Kentucky Commissioner of Education: Evolution a fact? Not in MY schools.

[angellous_evangellous]

lolwut? the earth is the centre of the universe. It makes me sad that people like Copernicus are teaching our young innocent children these alternate theories as fact. As fact, I tell you! -- Catholic Church (circa 1600 AD)

Actually, the center of the universe is a Kentucky Commissioner of Education's butt hole.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually, the center of the universe is a Kentucky Commissioner of Education's butt hole.

Suddenly, my view of daddy drastically changed forever.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Not if it's unconstitutional.



States' rights and states' constitutions are trumped by the US Constitution.

What part of the constitution says I cannot vote and elect who I like?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Actually, the center of the universe is a Kentucky Commissioner of Education's butt hole.

And I believe your talking out of it.

 

[painted wolf]

What part of the constitution says I cannot vote and elect who I like?

no part... but those you vote for can't pass laws that violate the constitution.
They can't pass a law forcing kids to study Genesis as science any more than they can pass a law forcing kids to go to different schools based on their ethnicity.

No matter how much it might "contradict the beliefs of the majority of the people" in the state. You can't contradict the Constitution.

wa:do

 

[Jeremy Mason]

[youtube]kO8x8eoU3L4[/youtube]
Father Guido Sarducci's Five Minute University - YouTube

 

[Father Heathen]

So does the people of a state have the right to elect officials that represent their convictions?

In other words, can Kentuckians choose to be willfully ignorant?

This is a states right issue. I will admit that we could be forced to comply by pulling our federal funding, but the lion's share of funding come from property taxes and these folks should have a say in how their taxes are employed.

To not do so is taxation without representation.

But facts aren't a matter of opinion. There needs to be standards for children's education, and criteria for those who teach them. Children need to be have proper knowledge and understanding of the world, and you would rob them of that just to humor some witless hick's worthless superstition?

 

[Father Heathen]

"Hart County's school superintendent is arguing that a new test that Kentucky high school students will take for the first time next spring will treat evolution as fact, not theory, and will require schools to teach that way.

Superintendent Ricky D. Line raised the issue in recent letters and email messages to state Education Commissioner Terry Holliday and Kentucky Board of Education members. Line wants them to reconsider the "Blueprint" for Kentucky's new end-of-course test in biology.

"I have a deep concern about the increased emphasis on the evolution content required," Line wrote. "After carefully reviewing the Blueprint, I find the increase is substantial and alarming."

Line contends that the Blueprint essentially would "require students to believe that humans ... evolved from primates such as apes and ... were not created by God."

"I have a very difficult time believing that we have come to a point ... that we are teaching evolution ... as a factual occurrence, while totally omitting the creation story by a God who is bigger than all of us," he wrote. "My feeling is if the Commonwealth's site-based councils, school board members, superintendents and parents were questioned ... one would find this teaching contradictory to the majority's belief systems."

Holliday insisted Monday that Kentucky will not be teaching evolution as fact. Currently, teachers can discuss theories of creation other than evolution but they are not required to teach them."

source

​

Ah yes, Kentucky. Home of fried chicken and parboiled minds.

How do the uneducated manage to land a career in education? Seriously? One, scientific theory does not mean the same thing as "just a theory". Nobody says the theory of gravity is "just a theory", for example. Two, the theory of evolution and the concept of god are by no means mutually exclusive. As for teaching a literal interpretation of a specific creation story (and why should that particular tale have precedence over the countless other creation stories?), it cannot be modeled or demonstrated by the scientific method, therefore has no place being taught as science. These hillbillies should be forced to resign for the sake of the children.

 

[Jainarayan]

What part of the constitution says I cannot vote and elect who I like?

No, you can vote for whomever you like. I was actually referring to those elected officials voting on their constituents' convictions if those convictions and beliefs are contrary to the Constitution. That happens all the time, which is why the US Supreme Court is still in business. I didn't word it thoroughly.

 

[Jainarayan]

no part... but those you vote for can't pass laws that violate the constitution.
They can't pass a law forcing kids to study Genesis as science any more than they can pass a law forcing kids to go to different schools based on their ethnicity.

No matter how much it might "contradict the beliefs of the majority of the people" in the state. You can't contradict the Constitution.

wa:do

:clap

 

[Shermana]

Maybe there should be a petition to change the name to "Fact of Evolution" first. Perhaps they should be to required to demonstrate 100% that its an actual, provable fact that MACRO-evolution (as opposed to Micro) is a guaranteed, undisputable fact that cannot be possibly disproven first, before its called a "Fact". "Gravity" isn't even called a "Fact", and there's many dissenters (with evidence, such as unexplained pulls in Space) in the scientific community on that issue.

If the only criteria for saying Evolution is a fact is a majority of professional scientists agreeing without the actual need for the hard proof itself, welcome to Lysenkoism++. Except Lysenko actually had a few good ideas. A few.

Now if you want to say that MICRO-evolution is a confirmed fact, and should be taught as such, no problem. It's proven. Teaching that we know for an indisputable fact that Micro-evolution will be guaranteed to LEAD to Macro-evolution is sheer dishonesty. Let them first figure out the bat-wing.

You'd have to plug EVERY gap and major hole in the Theory before it was considered a "fact". Otherwise, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difference between Theory and Fact. That's why "Cell Theory" is not "Cell fact", even though Cell Theory has far more evidence and far fewer (if any) holes or gaps. Like the bat wing. And the arched foot.Technically, the idea of there being no such thing as a "Creator god" should be classified as a religion as much as a belief that does believe in one, for the sake of separation of church and state while we're at it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Maybe there should be a petition to change the name to "Fact of Evolution" first.

Perhaps we should have people understand what the terminology actually means rather than change it just to cater to their ignorance.

 

[Shermana]

Perhaps we should have people understand what the terminology actually means rather than change it just to cater to their ignorance.

And that's another issue, the problem is that the Terminology itself often becomes a murky game of Semantics. If you ask me "Do you believe in Evolution", are you asking me if I believe in Micro-adaptation or if I believe that such Micro-adaptation will eventually develop into radically different gene structures? If you ask me, "Do you believe in speciation", are you asking me if I believe that bacteria can adapt into different forms and strains of the same base kind, or are you asking me if I believe that an Echidna and a Platypus can come from the same base species? That's why there's the "Species problem".

A major problem is that the Terminology itself is cloudy to begin with.

 

[Father Heathen]

And that's another issue, the problem is that the Terminology itself often becomes a murky game of Semantics. If you ask me "Do you believe in Evolution", are you asking me if I believe in Micro-adaptation or if I believe that such Micro-adaptation will eventually develop into radically different gene structures? If you ask me, "Do you believe in speciation", are you asking me if I believe that bacteria can adapt into different forms and strains of the same base kind, or are you asking me if I believe that an Echidna and a Platypus can come from the same base species? That's why there's the "Species problem".

A major problem is that the Terminology itself is cloudy to begin with.

It's only clouded by those who insist on using unnecessary distinctions.

 

[Shermana]

It's only clouded by those who insist on using unnecessary distinctions.

Why don't you explain in detail why they are unnecessary?

 

[Skwim]

And that's another issue, the problem is that the Terminology itself often becomes a murky game of Semantics. If you ask me "Do you believe in Evolution", are you asking me if I believe in Micro-adaptation or if I believe that such Micro-adaptation will eventually develop into radically different gene structures?

What is "Micro-adaptation" and "Macro-adaptation"? Are they anything like microevolution and macroevolution?

If you ask me, "Do you believe in speciation", are you asking me if I believe that bacteria can adapt into different forms and strains of the same base kind, or are you asking me if I believe that an Echidna and a Platypus can come from the same base species? That's why there's the "Species problem".

Personally, I'd be asking you if you believe there's an evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

A major problem is that the Terminology itself is cloudy to begin with.

What specific terminology are you speaking of? Give me a biological term and I'll be happy to look up its definition for you.

 

[Shermana]

What is "Micro-adaptation" and "Macro-adaptation"? Are they anything like microevolution and macroevolution?

Pretty much.

Personally, I'd be asking you if you believe there's an evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.

Once again, the word "Species" is an issue, otherwise there wouldn't be the species problem. Is there a mechanism for new "breeds" which may be mis-classified as "Species"? Yes. Is there for one for entirely different gene structures that aren't just different strands/breeds of the same root kind? No.

What specific terminology are you speaking of? Give me a biological term and I'll be happy to look up its definition for you.

Start with Evolution, Species, and Speciation.

 

[Viker]

If your link was provided to corroborate, "Dr. Holiday has gone on record as opposing Mr. Line's position that evolution is nothing more than a "belief" or "hunch"." it doesn't. Perhaps you posted the wrong one?

Someone prior to me posted this link. I just noticed that the actual Commissioner was confused for the superintendent in the OP.

Photonic posted the link first before I got a chance to. So I left it out. I figured that since the wrong person was credited in the OP I would just clarify. Here's an additional link. It would be helpful to scroll down and read the actual Kentucky Commissioner's response. His response shouldn't be over looked either, it should be bronzed and put on display in fact.

The Evolving Scientist: Someone got ahold of Line's full letter!

 

[Viker]

Pretty much.



Once again, the word "Species" is an issue, otherwise there wouldn't be the species problem. Is there a mechanism for new "breeds" which may be mis-classified as "Species"? Yes. Is there for one for entirely different gene structures that aren't just different strands/breeds of the same root kind? No.


Start with Evolution, Species, and Speciation.

The problem is with "theory". Many seem to think it is just means "belief" or "hunch" or "faith". It clearly is not in any scientific terminology.


"In science, a theory is a statement of general ideas that explains many observations by natural means. To a scientist, the word “theory” is a very precise term to identify a concept that has great utility in explaining phenomena in the natural world. Ideas only rise to the level of a theory in science if they have withstood much scrutiny and are exceptionally useful in explaining a wide variety of independent observations. Any theory can be altered or replaced if new observations or new scientific evidence cannot be adequately explained by it. In science, facts never become theories. Rather, theories explain facts. No theory is immune to revision or replacement should new evidence surface. There is a substantial difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning of the word. An idea is often labeled a theory for the purpose of painting it as little more than a guess. This use of “theory” demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific meaning of the term. Referring to biological evolution as a theory for the purpose of contesting it would be counterproductive, since scientists only grant the status of theory to well-tested ideas." ~ from Kentucky Commissioner Dr. Terry Holiday

 

[painted wolf]

Shermana- A theory in science is bigger than a fact. A fact is a single point of information, a theory takes several facts and explains why they happen.

Mutation is a fact... change in allele frequencies in populations is a fact... and so on. The theory of evolution unifies those facts and describes how they work together in the real world.

Cells are the smallest unit a living thing can exist as... this is a fact. Cells can come together and form larger creatures... this is a fact. Cell theory takes these facts and explains how they work together in the real world.

Theories will never be "facts" because "facts" are too small... never the less, theories are factual because they are made up of lots and lots of individual facts.

wa:do