NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2013263,00.html

In redrafting guidelines for science teaching, the board removed language suggesting that key concepts such as a common origin for all life on Earth and for species change were seen as controversial by the scientific community.

The board also rewrote the definition of science, limiting it to the search for rational explanations of what occurs in the universe. The move, though limited in its scope, was seen as significant because it rejected a key argument of subscribers to intelligent design: that providing children with arguments for and against evolution merely amounts to fair play.
Finally a step forward. Actually teaching science in a science class? who would have imagined!

You've lost me. Kansas? The state above Oklahoma? They're going to teach science there? Not possible.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2013263,00.html


Finally a step forward. Actually teaching science in a science class? who would have imagined!

Wasn't this the same state that was going to teach ID alongside Evolution a year ago? They need to make up their damn minds.

This will last until the next election, then the Fundies will vote. Then they will be in charge until the election after that, then the science people will decide they need to vote, then in the next election...............

teh ebil liberal agenda is spreading.

This will last until the next election, then the Fundies will vote. Then they will be in charge until the election after that, then the science people will decide they need to vote, then in the next election...............

Yup, that's pretty much been how Kansas's school board elections have gone for the past couple of decades, and I doubt they'll stop it anytime soon. But, hey, it's nice to have "science" un-redefined for the time being, anyway.

Wasn't this the same state that was going to teach ID alongside Evolution a year ago? They need to make up their damn minds.

They've changed their minds five times in the last 8 years, but I have hopes it will stick this time. The moderate Republicans in the state have had it with their nuttier-than-thou brethren and have started voting for Democrats on occasion. The Democratic governor cruised to re-election last year, and several high-ranking former Republicans switched parties and ran as Democrats and won as well. Kansas won't be mistaken for San Francisco any time soon, but it's good to see this minor shift toward sanity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2013263,00.html


Finally a step forward. Actually teaching science in a science class? who would have imagined!

Moving forward= Seccular Progressive Doctrine


Erm, they were a step forward in giving intelligent design a chance.... I see this more as a one step forward, two step backs sort of thing... Goodbye equal opportunity for scientific idealology.....Hello Seccular facist doctrine. Oh well. I might as well look into de-evoloving myself....

Moving forward= Seccular Progressive Doctrine


Erm, they were a step forward in giving intelligent design a chance.... I see this more as a one step forward, two step backs sort of thing... Goodbye equal opportunity for scientific idealology.....Hello Seccular facist doctrine. Oh well. I might as well look into de-evoloving myself....

You know, I would blast your use of bullshit descriptors in this post, but I think I'll just let your precious spelling speak for your educational ability. Let's just say that I'm not all that concerned that you find evolution to be a "Seccular facist doctrine." And what exactly is involved in de-evoloving? Sounds kinky.

You know, I would blast your use of bullshit descriptors in this post, but I think I'll just let your precious spelling speak for your educational ability. Let's just say that I'm not all that concerned that you find evolution to be a "Seccular facist doctrine." And what exactly is involved in de-evoloving? Sounds kinky.

Heh. My first thought upon reading the phrase "de-evoloving myself" was that it sounded like a great euphemism for masturbation.

You know, I would blast your use of bullshit descriptors in this post, but I think I'll just let your precious spelling speak for your educational ability. Let's just say that I'm not all that concerned that you find evolution to be a "Seccular facist doctrine." And what exactly is involved in de-evoloving? Sounds kinky.

Of course you wouldn't care, evidently a concerned mass in Kansas do... Coninsidently, children will no longer be subject too "closed minded religous smuck" and instead become accustom too only the theroy of evolution. It must be nice too use a few letters out of place and a missing comma too completely miss attacking the point of my statement. ;)

De-Evolving? Evolving backwards. Eventually, I will become nothing, thus going back too where it all started....from erm.....nothing....

Heh. My first thought upon reading the phrase "de-evoloving myself" was that it sounded like a great euphemism for masturbation.

I'm certain you'll need such a euphemism, your free too use it.

Moving forward= Seccular Progressive Doctrine


Erm, they were a step forward in giving intelligent design a chance.... I see this more as a one step forward, two step backs sort of thing... Goodbye equal opportunity for scientific idealology.....Hello Seccular facist doctrine. Oh well. I might as well look into de-evoloving myself....You misspelled a number of things there, but writing "ideology" as "scientific idealology" really tops it.

You misspelled a number of things there, but writing "ideology" as "scientific idealology" really tops it.

I kinda like the lol in the middle there. Seems appropriate.

Moving forward= Seccular Progressive Doctrine


Erm, they were a step forward in giving intelligent design a chance.... I see this more as a one step forward, two step backs sort of thing... Goodbye equal opportunity for scientific idealology.....Hello Seccular facist doctrine. Oh well. I might as well look into de-evoloving myself....

A question if I may: Are you drunk?

And yay for Kansas (never thought I'd say that), lets hope this sticks.

I'm pleased that Kansas has taken this step away from psudoscience.

Wasn't the open letter on www.venganza.org addressed to the Kansas school board?

Wasn't the open letter on www.venganza.org addressed to the Kansas school board?

Yes, It was. He threatens to sue and everything.

Yes, It was. He threatens to sue and everything.

So, if the Kansas school board is giving in, who will be the next target of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I say the RIAA, with their clear anti-pirate agenda.

So, if the Kansas school board is giving in, who will be the next target of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I say the RIAA, with their clear anti-pirate agenda.

I wish, smite the demons o' noodly one!

Well well.

Now they are going to just stick to the basic boring "established" mainstream science. Not that I am a supporter of intelligent design. Its just that history shows that a vast majority of what "we know" ends up being wrong. Kinda like the flat earth theory hundreds of years ago.

I know that some of you may say that evolution and all of that is "proven science" and explains all. But long ago, Alchemy was considered real science till Chemistry kicked its butt in explaining elements and reactions.

But I am not saying intelligent design is anything like chemistry. But to give an example that most likley in the next 50 years, evolution will be replaced, or heavily changed into a new Theory, thats closer to the truth.

Its too bad they aren't going to not even mention ideas like intelligent design in Kansas. Even if it is completley wrong, it would Get kids to think!

Well well.

Now they are going to just stick to the basic boring "established" mainstream science. Not that I am a supporter of intelligent design. Its just that history shows that a vast majority of what "we know" ends up being wrong. Kinda like the flat earth theory hundreds of years ago.

I know that some of you may say that evolution and all of that is "proven science" and explains all. But long ago, Alchemy was considered real science till Chemistry kicked its butt in explaining elements and reactions.

But I am not saying intelligent design is anything like chemistry. But to give an example that most likley in the next 50 years, evolution will be replaced, or heavily changed into a new Theory, thats closer to the truth.

Its too bad they aren't going to not even mention ideas like intelligent design in Kansas. Even if it is completley wrong, it would Get kids to think!
You do realise by this argument we may as well not teach anything in school at all? Of course critical thinking is good, but you have to have some things which are established as fact.

You do realise by this argument we may as well not teach anything in school at all? Of course critical thinking is good, but you have to have some things which are established as fact.

Excellent Thought!

There is more than one way to look at this argument. But it seems of course that not teaching anything in school would be one of the worst solutions to this complex problem.

I want the school systems to teach science! It is definatley lacking compared to many countries! I went through a US High School with honors classes, and when I attended a semester in 11th grade a German Gymnasuim (Thier high school), they were teaching stuff that went way over my head.

Do I want the schools to teach evolution, yes: it explains many things in Biology. But I also want some mention or maybe a discussion of other less popular theories, as there is a possibility that they could help explain more and help us reach the Ultimate Truth.

...Or we may have lost an important meaning of science today.

You do realise by this argument we may as well not teach anything in school at all? Of course critical thinking is good, but you have to have some things which are established as fact.

I thought that the point of science is to have a constantly changing model that is as close to the truth as has been discovered. A model that works for all conducted tests..... that's not quite fact is it?

Excellent Thought!

There is more than one way to look at this argument. But it seems of course that not teaching anything in school would be one of the worst solutions to this complex problem.

I want the school systems to teach science! It is definatley lacking compared to many countries! I went through a US High School with honors classes, and when I attended a semester in 11th grade a German Gymnasuim (Thier high school), they were teaching stuff that went way over my head.

Do I want the schools to teach evolution, yes: it explains many things in Biology. But I also want some mention or maybe a discussion of other less popular theories, as there is a possibility that they could help explain more and help us reach the Ultimate Truth.

...Or we may have lost an important meaning of science today.

When we got to scientific method in 1st year(12-13), it was made pretty clear that scientific theories are not fact, and probably never will be, but they're the best fit for the evidence at hand.

Do I want the schools to teach evolution, yes: it explains many things in Biology. But I also want some mention or maybe a discussion of other less popular theories, as there is a possibility that they could help explain more and help us reach the Ultimate Truth.

...Or we may have lost an important meaning of science today.

Creationism does not fall under any definition of science. It is not a theory in the scientific meaning of the word. Teaching children that it is a form of science, and that it's ideas are scientific theories would be lying to them.

I see no harm in mentioning it in a class on world religions, but it has no place in a science classroom.

Tsynaches you're mistaken. Science is the principal tool for explaining the reality we're part of. The "Ultimate Truth" can't be ascertained by using that tool, nor does anyone but the woefully ignorant make any such claim.

Science is useful because it works. It's important to teach it to students, because it works. Whether that in itself is reason enough to bother teaching it, is a topic for a different debate, namely cirriculum. Allowing things that violate the confines of the tool to be taught in the classes where the use of the tool itself is being taught, is counterproductive. Not because students shouldn't learn the use of other tools, but because it's - to use an analogy - less than clever to let students pick between hammers & landmines when they're tasked with hammering in a nail.

Since "Ultimate Truth" is beyond our reach, the most we can teach students, is just that. In the context of science education, that consists of teaching students the confines of the methodology. Introducing subjects that violate that methodology only confuses the issue.

Excellent Thought!

There is more than one way to look at this argument. But it seems of course that not teaching anything in school would be one of the worst solutions to this complex problem.

I want the school systems to teach science! It is definatley lacking compared to many countries! I went through a US High School with honors classes, and when I attended a semester in 11th grade a German Gymnasuim (Thier high school), they were teaching stuff that went way over my head.

Do I want the schools to teach evolution, yes: it explains many things in Biology. But I also want some mention or maybe a discussion of other less popular theories, as there is a possibility that they could help explain more and help us reach the Ultimate Truth.

...Or we may have lost an important meaning of science today.

I suppose Intelligent design could be included as an example of bad science, along with explaining why this is and how it couldnt ever be considered as a theory. That is if you thought explaining the differences would be beneficial to the class' understanding of science.

We were taught Newton's corpuscle theory of light in Physics as an example of how you can take some evidence and come to a wrong conclusion, and how even after Newton had been proved wrong, some physicists continued to beleive the theory. I suppose the corpuscle theory of light is much more scientific than creationism though.

But ID as a viable alternative to evolution, no way.

Excellent Thought!

There is more than one way to look at this argument. But it seems of course that not teaching anything in school would be one of the worst solutions to this complex problem.

I want the school systems to teach science! It is definatley lacking compared to many countries! I went through a US High School with honors classes, and when I attended a semester in 11th grade a German Gymnasuim (Thier high school), they were teaching stuff that went way over my head.

Do I want the schools to teach evolution, yes: it explains many things in Biology. But I also want some mention or maybe a discussion of other less popular theories, as there is a possibility that they could help explain more and help us reach the Ultimate Truth.

...Or we may have lost an important meaning of science today.
Problem with all that being that ID is not a"Theory" as far as science or the science class room is concerned ... why should we teach non science in a science class?

Wasn't this the same state that was going to teach ID alongside Evolution a year ago? They need to make up their damn minds.

I'm keen to gripe about ignorance too, but when a child who has shit all over the floor, all over their clothes, and all over you finally manages to shit in the potty, you don't tell him "well it's about goddamn time!"

Problem with all that being that ID is not a"Theory" as far as science or the science class room is concerned ... why should we teach non science in a science class?

Well we used to be taught that Columbus discovered that the Earth was round in history class...

I'm keen to gripe about ignorance too, but when a child who has shit all over the floor, all over their clothes, and all over you finally manages to shit in the potty, you don't tell him "well it's about goddamn time!"

No, but you might think that to yourself. I for one think we should start sending congratulatory letters to the Kansas school board.

Well we used to be taught that Columbus discovered that the Earth was round in history class...

That would be an example of incorrect history ... but at least it WAS history correct or not

I am not saying evolution the current view is total nor complete and will not have revisions but there is a light year between a scientific theory and something that is not

If your history class had also taught mathematics I would be concerned at why they put something that was not history (correct or incorrect history) in a history course.

Well well.

Now they are going to just stick to the basic boring "established" mainstream science. Not that I am a supporter of intelligent design. Its just that history shows that a vast majority of what "we know" ends up being wrong. Kinda like the flat earth theory hundreds of years ago.

I know that some of you may say that evolution and all of that is "proven science" and explains all. But long ago, Alchemy was considered real science till Chemistry kicked its butt in explaining elements and reactions.

But I am not saying intelligent design is anything like chemistry. But to give an example that most likley in the next 50 years, evolution will be replaced, or heavily changed into a new Theory, thats closer to the truth.

Its too bad they aren't going to not even mention ideas like intelligent design in Kansas. Even if it is completley wrong, it would Get kids to think!

Yes, alchemy was considered science until chemistry came along. However, there is no movement to teach alchemy alongside chemistry today because alchemy is just chemistry+bunk with prettier names. ID is just evolution-explanation. ID doesn't explain anything that evolution can't.

ID doesn't offer anything to the body of knowledge but a placeholder. It's like putting a picture of a dragon on any part of the rainforest that might not have been thoroughly explored on maps. Why is there no Dragon theory of cartography? Because at least they know that if you don't know something you're supposed to check, not make it up.

Moving forward= Seccular Progressive Doctrine


Erm, they were a step forward in giving intelligent design a chance.... I see this more as a one step forward, two step backs sort of thing... Goodbye equal opportunity for scientific idealology.....Hello Seccular facist doctrine. Oh well. I might as well look into de-evoloving myself....

not science? not taught in science class.

simple.



good move, Kansas *thumbs up*

ID doesn't offer anything to the body of knowledge but a placeholder. It's like putting a picture of a dragon on any part of the rainforest that might not have been thoroughly explored on maps. Why is there no Dragon theory of cartography? Because at least they know that if you don't know something you're supposed to check, not make it up.Hillarious :)

ID doesn't offer anything to the body of knowledge but a placeholder. It's like putting a picture of a dragon on any part of the rainforest that might not have been thoroughly explored on maps. Why is there no Dragon theory of cartography? Because at least they know that if you don't know something you're supposed to check, not make it up.

...and usually once that dragon is removed and real map put in its place.... people don't go around trying to put the dragon back over the map pieces. A lot of mythology was people (sometimes literally) putting a dragon over something they couldn't explain or didn't know about.

Yes, alchemy was considered science until chemistry came along. However, there is no movement to teach alchemy alongside chemistry today because alchemy is just chemistry+bunk with prettier names. ID is just evolution-explanation. ID doesn't explain anything that evolution can't.

ID doesn't offer anything to the body of knowledge but a placeholder. It's like putting a picture of a dragon on any part of the rainforest that might not have been thoroughly explored on maps. Why is there no Dragon theory of cartography? Because at least they know that if you don't know something you're supposed to check, not make it up.

I dunno, I know I'd go visit a country if I thought it had dragons in the forests.

good, although i'm not sure if this will last.

such as?

Indeed, are there any actual scientific alternatives to evolution.

Excellent Thought!

There is more than one way to look at this argument. But it seems of course that not teaching anything in school would be one of the worst solutions to this complex problem.

I want the school systems to teach science! It is definatley lacking compared to many countries! I went through a US High School with honors classes, and when I attended a semester in 11th grade a German Gymnasuim (Thier high school), they were teaching stuff that went way over my head.

Do I want the schools to teach evolution, yes: it explains many things in Biology. But I also want some mention or maybe a discussion of other less popular theories, as there is a possibility that they could help explain more and help us reach the Ultimate Truth.

...Or we may have lost an important meaning of science today.

such as?

Indeed, are there any actual scientific alternatives to evolution.No.

Indeed, are there any actual scientific alternatives to evolution.
Well then let's hear 'em!!

Seriously, I hear people say stuff like that [clarification: "stuff like that" = "there are alternative theories to evolution"] all the time, but they never provide examples. If pressed, they sometimes will bring up areas of evolutionary biology that contain unanswered question (hint: it's all of them) as if these unanswered questions were, themselves, some alternate theory.

I actually work with a PhD/MD who doesn't believe evolutionary theory is scientifically sound. He's got some actual alternative theories. So I am completely willing to admit that intelligent, educated people CAN have alternate theories to evolution. But I've yet to hear a single person on these forums present ONE. They always just go back to picking at evolutionary theory, without presenting any alternative theory beyond, "Um, Goddidit?"

Well then let's hear 'em!!That was a question...

That was a question...
Yeah, forgive me if I wasn't clear: the challenge was to those who say there are "alternative theories." I'm tired of hearing nothing but "evil-lution is flawed/bad/stupid/shutup!!"

Instead of just asking, "Are there alternative theories?" we need to ask, "SPECIFICALLY, what are YOUR theories?" No more of this vague crap. :D

Moving forward= Seccular Progressive Doctrine


Erm, they were a step forward in giving intelligent design a chance.... I see this more as a one step forward, two step backs sort of thing... Goodbye equal opportunity for scientific idealology.....Hello Seccular facist doctrine. Oh well. I might as well look into de-evoloving myself....

You'd be right if ID was scientific. Unfortunately it appeals to an undefined supernatural force, so it's vague theology, not science.

Well well.

Now they are going to just stick to the basic boring "established" mainstream science. Not that I am a supporter of intelligent design. Its just that history shows that a vast majority of what "we know" ends up being wrong. Kinda like the flat earth theory hundreds of years ago.

I know that some of you may say that evolution and all of that is "proven science" and explains all. But long ago, Alchemy was considered real science till Chemistry kicked its butt in explaining elements and reactions.

But I am not saying intelligent design is anything like chemistry. But to give an example that most likley in the next 50 years, evolution will be replaced, or heavily changed into a new Theory, thats closer to the truth.

Its too bad they aren't going to not even mention ideas like intelligent design in Kansas. Even if it is completley wrong, it would Get kids to think!

Evolution might change, but appealing to an undefined superantural force is by it's definition not science, so evolution won't change into ID.

When we got to scientific method in 1st year(12-13), it was made pretty clear that scientific theories are not fact, and probably never will be, but they're the best fit for the evidence at hand.

Theories never become facts in science. This is because a theory explains how something happened. A fact is simply that something happened. A fact is no higher than a theory, because it's not on the same scale. If somehow they were put on the same scale, a fact would probably be lower. In and of itself, facts are pretty useless. Theories, only the other hand, explain things and make predictions.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, but the fact and the theory are not the same thing.

Theories never become facts in science. This is because a theory explains how something happened. A fact is simply that something happened. A fact is no higher than a theory, because it's not on the same scale. If somehow they were put on the same scale, a fact would probably be lower. In and of itself, facts are pretty useless. Theories, only the other hand, explain things and make predictions.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, but the fact and the theory are not the same thing.

Just so. The "theory of evolution" is the current consensus on how to explain the facts we see, fossils, molecular biology, resemblances between species, all kinds of things in the natural world. The theory (explanation) is different today than it was 50 years ago and it's entirely possible it will be different 50 years from now, as new "facts" (observations) are included. It won't involve an ill-defined supernatural "designer," though, of that I am fairly certain.

For a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be:

* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, but ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.

Retro-futurism again. For lack of ideas about the future, people turn to the past, expecting it to rise again, painted in modern colors.

Things evolve, not degrade.

Every once in a while something current becomes obsolete. But it becomes replaced by something deeper scientific and usually more complicated - not by return to the past.


We see it with swords in Star Wars and Dune, we see it with legs in mecha anime/manga, we see it with battleships in NS PMT, and we see it with creationism for evolution. But it is not serious. Future doesn't repeat the past, and it surely doesn't drop from effective and workable concepts to primitive and useless.
The old theory of creationism is much more flawed - it isn't even a theory, because a theory must be able to make predictions; if it can't, it's not a theory, but a lame, pointless excuse.

Right now the Mathematics is extensively studying the behavior of complex self-organizing systems, and not without demand from the Systems Engineering. Ocean is one of these systems, and it doesn't follow the old simplistic principles - but it doesn't mean some sky guy is mixing it up; we're getting to grasping the principles behind it right now. Biological life is one of these systems. It is not something to be described on a single sheet of paper, and not something to be described in mechanical terms - systems of high complexity are stochastic rather than deterministic. We aren't yet getting at grasping how life works. But we have clues, we have methods, we have parts of the puzzle, and we are researching the underlying laws right now on the new level of complexity, and, while understanding biological life will take a lot of time, the big picture is being revealed right now.
We no longer need God to explain creation and self-organization of biological life. Early in the past, the guy had to spawn every lightning and make every rock. Today, he just creates planets and flashes firmware into our children. Tomorrow, he'll likely have to just spawn the universe. And we're going to ensure him a nice retirement as we explore that subject.

Moving forward= Seccular Progressive Doctrine


Erm, they were a step forward in giving intelligent design a chance.... I see this more as a one step forward, two step backs sort of thing... Goodbye equal opportunity for scientific idealology.....Hello Seccular facist doctrine. Oh well. I might as well look into de-evoloving myself....

This is about Intelligent Design being taught as science.

Which it is not, has not been, nor will it ever be Science. By definition.

Let me repeat that:

By definition, ID is not science. Then why the hell should it be taught as science? Science isn't about bringing forth all ideas possible, and teaching them all mate. It's about bringing forth those ideas which the evidence supports, which ID has virtually none, merely conjecture. In which case, it is not science, merely an idea.

This is about Intelligent Design being taught as science.

Which it is not, has not been, nor will it ever be Science. By definition.

The fact that there are so many people who still think ID is science is strong evidence that our science education programs are seriously deficient. :( That's like if there were lots of people walking around insisting that Gulliver's Travels is a geography text.

The fact that there are so many people who still think ID is science is strong evidence that our science education programs are seriously deficient. :( That's like if there were lots of people walking around insisting that Gulliver's Travels is a geography text.

It's not? Damnit. I really thought we could take a boat all the way to Phobos and Deimos.

The interesting thing about this is Kansas got rich because the Kansas City Missouri schools were and are so bad the money moved across the line to Kansas.

Now the moderates are worried that the money will completely leave the Kansas City and Wichita areas because to this science problem. What it comes down to is the money located in the cities want normal science, while the other half of the population and 80% of the geography are into this fundamentalist philosophy. They don't benefit from the money in the cities so they don't care.