Slashdot Mirror
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)."
I suspect that this probably wouldn't have happened in the first place if people in that area had bothered to participate in their local elections before being humiliated on an international scale.
Look at all the tornados.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
It's not really Church vs. State, it's State vs. Ignorance. Most people who are against the theory of evolution don't understand it all that well, and as a result find it unsatisfying. If you reason about evolution with a half-baked version of the theory it's only natural that you'll find some holes.
If we could manage a separation of State and Ignorance, that would be great...
Regarding the so-called "ultra-conservative Board members":
Conservative belief does not necessarily intersect much with religion.
These were _ultra-religious_ board members.
Let's at least get that part right.
BWilde.
I think it's telling that every time the public finds out that a school board tried to undermine science education via an attack on mainstream scientific theories, the public votes them out immediately. It happened at Dover, and now in Kansas. The ID crowd only get the chance to promote their "alternative theory" when they keep quiet about what they intend to do, but as soon as they do it, the cat is out of the bag and they get voted out of office. Somehow they still think that they have grassroots support, but the movement only survives as long as they lie about it. People love talk about being more Godly and all that, but they don't want their state to be the laughingstock of the country.
Faith is great. It might well be the best of all human qualities. It has helped people survive the worst moments of life, and to go on when hope should have been lost.
But, faith itself can be twisted and misused. When faith is used as a tool to prevent people from using their god given gifts, then it's become a weapon. I have seen people use their faith to ignore what they have seen with their own eyes. I have seen faith used to prevent normal healthy inquiry. It is my opinion that this is the path to pure insanity.
If you except that God created man, and you also except that you were not consulted on God's plan and work habits, then you should be open to explanations as to the details of his creation. Was evolution part of God's plan? Most people admit that they do not know how God works, but some of those same people claim to know exactly how he does not work.
Scientist are only looking for the truth, and sometimes to be published. But I think they are truthful. I imagine that someone with a greater observance of what God has created and it's inner workings is much closer to God than someone who twists faith to blind themselves to God's wonders.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
The reason is this.
If evolution is true, you'd agree that God did not create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, right?
Well, that Adam and Eve story is the entire basis of Christianity, because that's where sin originated. If there is no original sin, then what was Jesus sent to save us from? If Jesus was just a man who was trying to preach love, he wouldn't be the savior of the world, whatever that means.
So that's why Christians have to not believe evolution. If they accept evolution, then the entire point of Christianity is called into question.
I agree completely with your points, I don't think scientists have an a priori "attack religion" mentality. If the observable data led people to believe that Christianity was true, of course scientists would believe it. A scientist is just someone who uses observation and experiments to get at the truth, not dogma.
If we evolved, then it was a matter of random chance.
Well, with such an incredibly incorrect first premise, I'm sure you can prove about anything.
Natural selection is not random.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
The people who say that believe that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, that it represents the Word of God. In particular, the bits in Numbers and Leviticus which starts with "and God said unto Moses..." were written down and faithfully copied, letter for letter.
The Jews have a rather vigorous tradition concerning writing of the Torah. It's not done by just any schmuck; you have to train for years. There's no white-out in a Torah; if you screw up you chuck the entire sheet of parchment and start over. (It's made of many segments sewn together, so it's not quite as horrible as it sounds, but it's still pretty harsh.)
Compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to modern Torahs and you'll find it's letter-for-letter exact in the parts where they overlap.
There's no need to believe in a missing set of scrolls which describe evolution. It's right there in the book, beginning with "B'reshit": in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. Six days later he took a nap.
Clearly, such a belief is incredibly precarious. There's absolutely no reason to believe that those scrolls are the word of God, even if they've been faithfully copied for thousands of years. The only thing that distinguishes this book from all of the others is that your priest/pastor/parents/minister told you so.
Well, that, and the feeling one gets in one's heart. You and I and every scientist on the planet knows that it's never safe to trust one's heart on matters of fact, but once somebody has stepped outside of that you're never going to use logic or evidence to bring them back into the fold of rationality.
Even as a scientist, you go with your gut instinct fairly often. Your basic notion of evidence and proof is, ultimately, more about what your gut tells you is likely to be true. Sure, it works, and everything from transistors to amoxycillin comes from that, but the whole edifice could be knocked over at any instant by a guy with a white beard who sayeth, "I am the Lord your God".
Learn to understand where they're coming from, and maybe you have some hope of convincing them not to destroy the minds of your children with their self-serving fundamentalist rubbish. Ultimately, this is far less about belief than it is about power. They hate the fact that evolution justifies everything they hate, from moral relativism to sexual promiscuity. Evolution is just the touchstone.
I'm a Christian; that doesn't mean I merely GO to church, but I've made contact with the larger intelligence, and we have a relationship. (In case the word "saved" curls your skin.)
I have no problem with the Big Bang. The singularity that marked the beginning with "let there be light", and the fact that the galaxies are moving away and accellerating only strenthens the argument there was a beginning, not an oscillation.
Humans are carbon-based, and animals are, too, so we'd have food. It doesn't work the other way. I have NO PROBLEM with evolution (the change-over-time) aspect, nor do I have an issue with mankind starting as an ape-like being which one day found it's soul.
What I *do* have a problem with, is preachers that still say mankind is only 6,000 years old, never had prototypes (apes) in his development, or that science and the Bible are at odds.
[Delay while a hush fills the room...]
Precisely because the Bible has room for all this stuff. It mentions giants and other creatures. It's not a play-by-play of the billion years before man. It's not a total list of all creatures ever made, though it *does* list the development of plant categories, and it matches the fossil record.
So can we deflate a bunch of the "Evolution is wrong" arguments, at the outset?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov