Kansas votes to keep its children ignorant...

[Laura]

Let's just suffice it to say that I believe we change. We get smarter. Not so much because those that came before us were less intelligent, but because we've had many generation's work to fall back on. It doesn't mean WE are personally more able than those that came before us. We've just had the benefit of MANY years of wisdom handed down to us. Thus, we're able to have more advanced medicines, technology, sciences, math's, astronomy etc... We however are every bit the same as man was even 1000 years ago. They just didn't have the luxury of the knowledge that we have. Man himself however has not evolved much at all.

Animals adapt. It's not by choice that they adapt. When a predator moves into their territory, they learn how to protect themselves, or they die. Sometimes they have to vie for food. If they're unable to change, they die. It's as simple as that.

These are examples of what I believe evolution consists of.

My son's movie just ended, so on that note, I must say this has been an enjoyable thread. Have a good night all.

But that isn't evolution. It's simply knowledge.

An adult animal growing from a baby is not evolution.

 

[DVCLiz]

It always amazes/amuses me that creationists get so hung up on the word "theory." Maybe the best place to start in this kind of education is with a refresher course in the meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to science. I have heard so many people say something along the lines of, "Well, it's a theory, and until they can prove it, it's still just a theory!"

Don't these people have any idea what a scientific theory is? I mean, is Einstien's Theory of Relativity supposed to be some random dream Einstien had? No, it's a reasoned position based on verifiable scientific fact. That's what a "Scientific Theory" is. And people who insist on using this argument to disbelieve any scientific basis of evolution are just ignorant, in my opinion.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

I am a Christian.

I believe in evolution.

I don't believe it makes my God any smaller. In fact, I think it's pretty neat that God can take a single species of finch from one island in the Galapagos Islands and have it fly over to another island in the Galapagos Islands and when it finds that its beak isn't suited to the available food there it can change its beak so it can eat the food. This is just one of the scientific facts that Darwin discovered that led to his theory of evolution.

That said, I'm guessing the chances of Rhodes Scholars coming out of Kansas just dropped significantly.

 

[DisneyDotty]

I have no problem teaching evolution alongside creationism in schools.

Great! And will your church now preach evolution alongside creationism?

 

[Planogirl]

That said, I'm guessing the chances of Rhodes Scholars coming out of Kansas just dropped significantly.

 

[Free4Life11]

I don't think I've ever heard a single sermon on creationism, to be honest.

 

[Free4Life11]

That said, I'm guessing the chances of Rhodes Scholars coming out of Kansas just dropped significantly.

I don't really get this. Is the theory of evolution really all that important? Honestly, I think we spent, maybe an an hour or two total through my schooling. Honestly, I hardly remember a thing about it. We might have watched a video or something.

 

[DisneyDotty]

I don't really get this. Is the theory of evolution really all that important? Honestly, I think we spent, maybe an an hour or two total through my schooling. Honestly, I hardly remember a thing about it. We might have watched a video or something.

Perhaps the important issue here is that Kansas schools will be equating BELIEF (Intelligent Design) with FACT (science/evolution). The implications are frightening to me, specifically in the judicial system. But what will this do to true scientific scholars? Will their scientific evidence be tossed out in favor of someone's BELIEFS? Augh...

 

[N.Bailey]

It always amazes/amuses me that creationists get so hung up on the word "theory." Maybe the best place to start in this kind of education is with a refresher course in the meaning of the word "theory" as it applies to science. I have heard so many people say something along the lines of, "Well, it's a theory, and until they can prove it, it's still just a theory!"

Don't these people have any idea what a scientific theory is? I mean, is Einstien's Theory of Relativity supposed to be some random dream Einstien had? No, it's a reasoned position based on verifiable scientific fact. That's what a "Scientific Theory" is. And people who insist on using this argument to disbelieve any scientific basis of evolution are just ignorant, in my opinion.

Creationism cannot ever be proven false, so it could never be a scientific theory, correct? Please, tell me, how can one prove that man evolved from a single celled organism (actually all life forms) be proven false? See, it can't be proven false either really, but the scientific community latches on to it like a leech. They conclude that it can in fact be proven false, but I think we can safely say that's not true.

Why is it, when you look back over history, our current population supports creationism? Our population would be how many times over if man stemmed back as far as evolution states?

One would think (I'd imagine) if all species evolved from one another (because they could) that it would be a very slow, gradual process? That's the whole concept of evolution, is it not? Well then, please do enlighten me on why there are no fossils for the in between species? I'd really like to know that one. While you're at it, why don't you point me to the direction that shows one type animal evolving into another? I don't mean a fish turning into another fish, or an ape turning into another ape, I'm more looking for a donkey turning into a bear.

You might want to think before you start calling people ignorant next time! MOO though Unless of course, you can answer all my questions?

 

[N.Bailey]

Great! And will your church now preach evolution alongside creationism?

They hardly equate to one another. My tax dollars fund our school district just as much as your tax dollars fund your school. Church is optional!

 

[N.Bailey]

But that isn't evolution. It's simply knowledge.

An adult animal growing from a baby is not evolution.

Our world has evolved due to knowledge. I never said a growing animal equates to evolution, but I see you've tried your hardest to undermine what I did say. Nice going there. You didn't refute a point!

 

[N.Bailey]

Perhaps the important issue here is that Kansas schools will be equating BELIEF (Intelligent Design) with FACT (science/evolution). The implications are frightening to me, specifically in the judicial system. But what will this do to true scientific scholars? Will their scientific evidence be tossed out in favor of someone's BELIEFS? Augh...

Link (from a reputable source) that states the theory of evolution is a fact please? I'm not interesting in reading anyone's personal opinion in that link either.

Thank you very much!

 

[Planogirl]

Scientific theory is the cornerstone of all science. It fits the scientific model and cannot usually be disproven. However, IF it is disproven in some manner, the theory is discarded or tweaked.

Creationism can not fit into accepted science while evolution does. It's really pretty simple.

 

[N.Bailey]

Scientific theory is the cornerstone of all science. It fits the scientific model and cannot usually be disproven. However, IF it is disproven in some manner, the theory is discarded or tweaked.

Creationism can not fit into accepted science while evolution does. It's really pretty simple.

It can't be a theory because there is no physical way to prove it false. Thus, it cannot and will not ever be a scientific theory. It doesn't mean it's false.

I challenge the notion that evolution can ever be proven false as well though. There is no way anyone can go back that far and create unknown conditions in nature, let alone a lab.

 

[Rella Bella]

This whole issue has really bothered me. (After all I'm only 6 blocks & two lanes of pavement from Kansas).

But tonight on the news they actually showed some of the proceedings and I was surprised to learn that they did not pass a change that will demand anyone to 'teach creationism' as the media had lead me to believe. They passed a change that 'requires' that both evolution AND the critisisms of evolution be taught. For me that is a big difference. If these are scientific critisisms. Isn't one of the purposes of science to test it's own theories??

Here's a quote from the article the OP lead us to:
The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts.
But they alsodeclare 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. Decisions about what is taught in classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards

I think the media hype and fear is blowing it out of proportion. Again I quote:
some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.

But I have to admit this part is the part that really scares me... I'd like to know the exact wording of this in the ruling.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

 

[DVCLiz]

Creationism cannot ever be proven false, so it could never be a scientific theory, correct? Please, tell me, how can one prove that man evolved from a single celled organism (actually all life forms) be proven false? See, it can't be proven false either really, but the scientific community latches on to it like a leech. They conclude that it can in fact be proven false, but I think we can safely say that's not true.

Why is it, when you look back over history, our current population supports creationism? Our population would be how many times over if man stemmed back as far as evolution states?

One would think (I'd imagine) if all species evolved from one another (because they could) that it would be a very slow, gradual process? That's the whole concept of evolution, is it not? Well then, please do enlighten me on why there are no fossils for the in between species? I'd really like to know that one. While you're at it, why don't you point me to the direction that shows one type animal evolving into another? I don't mean a fish turning into another fish, or an ape turning into another ape, I'm more looking for a donkey turning into a bear.

You might want to think before you start calling people ignorant next time! MOO though Unless of course, you can answer all my questions?

Oh, I knew I should have stayed out of this....

I don't even understand some of your rambling thought process, but I did pick up that you think the evolutionary process had donkeys turning into bears. At least I think that's what I understand. And I'm not sure where you ever got the idea that evolution meant one fully formed species turning into another. Hey, presto, today I'm a bear - tomorrow I might be a donkey????
Sorry, I won't engage in this kind of idiocy....

 

[ByTheSea]

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

 

[DVCLiz]

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

I'm "falling" over laughing - but how?

 

[Planogirl]

....now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

That's great.

 

[ByTheSea]

Whenever I hear the "argument" that evolution is "only a theory" I always think about the theory of gravity and picture people floating around their homes, tied to their computers so they can type without floating away - I can't help it... that's the image that comes into my mind then I found the Onion story and couldn't resist.