I Could Say, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"
From the Associated Press:Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.Sorry, just to clarify: the board rewrote the definition of science. The Kansas Board of Education. Rewrote. The Definition. Of Science.
The 6-4 vote was a victory for "intelligent design" advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power. . . .
The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
We now allow you to return to your regularly-scheduled noggin scratching.
Initial H/T to Selfish Country Music-Loving Lady, of Fantasy Drafts fame.
UPDATE: H/T rightfully goes to Chris, also of FD fame. But I suppose I really just have to take my hat off to the six Kansas BoE members who voted in favor. Oh well. At least the entire Dover School Board is homeless now.
Presented for your delectation by the Hired Hand at 12:47 PM
Comments on "I Could Say, "What's the Matter With Kansas?""
-
Gentleman Farmer said ... (1:12 PM) :
-
Hired Hand said ... (1:26 PM) :
-
Selfish Country Music Loving Lady said ... (1:26 PM) :
-
Selfish Country Music Loving Lady said ... (1:30 PM) :
-
Chris said ... (1:47 PM) :
-
Gentleman Farmer said ... (1:55 PM) :
-
Gentleman Farmer said ... (1:57 PM) :
-
Chris said ... (1:59 PM) :
-
Selfish Country Music Loving Lady said ... (2:11 PM) :
-
Red Baroness said ... (2:57 PM) :
-
Gentleman Farmer said ... (3:00 PM) :
-
Hired Hand said ... (3:29 PM) :
-
Selfish Country Music Loving Lady said ... (3:42 PM) :
-
Chris said ... (3:59 PM) :
-
Gentleman Farmer said ... (4:09 PM) :
-
Hired Hand said ... (4:19 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (6:01 AM) :
-
Selfish Country Music Loving Lady said ... (11:44 AM) :
post a commentIt's unclear why the school board should have had to "rewrite the definition of science," particularly in the way they are reported to have done, in order to introduce the (admittedly radical) notion that one is permitted to question evolutionism, in particular or generally.
The Utter Perfection of Evolutionism is, of course, one of the major pillars of the Fundamentalist Church of Secular Humanism and, as such, to wonder about it is to commit the most grave heresy.
If Evolutionism is so clear and well-founded, then why, for example, have so many lies been told (in textbooks and otherwise) to support it?
If one were to be permitted to ask questions about Evolutionism well, then, what's next? Challenging the Holy Righteousness of the received text of Roe v. Wade? Nay! Never we say! Not one jot or tittle of Holy Writ shall be changed!
No. Sorry. The Kansas Board of Education isn't "asking questions about evolutionism" - or even, you know, evolution. What they're doing is altering their standards of education to include the teaching of religious tradition in their schools. I think there's something about separation of church and state here, and last I checked, "Secular Humanism" wasn't a religion.
As far as I know, I don't get to deduct my New York Times subscription from my taxable income. Do I?
I'll defer to the constitutional scholars on the first point, and the tax code nerds on the second.
Well?
They had to rewrite the definition of science to accomodate what a very specific challenge to evolutionary theory, namely one that incorporates "intelligent design." This isn't about scientific openness; it's about intelligent design. They don't just want to teach, "there are many, many aspects of evolution that have yet to be worked out"; they want to incorporate certain unnamed supernatural phenomena into the science curriculum. Since supernatural phenomena aren't typically associated with the study of "science," they had to change the definition.
Just one more thing, then I promise I’ll go back to Fantasy Drafts where I belong. I don’t think that the so-called “evolutionists” necessarily have a problem with certain (gaps) in their theory being taught. But these topics are rightly placed in a high-level undergrad biology seminar, not a high school classroom. The IDers case for the “gaps” of evolutionary theory is laughably flimsy. I am particularly amazed about the chutzpah of using “gaps in the fossil record” as “evidence” of intelligent design. First of all, as any remotely competent biologist can tell you, we are supremely blessed to have ANY fossil record, considering how unlikely is the convergence of the conditions necessary to create fossils. Of course there are GAPS. Otherwise we’d all be crushed beneath tons and tons of dinosaur bones. Much more noteworthy, except apparently to the Kansas school board, is that there has never been a single anachronism in the fossil record – i.e. everything we’ve found proceeds according to the speciation that biologists have theorized using Darwin’s theory.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I have a simple question: If Evolutionism isn't in the nature of a religion (i.e., a belief system that explains fundamental questions of origin, purpose and the like), then what are those wags who put "DARWIN" fish on their cars trying to tell the rest of us?
And, just so there's no mistake, SCMLL, you more properly belong here rather than with those thugs over at Fantasy Drafts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
My best guess would be that those people are being facetious on purpose and trying to express some sort of solidarity with the many people who think science standards are being degraded in this country. But yeah, they're kind of self-righteous, aren't they?
Also, to nitpick in a completely obnoxious manner, evolution by Darwinian mechanisms is not strictly "a belief system that explains fundamental questions of origin, purpose and the like." The particular theory in question is explicitly NOT teleological. There is no "purpose" to evolution; it just happens. If you were to turn back the clock even a few million years, it is highly unlikely that humans would have arisen at all.
Interestingly, Darwin himself was really conflicted about this. "Origin of Species" is full of contradictory statements on whether natural selection is purposeful or not. Sincerely, I knew History of Science would be good for something sooner or later
I would also like to point out that the Kansas Board of Education is directly going against the wishes of the National Science Teachers Association, who revoked the use of their copyrighted National Science Education Standards. The fact that the board members are defying one of the most respected and influential groups in science education speaks volumes about just how little they care about what is actually good for their students. Read NSTA's formal response to the Kansas Board of Education here
Let's be clear: One cannot have any dispute (other than a scientific one) with what an evolutionary biologist would say is well understood in his area of expertise. There is evidence and there is logic to be applied to that evidence. The evidence may be faulty or misunderstood, and the reasoning may be flawed, but what the biologist "believes" doesn't (or isn't supposed to) count for anything.
That has almost nothing to do with what we're talking about. I am among the most wild-eyed, narrow-minded, by-faith-alone wacko Christians you're likely to come face-to-face with. And I don't see any particular conflict between Christianity or the Bible (on the one hand) and the scientific theory of evolution, on the other.
But that's not what we're talking about. We are, instead, talking about the presentation of evolution to High School students in a manner which leaves them with the notion that the origin of Man has been explained, when only the origin of men has properly been discussed. They are led to believe that all that "And God created" stuff, which always made them so damned uncomfortable, is completely unnecessary; because NOW they know the truth: There was no plan, there was no intention, they exist only and completely as the consequence of a rather unlikely series of random events.
That proposition -- which, of course, is in the nature of a theorem which is either true or false -- is a religious proposition, not a scientific one.
[It is, of course, the result of such teaching that permits the theft of the Christian fish symbol, into which is written "DARWIN" to be thought a profound ironic statement of religious criticism.]
And the situation is made no better by the fact that so many such teachers today, and so many of the scientists in our universities, are in fact scoffing, sneering atheists, whose beliefs most certainly color the presentation of their scientific work.
They are, of course, entitled to be atheists. But I am, of course, entitled to be skeptical of their claims that while my religious beliefs disqualify my opinions, their beliefs as to the nature, origin and purpose of the universe (i.e., their religious beliefs) have not the slightest effect on their scientific work.
Nonsense.
Why stop there? While we're at it, why don't we talk about the presentation of everything ELSE in public school in the complete absence of God? Are we to believe that the Lord was absent at Omaha Beach? In the Pythagorean Theorem? In the molecular structure of benzene?
To address a few other issues, it's free speech that allows the "theft" of the Christian fish symbol. For that matter, it's free speech that allows the theft of the crucifix (and its subsequent burning) for use in horrible acts of racist violence, as well.
That the absence of a designer or the divine happens to be one reasonable extension of the theory of evolution as it currently stands...just is. It is. That the theory of evolution can be reconciled with the existence of a Creator (for you and many) "just is" as well.
But evolution in and of itself is a scientific theory. Because it necessarily involves an issue touched upon by the creation myth (i.e. speciation), it clearly occupies some of the same ground that religion has attempted to explain for a long time. On a scientific basis, though, it is a robust theory, while creationism is not.
That's why creationism doesn't belong in science class, and evolution does. Religious tradition tells us that God created the universe - physics tells us that the objects of large mass exert a gravitational pull on one another. Why aren't physics classes devoting time to explaining the origin of these forces?
I think we can agree that gravity is fundamental to the nature of the universe as we know it, and thus by your definition a religious question.
Personally, I’d agree that this is a serious problem. Despite the constant, vocal protests of many members of the scientific community, I think a full-fledged understanding of evolutionary theory probably DOES lead inexorably to atheism (or at least something so closely resembling atheism that it’s basically equivalent). (Don’t tell!)
So yeah, if I were a “wild-eyed, narrow-minded, by-faith-alone wacko Christian,” I probably WOULD be really troubled that (according to the Supreme Court) the Constitution simply disallows an entire worldview from being taught. So I acknowledge that the whole teaching-of-evolution business presents a serious, difficult problem.
But I think that even you, GF, would agree that the “solution” they’ve come up with in Kansas and the Discovery Institute is a dreadful compromise. Intelligent design is a really inelegant theory. It’s not saying, “we, as mere humans, acknowledge our innate limitations and accept that perhaps some higher force is or was at work in setting forth the mysterious workings of the universe.” It’s essentially saying, “although most aspects of biological life did indeed evolve through Darwinian mechanisms, GOD HIMSELF got in there and created, specifically, the bacterial flagellum, the hemoglobin molecule, DNA polymerase, and protein respiration (but probably not carbohydrate respiration).” It’s hard to imagine a much more dismal worldview.
I can’t pretend to know what the solution is, but this is just insulting: to the whole scientific paradigm, to religious people, and (not least) to the students themselves.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sheesh. What else could we post that would generate so much discussion? Would it require pictures?
The only thing *I* can think of right now is posting a fantasy draft of beers.
Kansas should stop trying to shove religion down the throats of schoolchildren, and instead should just teach them about condoms and anal sex and nihilism, as God intended.
Hey, I never said they should be forced to change it (uh, or at least, I probably didn't... I'm definitely too lazy to go back and check). I was just pointing out that it's a really, really foolish and misguided ruling.