At 07:51 PM 3/15/00 -0500, Bertvan wrote:
>Hi Brian,
>I agree. Philosophical assumptions do not limit a scientist's ability to do
>science. Believing nature is the result of a rational design (no junk) might
>help, but is merely my personal opinion.
>
>Brian:
> >In the past I have tried my best to steer clear of the Kansas
> >business since I don't consider it to be any of my business. The people of
> >Kansas are free to educate their children however they see fit, provided
>there
> >are no constitutional issues of course.
>
> >Thus, I haven't really kept abreast of all the developments, though I have
>read
> >a few of the items posted here and on the asa list. But from what I've read,
> >I'm a little surprised by your statement. Do you have some evidence that
> this
> >is all they did? I thought there was a warning label for text books (you
>know,
> >like the surgeon generals warning on packs of cigarettes :), or I'm I
> >confusing the
> >Kansas case with another case? Oh, and didn't they consult a creationist
> >organization
> >to help them draft the revisions?
>
>Bertvan:
>I plowed through that entire document listing what children were required to
>learn by certain grades. There was no "warning label" mentioned. They
>described lots of stuff, about which the children would be tested, on how
>variation occurs within species. (Peppered moths and finches beaks and
>domestic animals.) I don't remember if they specifically called it "random
>mutation and natural selection", but all of it would have warmed the heart of
>any Darwinist. They did not mention macro evolution. They didn't say
>schools couldn't teach that "random mutation and natural selection" were the
>mechanisms behind macro evolution. They just didn't list anything on the
>subject about which the children would be tested.
>
>As to whether they consulted a creationist organization, that should have no
>relevance to what they DID.
>I can't believe you advocate questioning the credibility of any agency which
>consults or associates with a religious organization!! Do you consider all
>who advocate ID to be "creationists"? And question the credibility of anyone
>who entertains the entertains the possibility of ID and discusses ID or
>irreducible complexity in a non confrontational manner? I'm not accusing
>you of anything, I'm asking.
Hello Bertvan,
Interesting response. Are you an axe murderer? I'm not accusing you of
anything,
just asking.
But let's get back to the issues.
I was interested in your claim:
"When the Kansas school board did nothing more than refuse to teach that the
mechanisms of macro evolution are know "facts", they were attacked by the
press as being religious extremists." -- Bertvan
Consulting a creationist organization is something that they did, is it not?
Now, from your original statement, quoted above, I got the impression
that the "mechanisms of macro evolution" were included, they were just
not taught as facts. But from what you now say, it seems that macro evolution
is not mentioned at all. This is a completely different situation. How can you
teach common ancestry without macro evolution? How can you teach the
theory of evolution without common ancestry?
Looking back through my old files I managed to find what I believe is the
first post I read on the matter. It is written by a professor at Kansas State
and was originally posted to the ASA site. I know this is probably old news
for some, sorry :), but here it is anyway:
=============begin Keith Miller===============================
A news item (Washington Post article) has been posted to both the ASA and
ACG lists about challenges to evolution in Shawnee Mission, Kansas.
Actually the challenge is to the statewide science standards now before the
Kansas Borad of Education.
To briefly fill everyone in, a 27 member committee of K-12 science
teachers, science educators, and scientists have put together a document
that will establish standards for the teaching of science in public schools
in Kansas. Over a two year period, it went through several drafts and
several rounds of public comment. During this process there was
considerable opposition by certain Christian groups who sought the
elimination of evolution from the curriculum. In the end, the resulting
document was really quite well written and stressed both the nature and
methodologies of science as well as several unifying theories and concepts
that cut across disciplines (including evolutionary theory).
This standards document has been before the State Board of Education for
three months awaiting approval. However, one state board member put
forward an alternative proposal that completely bypassed any process of
review or public comment. It was ghost written by members of a local
creation science organization. The document was terrible and demonstrated a
complete lack of understanding of the nature of science. It eliminated any
mention of evolution and also removed reference to _any_ unifying
scientific theories. It rather put the focus on technology, and dismissed
"theoretical science" as unproven and of little use. The unbelievable part
is that fully half the present members of the State Board of Education (an
elected body under no other political, educational, or legislative body)
favored this proposal over the document developed by
the education committee.
The latest turn of events is that 3 members of the Board rewrote the
standards to produce a "compromise" document. While not including the more
egregious parts of the alternate proposal, it still eliminates the theory
of evolution as a model for understanding the history and diversity of
life. Furthermore it does not mention cosmology (Big Bang) or the Age of
the Earth. It also includes errors of fact and misrepresentations of
scientific methodology and content. This version is likely to pass the
Board by a 6 to 4 vote.
The original standards document is strongly supported by virtually every
scientific and educational body in the state. The Governor and all of the
presidents of the regents institutions have appealed to the Board to reject
the alternate document. To put it mildly, things are a mess, and are an
embarassment to Christians who would seek to make an impact in the
intellectual community.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
======================================end==============
Your tirade above about credibility takes on a whole new light. Were you aware
of these details?
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 06:43:13 EST