Kansas is at it again...

[acroyear]

from a Usenet posting in talk.origins:

In case anybody is interested, there is a website at http://www.kansasscience2005.com/ that has an early draft of proposed revisions to the Kansas state science standards.

In particular see http://www.kansasscience2005.com/ProposedRevisions_KSstandards.pdf which deals with evolution, ID, and the definitions of science and methodological naturalism starting on page 3.

to summarize, basically, they've decided that since Science doesn't acknowledge their beliefs, then they'll just redefine the word science itself.  their new definition of science now allows for non-causal conclusions, meaning intelligent design and other non-provable (more importantly, non-falsifiable) explanations can be included.

on top of that, there's a whole bunch more BS about how the "evidence against evolution" (there is none, but the students will have no clue how to know that) and "teaching the controversy" (there is none, except at the sociology level, which is out of scope of ANY high school biology class) will become required learning.

i give it 5 years when not a single university in this country will accept a Kansas student for ANY science-related degree program.

i feel extremely sorry for those students of Kansas who actually thought they might have become doctors or such, 'cause they'll never get into a program as long as their view of science is so totally screwed up by the ignorant bastards responsible for their welfare.

still, these are the same people so ruled by their unchanging *beliefs* that they still believe Wal-Marts haven't destroyed their communities yet.

naturally, the documents overstress the "theory, not fact" crap, which so far has held up as unconstitutional in the south, but we'll have to wait on the appeals for how wide-spread that judgement goes.

update: Kansas hasn't actually voted on these; these documents are just proposed recomendations to try to sneak intelligent design, creationism, and bogus anti-evolutionary "evidence" into the system. of course, with the current kansas board, its just possible that they might be listening...

Comments

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

i give it 5 years when not a single university in this country will accept a Kansas student for ANY science-related degree program.

Only five?

[faireraven.livejournal.com]

He's being nice.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

Actually, five sounds about right for a number of reasons:
1) The students who apply to college in the next 5 will have several years of the old curriculum and (hopefully) be at the point of thinking when the new one goes into effect. Figure that the curriculum won't change until next year.
2) It takes universities a little while to change. In some ways they are like the government (well, the publics are a part of the government in a lot of ways). As such, failure to recognize a degree from an entire state would probably require work from at minimum the Board of Regents, possibly all the way up to the state legislature.
3) Not everyone will be completely messed up even if creationism is taught.

If someone were to be in Kansas (for whatever reason related to their parents work); it is quite possible that the parental units might have debunked the curriculum a little bit; they go to the community college and take biology, etc., then go to UTenn or VATech for the rest of their 4 year degree. Such a person should be eligible for Med School.

For that matter, in general the transcript asks for High School, SAT, and maybe HS GPA. I don't know if there is room for students to list 3 years in one school then graduate in another.

I would hate to see EVERYONE discriminated against because they happen to have come from Kansas. That idea just sticks in my craw.å

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

But evolution is a theory, not proven fact. While there is substantial evidence for it, some of the comments made by the Kansas educators are not invalid. There are large holes in the evolutionary record. Evolution is not demonstratable by experiment. At most, they seem to have emphasized the idea that descriptive sciences (like evolution) are open to interpretation, and that as evidence accumulates the interpretation may change. I didn't see much of a push towards pro-creationism, just an allowance that current theory could be wrong.

An example (from astronomy) where interpretations change regularly: Many people believe that the universe started as a singularity that exploded outward (the Big Bang), and that the universe has been expanding outward ever since. Previous evidence suggested that the rate of expansion was slowing, and that possibly the universe would eventually collapse back to a singularity again. However, more recent evidence suggests that there may have not been a big bang, but rather a "big clap" as the universe was somehow flattened in a higher dimensional space, and also, the universe is possibly expanding faster, not slower, suggesting the existence of anti-gravitons.

Anyway, I don't think these actions by Kansas will negate teaching basic science principals to the students therein. The changes are specifically aimed at evolution, which is at most a single chapter in Biology. There is still quite a bit of hard-science biology left untouched (cell structures, anatomy, reproduction, diversity (kingdoms, phylums, etc.), metabolism,etc.) and also physics, chemistry, psychology, geology.

In closing, I'll say this: if there is an all-powerful creator, then it is possible that all of creation was created spontaneously as-is five minutes ago. The creator could have created me with all my memories, feeling like I've been alive 37 years, rememboring a childhood and first kiss and college and marriage, though before five minutes ago, there was no existence of anything anywhere.

I believe in evolution, including cosmological, chemical, and biological. But I also know that science is, at best, a collection of observations and interpretations, all subject to the whim of new evidence, new insight, and charismatic presentation.

you asked for it...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

But evolution is a theory, not proven fact. While there is substantial evidence for it, some of the comments made by the Kansas educators are not invalid. There are large holes in the evolutionary record. Evolution is not demonstratable by experiment. At most, they seem to have emphasized the idea that descriptive sciences (like evolution) are open to interpretation, and that as evidence accumulates the interpretation may change. I didn't see much of a push towards pro-creationism, just an allowance that current theory could be wrong.

Gravity is also a theory, as are maxwell's equations. the "causes" for these forces remain UTTERLY unknown, and are FAR less known than evolution by natural selection. Yet we live with the effects of them daily. Why is Evolution singled out when Gravity and Electro-Magnetics are taught to students as "absolutes", as "proven facts"?

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. there is NO, i repeat, NO evidence against modern evolutionary theory. gaps can be explained (and have been -- see Gould's work on punctuated equilibrium -- long story short, in isolation, populations can vary far more rapidly than Darwin first conceived; look at breeding and artificial selection for EXPERIMENTAL examples).

there are plenty of experimental ways of testing evolution, using "artificial" selection and statistical evaluation of isolated populations where natural selection can still have an effect -- that "speciation" has not happened in our lifetime of research (only 200 years) only goes to show that biologists are actually still learning what speciation itself really is -- and that like continental drift, evolution takes a LONG time to do its work.

micro-evolution happens DAILY, and we've been practicing it in breeding plants and animals for 1000s of years. i would note that the incredible variety of Dogs today are all collectively less than 5000 years old from the first domestication -- there was once only *one* type of dog, a smaller version of the wolf. From the St. Bernard to the weiner-dog, all from one common ancestor. and the genetics have proven it even without the reinforcement of the archeological record.

genetics and the discovery of DNA should have been the big thing to put the nail in the coffin of Darwinian theory -- instead we see the exact opposite: useless genes. we have instructions in us for building things that only belonged to a reptile, but they are never actually activated. we have instructions for actually having an appendix do something, but its never activated. chickens have instructions for building teeth, but they have more instructions that turn those instructions off, like a cosmic "goto" statement that skips over a large chunk of code.

even the most recent annoucement that the stem cells Bush allowed are corrupted came with a seperate annoucement -- that we actually are missing a gene that even are closest living primate cousins all have, and that that particular gene actually inhibits the development of a large brain.

if someone wants to say that God makes the mutations that are good, "designed" them to be good, etc, that's all fine. but its not science. its not provable. its not falsifiable. (and its also bad theology -- why, then, do bad mutations happen? does god make mistakes? are there other "desginers" besides the intelligent one who knows what he's doing?)

this kansas document would allow that explanation, that God *designed* the good mutations, to be taught to students as if it was science. this is harmful.

you asked for it 2...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

evolution is a FACT -- the species that exist today are NOT those of the past, and life today can not come from source other than life already existing.

What started the first "life", the first self-replecating carbon molecules, is out of scope of Evolutionary theory, and Darwin never mentions it. at present, its a subject for chemists looking at the specific properties of Carbon and why it seems to "love" to bond in ever-increasing complex molecules, given the right amount of energy.

Cosmology (the origin of the universe, stars, planets, and all that fun stuff with Dark Matter and Dark Energy) is outside the realm of Biology and evolution. however, Cosmology did NOT get singled out in the documents even though basic overviews (if not the picky quantum-mathematical details) are a normal part of Earth Sciences and Astronomy curricula. similarly, plate techtonics, continental drift, and other evidential discussions pointing out that earth is 4 billion years old did NOT get separate mentions.

again, Evolution was singled out, even though the evidence for plate techtonics and continental drift is actually LESS substantial (and extremely recent compared with Darwin -- the "proof" that the Americas are being pushed away from Europe was only discovered in 1972, though later reinforced by GPS systems once those became widespread outside of the military).

why is evolution singled out? hint: it is not for ANY scientific reason.

The changes are specifically aimed at evolution, which is at most a single chapter in Biology. There is still quite a bit of hard-science biology left untouched (cell structures, anatomy, reproduction, diversity (kingdoms, phylums, etc.), metabolism,etc.) and also physics, chemistry, psychology, geology.

the point is that when one gets to actually having to PRODUCE work in the sciences, one must KNOW the scientific method. one must KNOW how to determine if evidence fits a theory or not. and one must be given ABSOLUTELY truthful instruction on the evidence so far (and any anti-evolution evidence IS A LIE -- it DOES NOT EXIST).

if students are being taught not that science is based on evidence, but on a whim that someone has merely because they don't LIKE the prevailing explanation, or that science doesn't *have* to be "cause and effect" -- some things just happen without a cause we can in any way even TRY prove -- and even worse, we shouldn't try, we should just "accept" and "believe" the explanation that God made it that way and be content?

those students, and this country, will be irreparably harmed.

and i won't let that happen.

as for your last "5 minutes ago" example? its irrelevant. its great philosophy, along the lines of "what if the color blue to me isnt' really the color blue to you", but its garbage to science. if you want to prove the 5 minute-old earth, or the 6000 year old earth, show me the evidence that contradicts ALL of the evidence that the universe is 12 billion years old AND show how that evidence actually SUPPORTS the theory that its 5 minutes old. just because a theory becomes invalid does NOT make the evidence that supported that theory any less valid. the new theory to take its place MUST account for ALL of the evidence.

you asked for it 3...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

science is not "subject to the whim" of new evidence -- it is a slave to it. the evidence must fit the theory, or the theory must fit the evidence, but there is NO SELECTIVITY -- i can't just take items 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9 from a list and say "look, ma, no evolution, everythign is as it always was" when items 2,3,4,7,10, and 11 through 2 million all say the opposite.

and science is NOT subject to "charismatic presentation" -- the evidence is what matters. it is ALL that matters. Michael Behe is one of the most eloquent speakers around. He's still wrong. Carl Sagan also was one of the msot charismatic presenters of science in the 20th century. He was also wrong, on numerous occasions -- and he admitted every single one of them. Behe won't even acknowledge even the first criticism of his work as having any validity -- criticism of his work constitutes a "personal attack" and he just ignores it and goes on spouting his garbage.

the difference between a scientist and a religious apologist is the scientist is willing to admit when he, and in fact, all of science, is wrong.

scientists are more than willing to admit that evolution might be wrong -- but ONLY if someone can come up with a better explanation that fits the evidence in a way that evolution does not. nobody has done so.

and "intelligent design" isn't even trying anymore...

i won't yet (though i'm going to) get into the tiraid i've been working up on the christian right's virol against "Methodological Naturalism". but that is a MAJOR justification for these changes in curricula, and is driven ENTIRELY by a religious viewpoint.

Re: you asked for it 3...

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Random responses:

My major point was that the Kansas document does not specifically promote creationism, but rather emphasizes that biological evolution is a theory. It emphasizes that theories are based on interpretations of data, that the interpretations may be flawed, and that it is important in science to remain open-minded. In particular the document suggests that student develop the ability to conceive of multiple explanations for their data (see #4 on page 11 of the report). The document says that students should learn to be critical of their data and their interpretations. This is GOOD SCIENCE.

Generally, good science is involved with creating a hypothesis based on data, then trying to DISPROVE that hypothesis. There is no ability to prove a hypothesis.

Just as a good scientist should attack his/her own theories, they should also be critical of their data. Often there is data that initially seems to refute or support a hypothesis, but the data itself can be flawed. Unexpected sources of variability (e.g., unmeasured changes in temperature or humidity), faulty equipment, etc. may not be discovered until critical examination. A good theory DOES NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL THE EVIDENCE because the evidence itself may be flawed.

The document does mention chemical evolution and cosmological evolution (pages 18 and 21).

Breeding is not the same as evolution, though it could (in theory) lead to faster evolution. Evolution results in the creation of new species due to mutation. Breeding exploits the inherent variability in a species. All dog breeds are still the same species, in spite of 5000 years of breeding.

In defense of my comments on the whims of science: It is an unfortunate truth of the scientific community that scientists are humans. Human scientists are prone to having pet theories, finding ways to explain away non-supportive data while exagerating the importance of supportive data. They blind themselves to alternative interpretations, and yes, the charismatic members of the scientific community are often the ones who get funding, and present their data/interpretations in a convincing manner. This is why much research for cancer cures and prevention is probably crap -- well-presented theories from many years ago are still believed even though there is evidence against them. Is this bad science? Yes, but it is also the reality of modern science.

An important political and social reason (rather than scientific) reason for presenting evolution as theory rather than fact is that it refutes some religious beliefs. This is as strongly prohibited by the first amendment as pushing those same beliefs.

Re: you asked for it 3...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

the document does not state that all of science is full of theories which may be wrong.

the document *singles out evolution* -- that has already been established by multiple courts (the cobb county case being only the latest) as being a point of view of a specific religion and as such, singling out evolution from all other theories of science including mechanics, chemistry, electricity and magnatism, continental drift and plate techtonics, spectroscopy, etc etc, IS promoting a religion's particular views and as such is a violation of church and state.

and BAD science.

as for the charisma? well, there's some truth to that, but that's where the scientific process gets to be self-correcting. maybe an american might be pushing some rediculous study that nicely supports the current right-wing view that global warming is garbage. but scientists in PLENTY of other countries can post the opposite.

in that global-ice-age story, the scientists involved in supporting particular sets of data to counter the conventional wisdom each came from different countries, and even different universities within the same country. there was no conspiracy, no colusion, just each one addressing an argument and showing that the data makes the alternative possible -- when each of the alternatives became possible, the theory became good science and not just a whim.

but if at any point the data said the whim was impossible, the true scientist would, like Hawking himself did, shrug his shoulders, admit the mistake, and move on.

that's science. full of humans, yes, but with a methodology that helps take account for that.

when politics gets involved, its no longer science, and true scientists recognize that for what it is even though the general public doesn't.

there's reasons that science publishes through peer-reviewed journals first, and not straight to book (as the ID'ers do) or straight to mainstream periodicals (the way over-anxious, stock-market-dependent drug companies do). its to filter out the junk before it gets public and misleads people into doing the wrong thing.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

If they start preaching in their classrooms, make sure you write to your college and tell them that you value the respect that your degree gains you in job interviews and that you hope they won't dillute the value of your degree by admitting students whose school system preaches religion under the label of science. I sent my school several e-mails and one written letter to that effect in response to Georgia's attempt to preach in class.