Two days after Mr. Darwin's birthday, teachers in Kansas show the value of a good education, something the Kansas Board of Education has no idea about. Good for the teachers.
"The Kansas Association of Teachers of Science believe the science standards violate the separation of religion and government by promoting the teaching in public school science classes of intelligent design, an idea that science shows the existence of a creator.
“By redefining science in the Kansas Science Education Standards, the KSBE is promoting intelligent design tenets that purport supernatural explanations as valid scientific theories,” the association said Monday."
11 comments:
Well at least they seem to be coming to their senses in Ohio.
http://www.channelcincinnati.com/education/7053046/detail.html
Alas, not in Grantsburg or should it be called Fundyburg?
http://www.burnettcountysentinel.com/Main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=20&ArticleID=9443
in my opinion, the big bang theory is well, just a theory. if we really want to teach our children, why don't we teach them about both, creation and evolution and let the kids decide?
Because evolution is true & id is just religion.
How do you know evolution is true? Show me the facts that one day algie formed and then algie decided to become a different plant, and that one day that plant decided to grow fins and swim, and one day the fish decided to crawl on shore and grow legs, and one day.... you get the idea. That idea is crazier than believing in our creator. Evelution and creation should be taught equally so that our children know both idealisms equally. I, as a parent and tax payer want this for my children. Why would you, a so called liberal, want to deny our children data from both theories.
How do you know evolution is true? Show me the facts that one day algie formed and then algie decided to become a different plant, and that one day that plant decided to grow fins and swim, and one day the fish decided to crawl on shore and grow legs, and one day.... you get the idea. That idea is crazier than believing in our creator. Evelution and creation should be taught equally so that our children know both idealisms equally. I, as a parent and tax payer want this for my children. Why would you, a so called liberal, want to deny our children data from both theories.
I'd not say evolution is true. I would say it is a valid scientific theory. ID on the other hand is a religious dogma.
There have been times in the past when the church got in a dither and vilified science. Newton, Gallileo are small specific examples. The Dark Ages and The Spanish Inquisition are examples which were a bit more encompassing.
Thus far when the christian church has run scared they have been able to win through pre-empting divine judgment for themselves, and subjugation by force. What happens when that fails? Will all the good which is a part of christianity also die out because of the cowards and empire builders who contort scriptures in the pursuit of secular power and riches?
I am sorry to see that scott has gotten off track in the real question I had raised. Scott decided to go off in a tangent about the christian religion that really doesn't make a lot of sense, when all that I asked is "Why don't the schools teach both,and let the kids decide with the information that was provided to them?" How could evolution be a "valid scientific theory" and id isn't. I believe in both science and god, what is so wrong by giving our children the same option in our schools.
First of all, our children should learn to spell. Then they need to be taught what is science & what is religion. ID is religion, pure & simple. No one can seriously deny that statement. The "anonymous commenter's" goofy story about algae turning into humans would make a great animated movie. Natural selection happens all the time, check out the story of the finch's beak in the Galápagos Islands - it's a wonderful explanation of evolution. Children ought to have the ability to see evolution as true & id as religion, just not in the same class. ID is not science, repeat, not science.
I have to admit, I am not the best speller, I attended Northland College in Ashland and the professors there were, well, a joke. Cold h20, please grace me with your vast knowlegde again. The original question again is "Why shouldn't schools teach both, and let the kids decide?" How humans or anything on this planet came to be will always be a debate, and I don't care how many references you give on the THOERY of evolution, it is NOT, repeat, NOT proven. ID may not be "science" so what would be wrong with a new subject in school, Inteligent Design. That way we wouldn't have the two topics in the same class, if thats what you are worried about. But anyway you look at it, students should be tought both. I thought liberals were the opened minded people of this world. I guess only if you believe what they want you to believe, no wait, thats communism.
Well, the comment editor doesn't have spell checking so I write off spelling errors to typos...
Anonymous, I'll be direct (and non-anonymous), though I'm sure your judgment is immovable.
Separation of church and state is the underlying issue. Intelligent Design is a sound byte purporting to be science. Science involves the scientific method, Intelligent Design involves philosophical argument. These are not equivalent concepts. The best ID can do is argue against science itself as a valid discipline. If that is your intent, I do indeed think it would be fine to present it as a religious philosophy and let students make up their minds. Using a religious argument to censor scientific endeavors is what I don’t condone.
ID certainly has a place in philosophy or other liberal arts classes, though I'd imagine the poorly named 'No Child Left Behind' program has discouraged philosophy classes in the few public schools which offered them. I think more classes in philosophy and liberal arts which encourage independent and critical thinking would be wonderful.
Following, the indirect thoughts behind my previous post.
In your more recent post, you brought out the tired old communism label. Highly ironic, when what you promote is an enforced redefining of science in a political power play, rather than in the interest of education or advancement of knowledge. And, as long as you started using loaded words, I won’t work so hard to avoid them.
So. I wasn't addressing your question for two reasons. First, your question was off the topic of the original post, in the same spirit as my response. Second, I didn't believe it to be a sincere question. In debate, it is what they call a red herring -- a superficially good sounding non sequitur.
I responded to what I see as the dark side of organized religion. It is nothing new, and 500 years ago Shakespeare stated it very nicely in Bassanio's monologue regarding deception in The Merchant of Venice:
...In religion,
What damned error, but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text,
Hiding the grossness with fair ornament?
Now, I am a Christian, and until recently a member of the United Methodist Church. During the last few decades I have become increasingly dismayed. I have seen the mainstream church's movement away from love, compassion, and service, towards vilifying dissenters and minorities who make us uncomfortable. I see this vilification of others as an obvious and odious usurpation of God's judgment. It truly appears we have abandoned Jesus' teachings of forgiveness, in favor of taking over the Pharisee's role.
As a Christian I can see Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Rather, it is an assault on the scientific method and community. Personally, I don't grasp the conflict between religion and science. Thus, I find it hard to fathom the underlying motive for it. I pointed out what I felt were obvious, historical examples of what happens when the church actively promotes animosity towards science. Old examples which I hoped weren't so emotionally charged they would prevent comprehension of my point. You know, things like bolstering a failing argument by calling those you disagree with communists.
There are indeed things I beleive the church should be doing with regards to science. Things like pushing for more conscience and integrity. New technology is outpacing the new ethical standards needed to apply it morally. There is the recent example of a number of religious leaders seeing past the junk science paid for and distributed by corporate interests, calling for an honest dialog and appraisal regarding global warning. It is no small thing to challenge those with money and power, so I see this as a hopeful sign.
Well said. I didn't mean to make fun of anyone, but spelling is one of those things I really care about. Frankly, I don't know why.
Post a Comment