|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject: Kansas school board redefines science |
 |
|
| Quote: |
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- At the risk of re-igniting the same heated nationwide debate it sparked six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
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.
Critics of the language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.
All six of those who voted for the standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted against them.
"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.
Supporters of the standards said they will promote academic freedom. "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican.
The standards state that high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that some concepts have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
The challenged concepts cited include the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and the theory that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
The standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science. Decisions about what is taught in classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about intelligent design. (Read how Kansas came to this point)
The vote marked the third time in six years that the Kansas board has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue.
In 1999, the board eliminated most references to evolution, a move Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said was akin to teaching "American history without Lincoln."
Two years later, after voters replaced three members, the board reverted to evolution-friendly standards. Elections in 2002 and 2004 changed the board's composition again, making it more conservative.
Many scientists and other critics contend creationists repackaged old ideas in scientific-sounding language to get around a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1987 that banned teaching the biblical story of creation in public schools.
The Kansas board's action is part of a national debate. In Pennsylvania, a judge is expected to rule soon in a lawsuit against the Dover school board's policy of requiring high school students to learn about intelligent design in biology class.
In August, President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Has intelligent design come to Kansas?"
"No, it's still evolving."
Same thing is taught in Islamic schools I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK... I'll play Devil's Advocate...
Both Intelligent Design and Evolution are treories. Neither can be proven either way, honestly. I would say that more evidence leans toward evolution, which is why I believe in evolution.
However, there are many people who believe in creationism. That being said, isn't the teaching of evolution in schools completely against their religion, creating a promotion of atheism in schools?
Isn't the government pressing that evolution is the only way actually saying to people that their religion is incorrect? Doesn't that infringe on a person's right to practice religion in their own way?
Honestly, I think that there should be nothing said about the beginning of our world and universe. That is asking for religious troubles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scientists are such windbags and fat heads. Please revist the "Earth Is Flat" episode of human history. Harumph. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| Both Intelligent Design and Evolution are treories. Neither can be proven either way, honestly. I would say that more evidence leans toward evolution, which is why I believe in evolution. |
ID is an unsupported hypothesis. Evolution is a theory, and in the world of science a theory means that it's factually supported and believed to be true (theory in science is different than the general spoken usage of theory which is an idea).
| Quote: |
| However, there are many people who believe in creationism. That being said, isn't the teaching of evolution in schools completely against their religion, creating a promotion of atheism in schools? |
Explaining science does not invalidate religious beliefs. It no more invalidates one's religion than any other science event. Should we stop teaching that the Earth spins on an axis to create the appearance of the sun rising and setting and that the sun isn't being raised and lowered by a god? Or perhaps science classes shouldn't say that the earth spins around the sun and not the opposite which was claimed by many religions in the past.
Where do you suggest we draw the line?
| Quote: |
| Isn't the government pressing that evolution is the only way actually saying to people that their religion is incorrect? Doesn't that infringe on a person's right to practice religion in their own way? |
Evolution is not a religion. As covered already, it's no different than explaining why we see the sun rise and set despite religious claims to the contrary.
| Quote: |
| Honestly, I think that there should be nothing said about the beginning of our world and universe. That is asking for religious troubles. |
Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riley
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: where creditors can find me
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The point worth mentioning about evolution and science is that every hypothesis is supposed to be able to be tested. You can find ways to test the theory to prove if it is true. The creators of Intelligent Design (in court) could not explain the idea using scientific methods.
In other words, you have to just believe in Intelligent Design. You have to believe in the idea of an "intelligent watchmaker" making these things. You have to believe that there's a plan for everything.
This goes against the very idea of science. Science relies on logic and proof. Belief is anathema to it. This
| Quote: |
the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
|
is complete crap and causes science to be turned on its head. We search for natural explanations because they can be explained, and proven true repeatedly.
This is the same faith/reason argument that happened to philosophy in the middle ages. Last time, the faith thinkers won in the beginning but lost big in the end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's been said so many time that by now I'm tired of hearing it. But the scientific and colloquial definitions of 'theory' are vastly different. Gravity is also 'just' a theory. I don't think any creationists or ID advocates are willing to test it by jumping out of a plane.
As well, if you're going to so easily disregard the fossil record, radiocarbon dating, etc. etc. etc., as mere conjecture and supposition....
Well, I mean, you might as well say it's impossible for us to understand the behavior of atoms, since those aren't directly observable. Or that we can't really be sure about the existence of the stars, since we're not actually able to visit them.
Evolution is a theory that does a better job than anything else at explaining the physical phenomena we find in nature. From the very beginning it was able to make testable predictions, and those predictions have overwhelmingly turned out to be correct.
I suppose it's a bit sad that people aren't able to reconcile the findings of science with their religion. I'm able to, and in fact science only strengthens my faith. I've known a few over the years who've felt threatened by it and I feel sorry for them.
In any case, here are my two favorite articles on this ID business.
http://www.slate.com/id/2127052/
| Quote: |
| So here's what ID proponents are offering to teach your kids: They won't say how ID works. They won't say how it can be tested, apart from testing Darwinism and inferring that the alternative is ID. They won't concede it has to be falsifiable. All they'll say is that Darwinism hasn't explained some things. But that's what the first half of the Dover policy says already. So there's no need for the second half—the part that mentions ID. |
http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/
| Quote: |
| Can ID make testable predictions? Not really. If we posit that a given biological system was designed, Rothschild asks, what can we infer about the designer's abilities? Just "that the designer had the ability to make the design that is under consideration," says Behe. "Beyond that, we would be extrapolating beyond the evidence." Does Behe not understand that extrapolating beyond initial evidence is exactly the job of a hypothesis? Does he not grasp the meaninglessness of saying a designer designed things that were designed? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riley
Joined: 08 Feb 2003
Location: where creditors can find me
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hater Depot,
I read those same articles and that was basically what I was trying to talk about, sort of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That being said, isn't the teaching of evolution in schools completely against their religion, creating a promotion of atheism in schools? |
No, because no one knows exactly how life formed in the primordial ooze, which leaves the door open to all sorts of theories of how that happened, including (by default), both intelligent design and a host of other extraterrestrial possibilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm glad the Kansas Board of Education revealed their insights to the rest of us. I'm sure the next book on the history of science will include a chapter on their profound revelations on our world, right behind Thales, Aristotle, Galileo and Einstein.
No one says anyone has to believe what science says, but it is silly to expect science class to divide its limited time with one religious view. Next I expect we will have to divide it with the voodoo people and the myth about Tiamat and Marduk. Cripes. What is education coming to? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote
| Quote: |
What is education coming to?
|
Preaching in the classroom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hope we get a news blurb after the next election in Topeka, Kansas.
I hope the same thing happens that happened in Dover, Pennsylvania:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9973228/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
the daily show did a great "evolution schmevolution" week long thing.
Ed Helms had an amazingly funny bit on "where is scopes now" sorta thing.
ID and evolution are both theories....but evolution is grounded in Science and ID is grounded in hope and posits. There is NO irrefutable proof or anything connected to an ID claim (not that they exist... ID is a theory with no real supporting evidences...just ideas and 'it must be's)
i'm tellin ya folks...theistic evolution is the way to go! never has fence sitting solved so many problem! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| i'm tellin ya folks...theistic evolution is the way to go! never has fence sitting solved so many problem! |
You're fired! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| ID and evolution are both theories....but evolution is grounded in Science and ID is grounded in hope and posits. |
Evolution is a theory (which in science means factually supported).
ID is a hypothesis (which in science means is an unsupported idea).
The only thing above theory is law, and that would basically require us to build a time machine. Theory in science is different than the daily spoken use of theory which just means an idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
