[they] have decided they cannot grant the Kansas State School Board permission to use substantial sections of text from two standards-related documents: the research council's 'National Science Education Standards' and 'Pathways to Science Standards', published by NSTA. The organizations sent letters to Kansas school authorities on Wednesday, Oct. 26 requesting that their copyrighted material not be used ... Leshner said AAAS backs the decision on copyright permission. 'We need to protect the integrity of science education if we expect the young people of Kansas to be fully productive members of an increasingly competitive world economy that is driven by science and technology ... We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds.'"
Why doesn't slashdot just create one article titled "People that believe in God are stupid" and have all ID discussion there?
Heres the text of the letter:
Dear Dr. Posny:
Thank you for your August 22 letter asking us to examine the use of NSTA Pathways to the Science Standards: Guidelines for Moving the Vision into Practice, Middle School Edition in the current draft of the Kansas Science Education Standards. We appreciate the chance to review the treatment of our copyrighted material for accuracy and proper presentation.
Although the majority of the draft Kansas standards could proudly serve as a model for other states to emulate, there are significant errors regarding the theory of evolution. These inaccuracies are of such importance that they compromise the Kansas State Board of Education's (KSBE) stated vision and mission for these Standards, not to mention all of science.
Your mission statement reads, "Kansas science education contributes to the preparation of all students as lifelong learners who can use science to make informed and reasoned decisions that contribute to their local, state, national and international communities."
Your vision statement begins, "Science education in Kansas is intended to help students to develop the understandings and intellectual abilities they need to lead personal fulfilling lives, and to equip them to participate thoughtfully with fellow citizens in building and protecting a society that is open, equitable, and vital. The educational system must prepare the citizens of Kansas to meet the challenges of the 21st century."
We applaud these statements, but the standards, as currently written, will result in Kansas students being confused about the scientific process and ill-prepared both for the rigors of higher education and for the increasingly technological and scientific challenges we face as a nation.
Therefore, despite much outstanding material contained in the standards, we have no choice but to ask the KSBE to refrain from referencing or quoting from NSTA Pathways in the KSES. Specifically, the draft Kansas standards fail to recognize the theory of evolution as a major unifying theme of science and the foundation of all biology. NSTA strongly supports this premise and calls for science curricula, state science standards, and teachers to emphasize evolution in a manner commensurate with its importance as a unifying concept in science and its overall explanatory power. This position is consistent with those issued by the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the vast majority of scientific and educational organizations.
However, we believe that, working together, we can resolve the issues that stand in the way of our granting permission, and we stand ready and willing to work with the KSBE to ensure that your students receive the quality science education they need and deserve.
We do not maintain that science is superior to other ways of understanding our world nor do we think that scientific inquiry is inconsistent with a theological search for answers. Rather, there are profound differences between these ways of knowing and failure to understand them will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world.
We appeal to the Board to reconsider its position and work with us for the benefit of your students, science teachers, and your state.
Sincerely,
Michael Padilla
NSTA President
Colour me shocked that somebody with the nick "SatanicPuppy" would be against the concept of creation by an intelligent designer. Shocked!
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
I agree: Creationism is science. Pseudoscience.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
As a Christian, I find the backlash against ID vaguely amusing. What needs to be understood is the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution.
Nearly no reasonable person would claim that selective pressure over a long period of time can cause gradual changes to a species' DNA. This is called micro-evolution, and in fact the large majority of Christians have no problem with it. Also, it's the only process Darwin demonstrated did actually occur. He then generalised this - changes between species - to species changing into completely different species, by assuming a very long period of time for micro-evolution to occur. ID argues that this wouldn't be enough.
The Young Universe concept is completely separate from ID and the two shouldn't be confused.
The only point of difference between evolutionists and ID (different from creationism) is macro-evolution. We actually don't have substantial evidence (fossil or otherwise) that mutation ever caused inter-species changes, just the assumption that it could occur, given that intra-species changes occur. This is the 'flaw' in evolution that IDers seek to have pointed out - macro-evolution _isn't consistent with the scientific method_.
With all the public backlash and misrepresentation of what the ID movement really stands for, I thought it important to add a bit of reason into the mix, to give the majority of people speaking out against ID (who don't really understand what it stands for and just see it as a Bible-pushing fundamental Christian movement) some idea of what ID is really all about.
Ashton
(-(friend^2))^(1/2)
Incoming mod-bombing for having a different viewpoint, 2 o'clock! Heads up!
As another person pointed out....Jesus ain't no god or creator. Just a poser who got himself in trouble with the mob.
But I think you're just being sarcastic anyways.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I suppose if you think that "Black people are the result of God's curse on Ham" and that the reason we can see stars in distant galaxies is because God made the invervening light at the same instant he made everything else, then ID probably does seem perfectly reasonable to you.
Oy vey. Sometimes I think we are destined to slide back into barbarism. The higher, rational nature of man is clearly not genetically dominant.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
You can believe what you want about who created the world and what's in it. As a Christian, I know it was Jesus, but intelligent design doesn't require belief in Jesus.
Your mastery of science seems to be surpassed only by your mastery of theology. You might want to reread your bible before claiming that Jesus created the world.
Where's the box I check off on my Income Tax form to eliminate funding to government-funded Science consortia?
Wow. If you want to cease paying your taxes, please go ahead and be my guest.
Do YOU have tenure? Where are you published??
wut
It disturbs you that these kids in Kansas aren't getting the 'science education' you feel is necessary, eh?
It disturbs me that these wretched parasites with nothing better than a smattering of charisma are trying to tear at the foundations of the science that brought you such joys as television and penecillin. Anyway, you fucked it up, if I was you I would have tackled the whole "no questioning" thing and thrown it back in my face by holding up slashdot as a sterling example of the hive mind. Also another few areas, but I'll leave you to work them out yourself.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
I ever so often slip into smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
*
________________________________________________
suwain_2
The Missing link argument is rather like a version of Xenos paradox... not matter how many times you halv a distance - you never reach the destination.... This sort of fallacy or paradox underlies all the foundation arguments for ID.... You can only believe ID if you are uneducated or not very bright....