Remember the brouhaha that erupted back in 1999 when the Kansas State Board of Education decided to adopt science standards that de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in public schools? Whether you do or not, you can read about it here at the Topeka Capital-Journal Online. Here's the gist:
( Source | ReligiousTolerance.org )
Well, here's what has happened this past election: Kathy Martin, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design, has declared opposition to the teaching of the theory of evolution in KS schools.
( Source article: "Evolution defenders anticipate new fight" | The Lawrence Journal-World )
On Monday, 18 Oct 2004, Kathy Martin spoke on our campus.
( Source article: "Martin visits K-State, speaks" | Kansas State Collegian )
( Source article: "LETTER: Candidate not suited for board" | Kansas State Collegian )
On Tuesday, 02 Nov 2004, Kathy Martin was elected to the Kansas State Board of Education, District 6. She had run unopposed.
Audio segments from The Lawrence Journal-World (MS Internet Explorer only, unfortunately): Kathy Martin on
Please do educate yourself on opposing viewpoints.
Evolution Science perspectives
Creationist perspectives
News and review
--
Banazir
Thursday, 12 Aug 1999 - The Kansas State Board of Education on Wednesday -- in a controversial decision that attracted nationwide attention -- adopted a new set of science standards that de-emphasizes the teaching of evolution in public schools.In the aftermath, four board members voting for the resolution were later defeated by moderates, and the resolution was reversed:
The new standards, approved on a 6-4 vote, were drafted by a three-member subcommittee that was controlled by socially conservative members of the state school board. The teaching standards essentially leave the decision of what to teach on the subjects of evolution and creationism to local school boards.
"This is a terrible, tragic, embarrassing solution to a problem that didn't exist," Gov. Bill Graves said in a brief statement released by his office. His spokesman, Mike Matson, said the governor saw no reason for the board to get into the debate.
Tuesday, 01 Aug 2000 - According to AANEWS: Four Republican candidates on the Kansas Board of Education who voted to remove testing on evolution ran for re-election. Three were defeated in a primary election. They were the Board chairperson Linda Holloway, who had championed the creationist cause, Douglass Brown, and Brad Angell. All three were defeated by moderate Republicans. The fourth, Roger Rankin, won his primary. Spending in past elections had been on the order of $500. Holloway raised nearly $90 thousand; her opponent, Sue Gamble, raised $35 thousand. AANEWS reported that "Holloway blamed her loss on 'propaganda' over the creation-evolution debate. Gamble, though, saw her nomination victory as a rejection of the board's tampering with science standards, and told reporters, 'I think it's a validation of parents and other community people speaking for their schools and quality education.'"
( Source | ReligiousTolerance.org )
Well, here's what has happened this past election: Kathy Martin, a proponent of the theory of intelligent design, has declared opposition to the teaching of the theory of evolution in KS schools.
Sunday, 26 Sep 2004:
For supporters of teaching evolution in Kansas public schools, the best defense is a good offense.
In January, the balance of power on the state Board of Education is expected to shift to social conservatives who want to include creation science and intelligent design among the theories taught in science classes, or remove evolution from the classroom.
In 1999, when the school board last voted to de-emphasize evolution, it took evolutionists months to organize and respond to the action. The board later reversed its decision in 2000.
This time around, evolution supporters are hoping to head off changes in state science standards before the new school board convenes early next year. The effort will start Tuesday, when [the University of Kansas] science department will play host to a speech by Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa high school teacher and vice-president of Kansas Citizens for Science.
"This speech is meant to be a rallying cry," Krebs said. "Last time, the rallying cry happened after the fact. This time, it needs to happen beforehand."
...
Conservative Republican Kathy Martin won the District 6 board seat in the August primary against incumbent and moderate Republican Bruce Wyatt. Martin, who will be sworn in this January, said as far as she knew, the changes in the science standards would be "minor."
( Source article: "Evolution defenders anticipate new fight" | The Lawrence Journal-World )
On Monday, 18 Oct 2004, Kathy Martin spoke on our campus.
Tuesday, 19 Oct 2004 - Science classes in Kansas public schools should examine all possible theories, said Kathy Martin, Republican candidate for the sixth district seat on the State Board of Education.
In Martin’s speech Monday, "A Vision for the State School Board," she set the record straight about her position about teaching creationism in public schools.
"I’m not for teaching creationism in our science classes," she said. "I’m just saying that besides evolution, theory of intelligent design should be allowed to be discussed in the classroom."
( Source article: "Martin visits K-State, speaks" | Kansas State Collegian )
Wednesday, 20 Oct 2004 - LETTER: Candidate not suited for board
Editor,
After attending Kathy Martin's lecture and Q&A session, I am left in awe of how much we need the theory of evolution to be taught in schools and taught to future teachers. Martin has been the head science teacher at the elementary school in Clay Center for many years, yet her understanding of evolutionary theory is not what we should expect of someone who should be a scientist of sorts...
Joseph Kern
Senior in Secondary Education
Kansas State University
( Source article: "LETTER: Candidate not suited for board" | Kansas State Collegian )
On Tuesday, 02 Nov 2004, Kathy Martin was elected to the Kansas State Board of Education, District 6. She had run unopposed.
Audio segments from The Lawrence Journal-World (MS Internet Explorer only, unfortunately): Kathy Martin on
- Alternative theories - "in fact, I know we have no empiri[c]al evidence [in support of evolution]"
- Separation of church and state - "you never really can separate church and state anyway"
- Media coverage of the 1999 decision - "it was probably pretty much blown out of proportion; I don't think that much happened"
- Bioscience in Kansas; challenging the status quo - "as far as I'm concerned, we're way ahead of the rest, if we're recognizing that some of these things can be challenged"
Please do educate yourself on opposing viewpoints.
Evolution Science perspectives
- National Center for Science Education
- The Panda's Thumb - (Virtual) University of Ediacara
- People for the Amercian Way (liberal think-tank): 1 | 2
- C is for Creation: The New Creationist Assault on Science Education - Kansas
- Evolution - Wikipedia
Creationist perspectives
- Intelligent Design Network
- Editorial: The Christian Post
- Creationism.org
- Center for Scientific Creationism
- Creationism - Wikipedia
News and review
- Creation and evolution in public education - Wikipedia
- Evolution and Creation in the News - About.com (NB: although it is under the "atheism" heading, that is an objective review page.)
- Recent News about Evolution and Creation Science - ReligiousTolerance.org
--
Banazir
- Current Mood:
irate
Profile
banazir- Banazîr the Jedi Hobbit
- Unusual Nut-Case Lays of Ea (U.N.C.L.E.): Tolkien Humor
Page Summary
- crypthanatopsis : (no subject) [+2]
- kakarigeiko : (no subject) [+13]
- cretaceousrick : (no subject) [+29]
- oxbastetxo : Was going to comment.... [+21]
- zengeneral : .. urgh [+6]
- r3turn0 : (no subject) [+2]
- smoke_au : (no subject) [+7]
- masteralida : (no subject) [+12]
- ldymlissa : thoughts [+0]
- kaladhwen : and what's wrong with creationists? ;) [+26]
- r3turn0 : New Represenative of "Rednecks" [+2]
- kakarigeiko : (no subject) [+0]
- theatremomma : oh no!! [+1]
- chaosinaskirt : (no subject) [+0]
Comments
I bet the redneck fundamentalist living out in the middle of nowhere in the plain states are probably the stupidest English-speaking people, if not the stupidest first-world residents, alive today.
I call it assiduous ignorance, like the assiduous failure that plagues some of our students.
None so blind as they who will not see.
It takes a lot of effort, but I know of several Ph.D.s who have told me of the dangers of thinking otherwise. Listen to Martin's first and fourth recordings.
I bet the redneck fundamentalist living out in the middle of nowhere in the plain states are probably the stupidest English-speaking people, if not the stupidest first-world residents, alive today.
If only it were that simple, Nathan. See the "Creationist perspectives" section that I just put in. Also, I refer you again to Kathy Martin's first sound bite: she is a (self-reported) science teacher, and has garnered some influence thereby.
--
Banazir
I will say this for the record:
--
Banazir
...umm...I hope by "we," Martin means her own group, because surely she's not referring to the scientific community as a whole.
...though i love them alot more when they're not, say, in positions of power.
(Safe Zone logo stolen from
This is a censorship-free zone,
Opine away!
--
Banazir
Too bad, in the church of Jeff, creation isn't taught, at all... when someone asks:
q: "Where did I come from"
a: "The church of jeff made you"
q: "Who made the church of jeff"
a: "jeff"
q: "Who made jeff"
a: "jeff"
... so on and so on, people will realize it is a pointless question or die asking...
On a side note, I am a de-evolutionist. I seriously believe that aliens came to this planet billions of years ago, had a sexy orgy, the juices were flying, and that complex genetic material has been de-evolving, and we are the most complex form left... Course, who created the aliens? ... I DID...
You realize I will denounce your church as not being well-founded?
:snerk:
--
Banazir
as far as my opinion after the intoxication of said brew :
I have to partially agree with everyone...(
Being a redneck in Texas with alien DNA, but also supporting the cause of evolution, I feel the love and warmth of some supreme being comforting me in the back of my mind (although I sometimes think this is a result of a self preservation stategy by extending ones-self beyond death).
Having said that, almost seriously, this discussion represents the last and first great triumph that humankind, and the intelligence that we create, may ever hope to achieve.
********************
Banazir,
Your initial post seems incredibly close-minded for a scientist. You seem to ignore that this person seems to be saying that creationism should be taught alongside evolution, and instead have read the comments as a call to eradicate the study of evolution altogether. I dont see this person saying that at all - whatever her personal beliefs are.
Having read (and perhaps misinterpreted) your post, I suppose I am interested to know why you think you have right to say creationism is a load of garbage (as you pretty much have done) but do not give anyone else the right to even consider the theory of evolution less than an incontrovertable law of reality. I know its what you are studying, but it sure seems ... intolerant? Especially over a "clinically non-repeatable experiment" as is the nature of these things.
Do you have a problem with people in schools being able to explore an alternate theory and accept or reject it for themselves? If so, why? If it is a load of bollocks and the other theory is so much better then surely the scientific mind will accept one over the other.
nb: I purposely have attempted to obscure my true position on evolution ;-), since its immaterial to what I am really interested in knowing about your thoughts.
Im interested to hear your response.
********************
To everyone else: Please let Banazir respond as this is a response to his initial post, isnt meant to be in any way offensive, and Id like to know if Ive read his post wrong - since either way, I would like to understand his position.
No offense is taken at your comment. Here is my reply:
First of all, let me state for the record what I understand Ms. Martin's position to be.
1. She has sought to gain admittance for intelligent design (a proto-creationist theory that is not tied to any particular monotheistic religion but is definitely theistic in basis).
2. Not only this, but she has stated that they should be presented as equal, and equally undemonstrable, alternative theories.
3. Furthermore, she has expressed support for the KS Board of Education's 1999 decision to set secondary science education guidelines that de-emphasized evolution, meaning that she sees it as less of a priority than it was held to be prior to August, 1999 and after August, 2000.
My opinions:
1. I have concerns about theological teachings being presented under the rubric of scientific theories (rather than as religious beliefs, which may very well have their place in the "philosophy and history" modules of a science course).
2. I do not concur that evolution and creation science are equally undemonstrable. To me, the evolution vs. intelligent design distinction is in general analogous to isolating color gluons or other subatomic particles versus proving the existence of an Omega particle, or specifically that God is the origin of subatomic particles. Considering the specific way - Seven-Day or "Young Earth" creationism - that some of the proponents of the 1999 amendment in KS interpret intelligent design: it is more analogous to isolating fermionic particles vs. arguing their non-existence because atoms are indivisible. You can certainly believe the latter; it simply is not science to put it forward as a "theory" (speaking colloquially), though there is a formally disprovable hypothesis in there.
3. Taking the "indivisible atom" analogy forward: there are two ways that American politicians and educators who favor creationism tend to attack evolution as a theory. The first is to discredit speciation as undemonstrable using laboratory experimentation and claim that it has not been observed in the field.
The former is not the case, as
talk.originspage noted, the time scale required for selective pressure to produce intergenus or interfamily differentiation is several decimal orders of magnitude higher than humans have been around (by all accounts).(continued)
When I'm sober I'll comment on this. Right now I can't concentrate enough to read it ;)
I love mango martinis and mojitos.
Would have liked to see your comments in three-sheets-mode...
So my big thought of the night:
If God created the Earth, were the other planets his screw ups?
Simply, I believe in creation and evolution. I don't know all the "technical" terms for all the positions on this issue but frankly whatever you call it, it doesn't change what I believe. ;)
Longer explanation. Let's see. In school we were presented with all the theories, were told they were only theories, that we'd have to figure it out for ourselves, and basically to 'have fun kids cause science doesn't have all the answers' (yet). ;) Well I used to scoff a bit at evolution, but in HS I saw things that could be nothing other than evolution - survival of turtles, for example, that had longer necks to reach things to eat, and the ones with shorter necks died out. Etc. (Wow, that was a random example.)
But I believe that God created all things, and if evolution exists he's the author of it. I mean, with a changing environment over tens of thousands of years, wouldn't the things living here need to be able to slowly adapt as the environment does? But I digress. There are so many possibilities, and no, we don't have all the facts, but it's fun to speculate. For example, I think that the seven days in which God created the earth could very likely be figurative. If it was seven standard earth days, well, in my church we're taught that each day to God is 1,000 years to us. So, who knows, maybe those seven days stand for 7 thousand or million years or whatever. I believe God still has to follow all of the natural laws of physics, and science, etc., cause heck he created them, he can't just go violating them now; but since he created them, he knows how to manipulate them and use them a whole heck of a lot better than we do, if that makes sense.
All I do know is, it is possible to believe in both creationism and evolution. And despite what I believe or do not believe, if something isn't fact, all possible theories should be presented in public schools, for what they are, as theories, and let the students decide for themselves. And as I did in HS, I still keep an open mind to new things I hear and learn about both creationism and evolution. I simply believe that it's possible they can both exist...I'm just not exactly sure how (yet). ;)
I feel obligated to enlighten the masses and dispel the Internet stereotype
of "Redneck culture". Born and raised in Texas, I am qualified to respond in the rhetoric in a way that's not predicted by most--with a slight unexpected (un-Bush character). Ya know, I used to hate Rednecks, but then again I used to hate (insert minority here). I can give the opinion of a true southern man. BTW- This has got to be the best thread I've seen recently.
LOL, thanks. Start a column!
I'm sure it'll be better than Scarborough Country. Say, would you call yourself a liberal, libertarian, conservative, or moderate/centrist redneck, or "none of the above"? (I am not into labeling folks, but I'm curious how you affiliate yourself.)
This has got to be the best thread I've seen recently.
Thank you, and thanks for contributing.
--
Banazir
In discussing the relative scientific merits of the theories, though, smoke_au is totally veering off from the main point. The main point is that politicians and religious figures are trying to affect what scientists would like to be taught in schools. This has far reaching consequences regardless of whether or not evolution or creationism happen to be true.
You were born here? Whereabouts?
And where did you post before?
--
Banazir
how did consciousness evolve?