Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
In late July in Frankfort, Kentucky, supporters and critics of the Next Generation Science Standards clashed during a hearing over proposed changes that could be made to the science curriculum of the state’s public schools. The new science standards were developed with input from officials in Kentucky and twenty-five other states with the hope of making science curricula “more uniform across the country.”
Those who spoke in support of the new education standards said they are “vital if Kentucky is to keep pace with other states and allow students to prepare for college and careers.” Supporters feel the new standards “will help beat back scientific ignorance.” Critics—on the other hand—claimed that the new standards were “fascistic” and “atheistic” and promoted thinking that could lead to “genocide” and “murder.”
According to the Courier-Journal, nearly two dozen parents, teachers, scientists, and advocacy groups commented during the Kentucky Department of Education hearing on the Next Generation Science Standards—which are a broad set of guidelines that were developed in order to revise K-12 science content that would meet the requirements of a 2009 law, which called for educational improvement.
Blaine Ferrell, a representative from the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, said, “Students in the commonwealth both need and deserve 21st-century science education grounded in inquiry, rich in content and internationally benchmarked.” Dave Robinson, who is a biology professor at Bellarmine University, said that neighboring states had been more successful in recruiting biotechnology companies. He added that Kentucky “could get left behind in industrial development if students fail to learn the latest scientific concepts.”
But the majority of comments reportedly came from opponents of adopting the new science standards. The critics “questioned the validity of evolution and climate change and railed against the standards as a threat to religious liberty, at times drawing comparisons to Soviet-style communism.”
Mike Wynn (Courier-Journal):
Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.
“Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”
Another critic of the new standards claimed that they would “marginalize students with religious beliefs.” She said they could lead to the ridicule and physiological harm of such students in the classroom and that they could also “create difficulties for students with learning disabilities. The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them.” She added, “We are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”
An environmental geologist who spoke in support of adopting the New Generation Science Standards said that he was “offended by comments suggesting that evolution leads to immorality and ‘death camps,’ calling it a horrible misrepresentation of scientists. He said that he—unlike many of the critics who had commented at the hearing—had actually read the standards. “Everything is actually based on evidence — arguments from evidence are actually given priority in the Next Generation Science Standards.”
According to Kevin Brown, Kentucky’s associate education commissioner and general counsel, comments made at the standards hearing “will be reviewed by department staff and summarized into a statement of consideration with formal responses. Board members will then consider the comments and responses in August and decide whether to make changes or advance the standards to legislative committees for approval.”
Robert Bevins, the president of Kentuckians for Science Education, said he expects that the board will send the standards forward without changes. Let’s hope that Bevins is right.
SOURCES & FURTHER READING
School science is hotly debated in Kentucky: New standards are called ‘atheistic,’ ‘fascist’ by some (Courier-Journal)
Next Generation Science Standards In Kentucky Draw Hostility From Religious Groups (Huffington Post)
Kentucky: Next Generation Science Standards (Kentucky Department of Education)
Next Generation Science Standards for Kentucky (National Center for Science Education)
Kentucky’s new science standards draw heated debate (The Spectrum)
Will A Denier Scrub Curriculum That Teaches Climate Science To Kentucky Schoolchildren? (ThinkProgress)
Sen. Mike Wilson | Science standards include troubling assumptions (Courier-Journal)
Science Standards Draw Fire From Ed. Leader in Kentucky Senate (Education Week)
Next Generation Science Standards In Kentucky Draw Hostility From Religious Groups (Cafe Mom)
And as you point to, it’s an ugly hat on top of things. 😀
Most certainly, Elaine. He’s a master of argumentum verbosium on just about every subject, but his substance is practically non-existent. All hat, no cowboy.
Gene,
David neither impresses with his “science acumen” nor his writing style. He uses a lot of verbiage but actually says very little of substance. One mark of good writing is clarity. Conciseness is also a writing quality when one is attempting to communicate and get one’s points across to others. Then again, maybe David is intentionally trying to obfuscate. You noticed how he answered my questions, didn’t you?
Still impressing people with your science “acumen” I see, david. And failing to understand the nature of the word “proof” in any technical sense.
davidm,
“I proved they were wrong on this one point with very simple logic. Do you agree or disagree?”
You proved the NAS was wrong. Really?
Then again….there are many different definitions of the word “simple.”
Let’s see…
– Having or manifesting little sense or intelligence
– Uneducated; ignorant
Note: I copied those two definitions from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Third Edition).
Elaine M wrote: “maybe David is intentionally trying to obfuscate. You noticed how he answered my questions, didn’t you?”
Are you and Gene wrongly attributing the answers from Anonymously Yours to me? I have not answered your questions yet. I first asked a question of you to determine whether it would be worth my time to answer.
Elaine M wrote: “You proved the NAS was wrong. Really?”
From your recent dialogue with Gene, as well as this answer to my question, it has become clear that you find no value in my comments. I conclude, therefore, that your questions were not asked in sincerity. Furthermore, if you cannot understand the concept of testable theories in science and be objective enough to make a mental judgment against authority on the basis of reason, then there is no legitimate reason to engage you on the questions you have asked. You have your trusted National Academy of Sciences, a political body established by a good Republican President. They can answer your questions for you.
davidm,
I see you’re attempting to avoid answering my questions with specific answers. I thought you might.
What do I mean by how old is the planet? I mean what is the age of the planet? Do you believe the earth is less than 15,000 years old? More than a billion years old?
*****
I asked: “3) Were our planet, the heavens, all creatures on Earth created in less than a week?”
You responded: “3) Were our planet, the heavens, all creatures on Earth created in less than a week? If you believe in the sudden bng theory…. Of course…. But that’s a cottage industry unto itself…..”
*****
One who believes in the Sudden/Big Bang Theory does not believe that all creatures on Earth were created in less than a week.
Davidm275,
Won’t answer, I am sure…
Elaine,
I’ll take a stab at it and maybe some others could too…..
1) How old is the planet Earth? Depends on what is defined as old…. It’s relative displacement….dependent…..
2) Did dinosaurs and humans co-exist? If you mean did humans and dinosaurs co-exist at the same time…. You see humans were here before dinosaurs……
3) Were our planet, the heavens, all creatures on Earth created in less than a week? If you believe in the sudden bng theory…. Of course…. But that’s a cottage industry unto itself…..
4) Was there an ark that housed two of every kind of animal during a great flood? If course there was and Lilith too…. Don’t forget Adams first wife…. Then you had that temptress Eve….. She showed Adam about the birds and bees….. Seth me….
5) What’s the story on fossils?
Fossils…. please define what is meant…l there are many tupes of fosdils….. they make grew fuel oil….. but that another koch story…
davidm,
We know. You are the world’s foremost expert on this subject. You know more than the members of the National Academy of Sciences.
So..answer some questions for me:
1) How old is the planet Earth?
2) Did dinosaurs and humans co-exist?
3) Were our planet, the heavens, all creatures on Earth created in less than a week?
4) Was there an ark that housed two of every kind of animal during a great flood?
5) What’s the story on fossils? In fewer than five million words, please.
Elaine M wrote: “You are the world’s foremost expert on this subject. You know more than the members of the National Academy of Sciences.”
This is an absurd statement. The NAS is an elite political body of scientists who collectively know much more science than I could possibly know. Nevertheless, they are humans and they operate with bias like many other humans. In this one area, they are wrong and they have caused severe harm to public education because the Judiciary has accepted their advice and ruled accordingly.
I proved they were wrong on this one point with very simple logic. Do you agree or disagree?
My last post to Elaine is apparently stuck in WordPress. Can a moderator release it?
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition ( 1999 ) / Conclusion
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=25
Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.
The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.
Elaine quoted NAS: “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”
This statement is a lie that is easily exposed by the following:
1) A creation theory states that the earth was created Oct. 23, 4004 B.C.
2) Science uses empirical methods to date earth at 4.5 billion years old.
3) A creation theory has been tested and falsified by the methods of science.
In this scenario, the creation theory, which was in fact also a religious theory, was tested by science using empirical means and found to be false.
When a science organization declares that creation theories are not testable by the methods of science, they are being hypocrites. They are employing the exact same methods that they criticize. They subordinate data to their authority and dogma rather than using empirical methodology to determine what is true.
Creationism by Lewis Black
grathuln,
“I am hoping that you are honest enough to realize that you have done none of these things, but rather you have just taken someone else’s word for it.”
*****
Don’t take someone else’s word for–take davidm’s word for it.
gbk,
He is what Eric Hoffer called a “True Believer.” Psychologically, true believers can’t let go.
David,
“I do not consider this the proper forum to have a detailed debate concerning creation vs anti-creation models of origins.”
Then why do you persist on discussing the creation perspective so much?
Intelligent Design is Not Science, and Should Not Join Evolution in the Classroom
By Glenn Branch
February 2, 2009
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/02/02/intelligent-design-is-not-science-and-should-not-take-the-place-of-evolution-in-the-classroom
Excerpt:
Glenn Branch is deputy director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif.
Is it going to be a happy 200th birthday for Charles Darwin? Yes and no. Born on Feb. 12, 1809, the British naturalist wasn’t the first to think of evolution, but he deserves credit for amassing the evidence to convince the scientific community of his day that living things have descended with modification from common ancestors, as well as for positing natural selection as the main engine of evolution.
Darwin would be happy to discover that 150 years after the publication of his 1859 tour de force, On the Origin of Species, the scientific community remains convinced about evolution—on the basis not only of evidence he cited but also of evidence from sources he could not have dreamed of. Today, as the National Academy of Sciences puts it, “the scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming.”
But he would not be happy to learn that almost half of Americans don’t accept evolution. And he would be downright dismayed that teaching evolution is a routine source of controversy in public schools, even though organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association regard understanding evolution as essential to scientific literacy.
The news gets grimmer. Last year, Louisiana enacted a law that encourages teachers and students to debate the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, with the clear implication that evolution is shaky science. Oklahoma is considering a similar bill. A bill introduced in Mississippi would require disclaimers about evolution to be affixed to biology textbooks.
What is behind such efforts? Creationism, usually. Although it comes in different flavors—differing on the age of the Earth, whether living things share a common ancestry, and the power of natural selection—at its core is the rejection of the scientific explanation of the history of life in favor of a supernatural account involving a personal creator: God.
In the United States, creationists are typically fundamentalist Christians. But certainly not all Christians reject evolution. Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the effort to sequence the human genome, describes himself as a “serious Christian” who believes that “God, in his wisdom, used evolution as his creative scheme.” And more than 11,000 members of the Christian clergy have recently expressed their support for teaching evolution.
Still, driven by their religious discomfort, creationists have long assailed the teaching of evolution. At first they tried to ban it. In the 1920s, antievolution laws were filed in 20 states and enacted in five. When, in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that such laws were unconstitutional, creationists regrouped and rebranded their view as “creation science.”
Scientists evaluated the claims of creation science, rejecting them as scientifically unfounded. Yet law after law was proposed to require equal time for teaching creation science as a credible alternative to evolution. Finally, in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled such laws unconstitutional, too.
Undaunted, a group of creationists devised a minimalist form of their view—dubbed “intelligent design”—in the hope of evading the constitutional barrier to teaching creationism in the public schools. Their hopes were dashed in 2005, when a federal judge found intelligent design was a variant of creationism and not a scientifically credible alternative to evolution.
These attempts have foundered because of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which forbids government actions that have no secular purpose or have the primary effect of promoting (or inhibiting) religion. Creationists have failed to convince the courts that teaching creationism passes the test.
Creationism debate on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360”
70 Percent Of Georgia Republicans Believe In Creationism: PPP Poll
The Huffington Post
By Chris Gentilviso
Posted: 08/08/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/georgia-republicans-creationism_n_3726445.html?ref=topbar
Excerpt;
A new Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll finds that a majority of Georgians believe in creationism over evolution.
Entitled “Georgia Miscellany,” the Thursday item surveyed a pool of 520 voters on 32 questions. On the issue of creationism vs. evolution, 53 percent believe more in the former, compared to 29 percent choosing the latter, and 18 percent voting not sure.
When that question was transferred over to party lines, Republicans had a staggering split — 70 percent for creationism, 17 percent for evolution and 13 percent not sure. Democrats split along closer lines — 43 percent for creationism, 33 percent for evolution and 24 percent not sure. Independents held an even narrower divide — 46 percent for creationism, 40 percent for evolution and 14 percent not sure.
Back in June 2012, a Gallup poll recorded some national growth among Americans believing in creationism. Among a sample of 1,012 adults, 46 percent said that they were believers, marking a two percent jump over the past three decades.
Boo another post condemned to the Worldpress hole of doom. ^^
Lost post again. 🙁