Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31
  1.    #1  
    ...
    Therefore, despite much outstanding material contained in the standards, we have no choice but to ask the KSBE to refrain from referencing or quoting from NSTA Pathways in the KSES. Specifically, the draft Kansas standards fail to recognize the theory of evolution as a major unifying theme of science and the foundation of all biology. NSTA strongly supports this premise and calls for science curricula, state science standards, and teachers to emphasize evolution in a manner commensurate with its importance as a unifying concept in science and its overall explanatory power. This position is consistent with those issued by the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the vast majority of scientific and educational organizations
    ...
    Source

    Am I missing something, or does the letter indicate that NSTA is refusing to allow the state of Kansas to use its materials because Kansas is proposing to allow content in its curriculum that is contrary to NSTA's position?

    Or, in short, teach what we teach or don't use our stuff

    So, tell me again, who are the "fundamentalists"?
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Source

    Am I missing something, or does the letter indicate that NSTA is refusing to allow the state of Kansas to use its materials because Kansas is proposing to allow content in its curriculum that is contrary to NSTA's position?

    Or, in short, teach what we teach or don't use our stuff

    So, tell me again, who are the "fundamentalists"?
    Yes, you are missing something. The National Science Teachers Association does not want to make the impression that it endorses the position of the Kansas State Department of Education regarding teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classes, and therefore does not want to be quoted in an article which askes for just that.

    I guess, soon you will have fundamentalists asking to teach children that it is only a theory that earth is spherical, because, as every fundamentalist Christian knows, in reality earth has four corners. We know this for sure because the Bible is literally true:

    Isaiah 11:12 (King James Version):
    And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

    I wonder if they will also do excursions to one of the four corners of earth as part of the geography curriculum, does anybody know?
    Last edited by clulup; 11/02/2005 at 04:15 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I guess, soon you will have fundamentalists asking to teach children that it is only a theory that earth is spherical, because, as every fundamentalist Christian knows, in reality earth has four corners. We know this for sure because the Bible is literally true:
    *watches the sarcasm drip off the post*
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Yes, you are missing something. The National Science Teachers Association does not want to make the impression that it endorses the position of the Kansas State Department of Education regarding teaching of "Intelligent Design" in science classes, and therefore does not want to be quoted in an article which askes for just that...
    I didn't miss that. And, I support their right to make the decision regarding the use of their materials. I just find it humorous that some dogmatic positions are lauded where others are ridiculed.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    *watches the sarcasm drip off the post*
    Yeah, maybe a bit harsh, sorry for that. It was meant to be more ironic than sarcastic, my apologies if it didn't.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Yeah, maybe a bit harsh, sorry for that. It was meant to be more ironic than sarcastic, my apologies if it didn't.
    No apologies necessary...I thought it was funny. I just wanted to point it out!
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I didn't miss that. And, I support their right to make the decision regarding the use of their materials. I just find it humorous that some dogmatic positions are lauded where others are ridiculed.
    There is no dogmatism in their position.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    There is no dogmatism in their position.
    Hmmm. Naturalism is a philosophical view. Their opposition is based on the states deviation from the naturalistic view of science. In fact, they assert that the students are being done a disservice by being exposed to a differing notion of scientific scope.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Their opposition is based on the states deviation from the naturalistic view of science. In fact, they assert that the students are being done a disservice by being exposed to a differing notion of scientific scope.
    This may come as a surprise to you, but yes, science indeed is naturalistic. It does not attempt to explain things based on the actions of angels, bad luck on Friday 13th, devine inspiration, and other supernatural explanations. It is an evidence-based system, not a religious one.

    Contrary to what you claim, the view of the NSTA is in no way dogmatic, which would be "characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles" (while the notions of "intelligent design" are, sadly).

    As the NSTA states: "We do not maintain that science is superior to other ways of understanding our world nor do we think that scientific inquiry is inconsistent with a theological search for answers. Rather, there are profound differences between these ways of knowing and failure to understand them will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world."

    If you want to deny your children a sound education and confuse them by teaching them religious doctrines such as intelligent design or creationism in science classes instead of during religious teaching, go ahead. As mentioned before, I am glad this practice is restricted to the US and unheard of in other places of this world.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    This may come as a surprise to you, but yes, science indeed is naturalistic. It does not attempt to explain things based on the actions of angels, bad luck on Friday 13th, devine inspiration, and other supernatural explanations. It is an evidence-based system, not a religious one.

    Contrary to what you claim, the view of the NSTA is in no way dogmatic, which would be "characterized by assertion of unproved or unprovable principles" (while the notions of "intelligent design" are, sadly).

    As the NSTA states: "We do not maintain that science is superior to other ways of understanding our world nor do we think that scientific inquiry is inconsistent with a theological search for answers. Rather, there are profound differences between these ways of knowing and failure to understand them will put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they take their place in the world."

    If you want to deny your children a sound education and confuse them by teaching them religious doctrines such as intelligent design or creationism in science classes instead of during religious teaching, go ahead. As mentioned before, I am glad this practice is restricted to the US and unheard of in other places of this world.
    That "science" is "naturalistic" in its scope is a decision of scientists, not an inherent condition of study. For, if there are other influences in our world, to study, or at least to allow for their possibility, would be most appropriate. NSTA agrees that there are equally valid (i.e. not inferior) ways of understanding the world, yet, it asserts that "science" must be restricted to the naturalistic approach, and that any governing body that fails to adhere to that position is not welcome to use its materials.

    Herein is their dilemma: If there are equally valid ways of understanding our world, then there is no just cause to exclude. If these other ways do not lend themselves to "sound education" as you assert, then would not science in fact be superior?

    Again, if a divine entity is or was at work in the genesis of life, then study of such influence would be "scientific", while consideration as to "why" would be "religious".
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    That "science" is "naturalistic" in its scope is a decision of scientists, not an inherent condition of study. For, if there are other influences in our world, to study, or at least to allow for their possibility, would be most appropriate. NSTA agrees that there are equally valid (i.e. not inferior) ways of understanding the world, yet, it asserts that "science" must be restricted to the naturalistic approach, and that any governing body that fails to adhere to that position is not welcome to use its materials.

    Herein is their dilemma: If there are equally valid ways of understanding our world, then there is no just cause to exclude. If these other ways do not lend themselves to "sound education" as you assert, then would not science in fact be superior?

    Again, if a divine entity is or was at work in the genesis of life, then study of such influence would be "scientific", while consideration as to "why" would be "religious".
    Science is based on data, evidence, tested hypotheses.

    Intelligent design and creationism are based on nothing of that sort, they root in wishful thinking, an old book, that sort of stuff - no data and evidence whatsoever.

    I guess you agree that the events of the Third Age in Middle Earth (see "Lord of the Rings") have no place in history classes - just as creationism and intelligent design have no place in biology classes.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #12  
    Isaiah 11:12 (King James Version):
    And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
    Can anybody from the literal believers explain to me where the four corners of earth are?

    If the Bible is literally true, earth must have four corners, right? If the Bible doesn't really literally mean "corner" when it says "corner", why are we supposed to believe it literally means "day" (24 hours) when it says "day" in Genesis 1? Are some parts more literally true than others?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Can anybody from the literal believers explain to me where the four corners of earth are?

    If the Bible is literally true, earth must have four corners, right? If the Bible doesn't really literally mean "corner" when it says "corner", why are we supposed to believe it literally means "day" (24 hours) when it says "day" in Genesis 1? Are some parts more literally true than others?
    You've just hit the nail on the head for fundamentalists....a fundamentalist will take parts of the bible to be literally true only when it suits them...when it doesn't suit them, then it is no longer literal. But in the very next breath, they again will tell you that the bible is the literal truth. Kinda amusing, but very frustrating at the same time to have a conversation with.

    As many know here, I'm a Catholic and in Catholicism, many books of the bible are treated as parables...i.e. learn examples of life through stories (Jonah getting eaten by a whale is a big one). But this could easily take over this thread...so I'll stop here.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Are some parts more literally true than others?
    There is absolutely no way you could call me a bible scholar ... just a casual observer after reading brief parts of the bible. But here goes my take.

    We tend to be quite literal when reading the bible and we look at things with 21st century eyes. My view is that the bible was written to appeal to that time period and we need to view it with eyes from that time period.

    For example, many people believe that the bible teaches weakness, the "turn the other cheek" passage comes to most people's mind. If you study that period in time, you would find that most people were slapped with the back of the hand, which was considered an insult. By turning the other cheek, it forces the "slapper" to hit you with the palm of the hand ... hence you are now equals.

    Many believe that the earth started with Adam and Eve and all life started with them. My take on this is that it applies to God's chosen people at the time, the Jews. In fact, Genesis 4, Ver 16-17 states quite clearly "Cain then left the Lord's presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. Cain also became the founder of a city, which he named after his son Enoch."

    This passage clearly illustrates that there were people outside the Garden of Eden.

    As far as the story of creation is concerned, I think the word "day" was used as it was just an easier way to relate to the conditions of the time. We have difficulty with large chunks of time today, I can't imagine trying to explain eras and eon and ages without the background of education we have today.

    So, yes, I feel the bible has more of a literal sense than a direct and point of fact nature.

    Just my two cents.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Can anybody from the literal believers explain to me where the four corners of earth are?

    If the Bible is literally true, earth must have four corners, right? If the Bible doesn't really literally mean "corner" when it says "corner", why are we supposed to believe it literally means "day" (24 hours) when it says "day" in Genesis 1? Are some parts more literally true than others?
    Here is information from a well respected bible dictionary.

    The angle of a house ( Job 1:19) or a street ( Pro 7:8). "Corners" in Neh 9:22 denotes the various districts of the promised land allotted to the Israelites. In Num 24:17, the "corners of Moab" denotes the whole land of Moab. The "corner of a field" ( Lev 19:9; 23:22) is its extreme part, which was not to be reaped. The Jews were prohibited from cutting the "corners," i.e., the extremities, of the hair and whiskers running round the ears ( Lev 19:27; 21:5). The "four corners of the earth" in Isa 11:12 and Eze 7:2 denotes the whole land. The "corners of the streets" mentioned in Mat 6:5 means the angles where streets meet so as to form a square or place of public resort.

    remember, these are translations. We use terms such as "love" interchangably where original biblical text had various words for different types of love (brotherly love, intimate love, freindship love, agape love)
  16.    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Science is based on data, evidence, tested hypotheses.

    Intelligent design and creationism are based on nothing of that sort, they root in wishful thinking, an old book, that sort of stuff - no data and evidence whatsoever.

    I guess you agree that the events of the Third Age in Middle Earth (see "Lord of the Rings") have no place in history classes - just as creationism and intelligent design have no place in biology classes.
    The question is not whether Creationism or Intelligent Design have a place in biology class. The question is why an organization would withhold permission to use resources from an educational governing body that does not hold its same views.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The question is why an organization would withhold permission to use resources from an educational governing body that does not hold its same views.
    This tactic would seem closed minded and not very pragmatic, but it is the choice they prefer.

    Let's use a different set of parameters with your statement (note this IS NOT a political statement or reference) ... "The question is why an organization (the RNC) would withold permission to use resources from a political body (the DNC) that does not hold its same views."
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Science is based on data, evidence, tested hypotheses.

    Intelligent design and creationism are based on nothing of that sort, they root in wishful thinking, an old book, that sort of stuff - no data and evidence whatsoever.

    I guess you agree that the events of the Third Age in Middle Earth (see "Lord of the Rings") have no place in history classes - just as creationism and intelligent design have no place in biology classes.
    Your highfalutin attitude lowers the bar...

    Is love, a human emotion not considered scientific? Then again you can't recreate it in a lab and you can't put a worth on it. What does it mean if I say "I love this a lot" or "I love this a little bit" or "I love this at 50%" or "I love this at 80%" I'm also sure that you can't use the scientific method to test "love" in a lab but still, I do know that love exist eventhough I can't test or find it's molecular structure.

    Also, please give me the data, evidence, and tested hypothesis that the Sun formed because clouds of gas eventually compressed under its weight and ignited? Last I checked the data is there and the evidence is there, but it has not been tested. But I don't know about you but I believe that's how the sun formed.

    Please test for me the hypothesis that if I were to throw a hammer up in the air on say Alpha Centory (yes I know...) that it would come back down rather than keep going up? I don't know about you but I believe it will come back down even though I can't test it. How do I know, because I believe and western science believes that the Universe is uniform<---faith, the way gravity works here is the same that it should work 2 trillions miles away. Of course it should, the universe originated from one place or one event, or one thing!

    Point I'm trying to make is a lot of things that the Western world believes in science have no proof and are based on faith, not biblical faith, but faith in the sense that we can't prove it (for the time being) but we believe it because we have to to make sense of the word around us.
    "...J'épuise le reste de ma prime jeunesse à rêver de mon meilleur, d'indépendance dans l'évolution, reste 3.6.1 Légionnaire."
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafale
    Is love, a human emotion not considered scientific? Then again you can't recreate it in a lab and you can't put a worth on it. What does it mean if I say "I love this a lot" or "I love this a little bit" or "I love this at 50%" or "I love this at 80%" I'm also sure that you can't use the scientific method to test "love" in a lab but still, I do know that love exist eventhough I can't test or find it's molecular structure.
    Wrong. Love and other feelings lead to the production of certain hormones and patterns of brain and body activity which can readily be observed in the lab.
    Also, please give me the data, evidence, and tested hypothesis that the Sun formed because clouds of gas eventually compressed under its weight and ignited? Last I checked the data is there and the evidence is there, but it has not been tested. But I don't know about you but I believe that's how the sun formed.
    There are thousand of tested hypotheses around how our sun formed and how it works. We can measure spectra, analyse the solar wind, fuse H atoms to Helium (H bomb), observe the formation of new suns in the universe... there is really very little faith involved in how our sun started and how it works.
    Please test for me the hypothesis that if I were to throw a hammer up in the air on say Alpha Centory (yes I know...) that it would come back down rather than keep going up? I don't know about you but I believe it will come back down even though I can't test it. How do I know, because I believe and western science believes that the Universe is uniform<---faith, the way gravity works here is the same that it should work 2 trillions miles away. Of course it should, the universe originated from one place or one event, or one thing!
    Extrapolation and generalization of a valid hypothesis/theory has nothing to do with the faith and lack of data on which creationism and intelligent design are based on.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Here is information from a well respected bible dictionary.

    The angle of a house ( Job 1:19) or a street ( Pro 7:8). "Corners" in Neh 9:22 denotes the various districts of the promised land allotted to the Israelites. In Num 24:17, the "corners of Moab" denotes the whole land of Moab. The "corner of a field" ( Lev 19:9; 23:22) is its extreme part, which was not to be reaped. The Jews were prohibited from cutting the "corners," i.e., the extremities, of the hair and whiskers running round the ears ( Lev 19:27; 21:5). The "four corners of the earth" in Isa 11:12 and Eze 7:2 denotes the whole land. The "corners of the streets" mentioned in Mat 6:5 means the angles where streets meet so as to form a square or place of public resort.

    remember, these are translations. We use terms such as "love" interchangably where original biblical text had various words for different types of love (brotherly love, intimate love, freindship love, agape love)
    So "corner" doesn't actually mean "corner". But "day" means "day" literally in Genesis 1, according to born-again Christians, which lead to their conviction that earth was created in 7x24 hours a few thousand years ago. I am fine with the idea that earth doesn't REALLY have four corners according to the Bible, just as I am comfortable with the idea that earth wasn't REALLY created in 7x24 hours. What I don't get is why some stick to a literal meaning in one place (days), but not in another (earth with corners, pillars of heaven, etc.).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions