In 2005 the Kansas state board of education (KSBOE) voted to adopt science standards that require students to learn both the scientific evidence and for and against the theory of evolution. No requirement to learn other theories, just the strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary model. Now, it seems that Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS) is now actively telling schools and teachers to disobey the state-sanctioned standards.
But trying to hold back open inquiry is like trying to hold back the tide of real science. Of course, it’s not just the "dummies" in Kansas that are calling for intellectual openness – South Carolina, Mexico, Minnesota and Pennsylvania also have such standards now in place.
If you’d like to do something to help the poor citizens of Kansas defend themselves against the heathen hordes, you can go and sign the petition at standupforscience.com.
BTW, you get an F in English. You used the word "fundamentalist" incorrectly again.
I notice that this condemnation is not based on the performance of the students in science, but on their a-priori evaluation that anything that criticizes evolution is bad. I'm sure it's not that simple, and the Fordham organization that gave this poor rating is a non-religious conservative organization.
Actually, I use the word "fundamentalist" because it bothers lefties, and because I am intimating that Darwinists are religiously motivated. I should have said "Darwinist believers" to get that point across.
I am intimating that Darwinists are religiously motivated.
What supernatural being do Darwinists pray to specifically? Just say "evolutionists" instead of "Darwinist believers." Brevity is the soul of wit!
…on their a-priori evaluation that anything that criticizes evolution is bad.
Kansas got an "F" because they are teaching ignorance. They deserve an F. Kansas is not alone. Texas, Oklahoma and 15 other states "flunked." I wonder how many other "Red" states got an F for their science standards. If one wants their child to be raised in ignorance, put them into a "biology" class in the Kansas public school system where they can learn all about creation myth, and not science. The United States continues to fall behind other industrialized nations in regard to science. Considering the failure of Kansas, it's no wonder why.
As I said, in your mind, teaching the weaknesses of the evolutionary model = ignorance. However, what you are doing is indoctrinating them rather than helping them to think, and keeping information from them. I'd say that's the true ignorance here. Really.
No, teaching myth in place of science is ignorance. There are many creation myths espoused by 1000's of religions throught history. Genesis is just one of many correct? So, why teach genesis over the others and why teach any myth at all over science? The Kansas cirriculum is suited more for Sunday School than public schools.
So, why teach genesis over the others and why teach any myth at all over science?
I don't think we are talking about genesis, we are talking about *scientific* problems with evolution. I hope you would allow scientific skepticism. I think that is what evolutionist believers are trying to prevent – the critical analysis of their faith by people who are *actually* skeptical.
And I think you misunderstand the word "myth" as always something that never happened. What all myths share, by definition, be they history, legend, or merely made up stories, is that they can serve as archetypes for for how things are or are meant to be, and they often explain origins.
For instance, even if Adam and Eve were real people, they also serve a mythological function showing us God's design for marriage (sorry, couldn't help using that one).
Christians contend that their myth is historical. That may be so. If it were, I'm sure we could apply science to help disprove or prove it. Well, some of us could.
I don't think we are talking about genesis, we are talking about *scientific* problems with evolution.
We all know this is a ruse. The Christian fundamentalists (evangelical definition) plan is to tear down evolution (science). Fundamentalists want to replace it with creationism (faith). Right? Right!
And I think you misunderstand the word "myth" as always something that never happened.
I don't misunderstand, read the definition. A myth may have happened. Also, and much more probable, a myth may not have happened. As I said, the tough part is sorting through 1000's of different creation myths. What makes one myth better than any other? They all have their followers saying that their particular creation myth is historical and true.
The Taliban ordered the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan because they were "offensive to Islam." I think those statues were about 1500 years old and it was a crime to blow them up. The Taliban believed in the Islamic creation myth though, so that trumps all other beliefs. Like the Taliban, fundamentalist evangelicals have no regard for other beliefs outside of their faith. Basically, if their interpretation of the bible says something is immoral, then it must be, and all contrary belief is simply wrong (homosexuality, evolution, abortion, etc). As for me, I think only sheep need a sheppard. I'm an existentialist (1. A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts). My morality is not based upon one of many religious mythologies which are all contingent upon the supernatural.
Fundamentalist evangelicals want to do to evolution what the Taliban did to those statues. Why? …because evolution does not jive with their creation myth, genesis. Creationists are just as intolerant and narrow minded as the Taliban in this respect.
What makes one myth better than any other?
That is the right question, and we can definitely apply reason to sort them out. But then again, you may not be able to apply reason to evaluating religious or mythical claims, since you find no relation between faith and reason.
Like the Taliban, fundamentalist evangelicals have no regard for other beliefs outside of their faith.
Nonsense.
But again, you obfuscate to protect your evolutionary belief system, and oppose all real criticism by painting all opposition as religious, rather than allowing the challenges themselves to be evaluated. I expect nothing less from religious dogmatists who pretend science.
You find no relation between faith and reasonarticle as testimony. As far as “painting” the opposition as religious, I don’t have to. Creationists are religious by definition and like the Taliban, any belief they view as in opposition to their own faith, they will try to tear down, including Buddhist statues and scientific theories.
You are wrong here as well. I have faith in my families’ love because I have reason to do so. See the relationship? My faith in my family is unreasonable, however. Meaning, no matter what your argument is, I’ll still have faith that my family loves me.
Your faith in the bible is unreasonable in the same way. No matter how logical the argument against it, you won’t budge. It’s the same with fundamentalist Muslims and their faith. One simply can not reason with faith. Injecting unreasonableness (religion) into purely reasonable science taints its neutrality. This is why Kansas got an “F” for its science standards… they have none now.
(You) oppose all real criticism by painting all opposition as religious, rather than allowing the challenges themselves to be evaluated.
There are no valid scientific challenges to evolution that creationists have to offer. Check out this
Your faith in the bible is unreasonable in the same way.
Actually, this is the same old anti-religionist canard of “blind faith” I dismissed in The Atheist’s Caricature of Faith. While your blind faith may not yield to reason, thank God that biblical faith has a much better relationship with reason.
Injecting unreasonableness (religion) into purely reasonable science taints its neutrality.
As does stifling valid, scientific criticisms. But then again, you are not interested in criticisms of your faith (in evolution), I understand, since yours is, by your own definition, unreasonable.
There are no valid scientific challenges to evolution that creationists have to offer.
Translation: There are no valid scientific challenges to evolution from anyone who might actually doubt evolution, even if their contentions have scientific merit.
Your bias is unbelievably transparent and shameful.
biblical faith has a much better relationship with reason
Repeat, one can't reason with faith. This makes it unreasonable. If you disagree, tell me how one can reason with faith.
As does stifling valid, scientific criticisms.
Creationists have no valid scientific criticisms of evolution.
Your bias is unbelievably transparent and shameful.
As is your philistinism.
Repeat, one can't reason with faith. This makes it unreasonable. If you disagree, tell me how one can reason with faith.
Faith is based up using reason to idenfity trustworthy sources of information. Trustworthiness can be "proven" or disproven by historical research, alignment with psychological and scientific data, as well as by personal experience.
Think of it like a court case. You have to prove beyond a *reasonable* doubt – the jury may not have seen the crime at all, but the evidence and testimonies must be weighed, and based on this faith proposition, they decide. Faith works similarly – I can not see God or ideas and principles directly, but I can weigh their merit based on relevant evidence.
So you have "faith" that the moon is made of cheese. That can be disproven. You have faith that government can solve all of our problems. If I can provide a better model, then your faith may be shown to be in error.
While all faith claims may not yield to direct scientific inquiry, we can still use reason to determine their merit or likelihood.
But I fear I am wasting my time. I think that you already have a faith/reason dichotomy in your mind that itself is not amenable to argument.
Creationists have no valid scientific criticisms of evolution.
I'm sure no one, in your mind, regardless of their personal motivations, does. Why examine their science when you can dismiss them based on their personal motivations or world view?
And what is Philistinism?
So you have “faith” that the moon is made of cheese. That can be disproven. You have faith that government can solve all of our problems. If I can provide a better model, then your faith may be shown to be in error.
Exactly, so then using this definition, what possible evidence, what “better model”(scientific or unscientific) is there that can “disprove” your faith in God or “show it to be in error?” Answer: there is none. You have just defined faith as unreasonable :) Taaa daaa!
Why examine their science when you can dismiss them based on their personal motivations or world view?
Check out this article as testimony. The link didnt work before.
And what is Philistinism?
I'd say "philistinism" fits the evolutionary mindset to a T.
what possible evidence, what "better model"(scientific or unscientific) is there that can "disprove" your faith in God
First of all, we are talking here about disproving evolution, and by the above requirement, there are many ways that we can and HAVE disproved it.
Regarding God, as I said, faith in God is based on finding trustworthy sources of truth, experience, and reason. While no direct proof may be offered, you could vouch for the historicity and reasonableness of scriptures. You could refer to experience, though it be subjective. You could use demographics showing that faith in a specific system produces health.
But your question begs a different question. Are their different kinds of faith? I have already discussed three, one of which is your "blind" faith.
First of all, we are talking here about disproving evolution.
No, creationists have no valid scientific arguments against evolution. See THE CHALLENGE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD – A Reply to Creationist Students by Steven Schafersman
Are their different kinds of faith? I have already discussed three, one of which is your "blind" faith.
I have no faith in evolution. If a better scientific theory replaces it, so be it. I want you so say the same about Your faith. Say the words, "I have no faith in Jesus." You can't can you?
You say I have "blind" faith yet I can say "I have no faith in evolution" and you can't say "I have no faith in Jesus." Nah Nah Nah :) Do you know why? It's because you have genuine faith in your religion, Seeker. Me, I don't have faith in evolution or religion, none, zilch, nada. I am heathen, why doubt it? Evolution is a scientific theory originally written by Charles Darwin whereas genesis is an appeal to a creation myth. Evolution is scientific and creationism is religion.
You can rail against this fact all you want my philistine friend; creationism is not science, it's religion from the book of genesis. That's creationism from genesis, from the religion Christianity, from the bible originally written by… ??? Well, at least I can point to Charles Darwin.
The Kansas standards don't urge teaching the weaknesses of evolution. They urge teaching ID-advocated falsehoods that confuse people, and calling those falsehoods weaknesses.
In any case, any curriculum designer would tell you that, in order to teach a subject, with the "weaknesses," you have to teach the facts about the subject first. Kansas standards don't call for teaching evolution, then teaching the weaknesses. So the standards are badly designed for good instruction. The standards practically mandate stupid kids, they specify misteaching.
Surely no one could contest teaching the facts, first, right? Then why won't the anti-science crowd in Kansas authorize that?
Open inquiry? Sure, in a fair fight, truth wins. Ben Franklin used to say that with some frequency. And, in fair forums, evolution has won in every courtroom trial held in America.
So, why won't you support teaching the truth, instead of the "weaknesses of evolution?" We're all for free inquiry here on the science side — it is you creationists who want to hide the facts from the kids.
What are you afraid of — losing again?
Evolution
I can`t believe you guys are still arguing this point! Evolution by natural selection is one of the most thoroughly tested and confirmed theories in the history of science. It is the backbone of all modern biology! There is a concilience of evidence accross the board . If you have a problem with this , write a paper, but it had better have a little more substance than argumentation from ignorance ,otherwise no one is going to waste their time testing and refuting your claims.
Evolutionary theory is not just an arbitrary view. It is used everyday in medicine and agriculture as well as environmental conservation…to name just a few. It is the current standard because it is OBSERVABLE in nature! It WORKS consistently in making predictions. The grand canyon is an open book of evolution..but I suppose you sit with Kent Hovind on that issue, childish cartoonland stories of floods ?
Like I`ve said before, If you have a problem with Evolution that really is unfortunate! It seems you must have some kind of cognitive block of some kind, I don`t know! You don`t have to BELIEVE in evolution, it is supported by tons and tons of EVIDENCE, there are no fossil rabbits found in the Cambrian as of yet !
Faith… on the other hand relies on belief as a VIRTUE especially in the light of NO evidence (as applied to religion) . Faith is not about knowledge ,it is not a way of knowing . It does not move forward ,it does not question ,it does not produce ANYTHING. Only ignorance ,falsehood ,and the developmental stagnation of mankind. No ,this is not the atheists caricature of Faith. It is what it is, religions problem with science is well documented in history. Every advancement in knowledge that contradicts the Christian worldview is relentlessly attacked until there is no way to silence the truth any more, and the advancement is quietly integrated into the Theological view ,after much burning and torturing of course.
It all seems incredibly dishonest and corrupt, in my view!
Spoken as only a true believer could muster. What indignance! What certainty! What disdian for criticisms! What sweeping statments peppered with superlatives! Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
Seriously, you are a great evangelist for the Darwinian faith. Um, not. Actually, such empty polemics do nothing to convince anyone but those already in your choir.
But of course, why try to convince the ignorant half of America, they are all brainwashed by wicked lies, half truths, and creationist propoganda. Such idiocies have been disproven by science for years! Tsk tsk.
What indignance! What certainty! What disdian for criticisms!-Seeker
Forgive me if I get somewhat passionate on this subject ,I do not mean to hurt anyone ,in any way. Indignance ,certainty,and disdain for critisism is exactly what I get when I try to discuss these matters in the real life sphere with friends ,girlfriends, and any Christian that "witnesses" to me . I have been to Church ,had Christmas and Easter dinner with people that I truly love !
There is one thing I know for sure. If you have a view that is outside the Christian ,you will be demonized and cast out .
Indignant..yes, certainty?.. science and real life is not about certainty,it is about learning and honesty with yourself and reality. What is true or false depends on rigorous ,peer reviewed crutiny, CRITICISM. Science is not a belief ,it is a METHODOLOGY . The best one so far we have to avoid falsehood and potentially… disaster!
Have you been watching the news?