Kansas Adopts New Science Standards

porcupine8 writes "The Kansas State Board of Education has changed the state science standards once again, this time to take out language questioning evolution. This turnaround comes fast on the heels of the ouster given this past election to the ultra-conservative Board members who originally introduced the language. 'Science' has also been re-redefined as 'a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations' (the word 'natural' had been previously stricken from the definition). If you'd like to see the new standards, a version showing all additions and deletions is available from the KS DOE's website (PDF)."

Comments

Quick...

[grub]

Quick... queue the "But science doesn't explain everything, there has to be a designer" kooks.

It will happen again

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

Fundamentalists are, by definition, incapable of learning. They keep doing the same thing over and over again, no matter how many times it fails. Some other group of fundamentalists will fool the people of Kansas into electing them and, being utterly incapable getting it through their thick skulls that the people of Kansas don't want creationism in their public school science classes, they will try to get this crap pushed through again. And they will subsequently be utterly shocked when they are voted out of office in the following election, just like the last two groups of fundies were when they pulled the same thing.

It can't be allegorical

[anomaly]

Let me address a couple of points you raise:
1. the reason they hate abortion has nothing to do with fetuses and everything to do with hating young, promiscuous girls
Nope. Not even close. The issue for me, as a Bible-believing, "fundamentalist" Christian is that human life is sacred - that is - set apart and special according to God. Science teaches us that once the sperm penetrates the egg, all that is necessary for the birth of a human baby is food and shelter. All of the genetic information is present at conception, and there is no scientifically identifiable magic moment when a fetus "becomes" a person. Legally the standard is birth, but that's a legal distinction, not a scientific one. As far as I am concerned, there is no moral difference between ending the life of a fetus and me killing my six year old son. To be sure, there is a legal difference, but that does not make either morally right.

This view has *nothing* to do with the sexual activity of girls or anyone else.

2. Evolution complaints, near as I can tell, are about it undermining the authority of God and the Bible
Evolutionists and hard-core creationists have the same data. We differ as to the cause of the data, but we share the same facts. There are scientific challenges to the evolutionary position, and scientific challenges to the creationist position. In the end, neither the evolutionist nor the creationist was able to observe the mechanism of speciation, and so neither has a scientifically-verifiable or testable theory about speciation. You may not like my explanation, but frankly my non-testable theory is as valid as evolution's non-testable theory.

Standard disclaimer - of course variation and natural selection affect the characteristics of animals. This is observable - testable, and one would be a fool not to acknowledge that this is factual. Simple acknowledgment that this is a fact does not mean that speciation occurred according to the evolutionistic theory.

It's true that I reject evolution as a means of speciation on the basis of my philosophy, but there's more than pure religious reason to reject it as well. Just because many people unquestioningly accept speciation through time natural selection and genetic mutation does not make it true. I submit to you that it's my belief that people with an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism hang on to evolution fundamentally because they don't want to believe that there's a supernatural explanation. Evolution is essentially a terrible means of speciation, but it's more palatable than admitting that we all may have emerged through supernatural means.

3. treat the creation story as metaphorical
There is a view called theistic evolution which essentially does this. It does not wash from a Christian perspective. It cannot work logically. Please bear with me while I explain.

Whether you agree with it or not, this is what Christians believe:
a) God created the earth, animals, and two people
b) God gave those people the opportunity to choose between obeying Him and pleasing themselves in the one area where He set a boundary for them.
c) Those two people chose their own way rather than God's, and lost their relationship with Him because of it.
d) God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only Son so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but will have everlasting life.

Whether or not you agree with it, the Bible is clear that mankind needed Jesus Christ to make a way to restore man's relationship with God. The relationship for all men was broken because of the sin of a literal person in a literal place. The Bible also says very clearly that death came to earth as a result of sin. The first recorded death biblically is when God killed animals to make a covering for the naked Adam and Eve. The Bible teaches that "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin. Evolution teaches that death preceded mankind by centuries.

Also, if you make Eden a