S2Focus

(from http://www.ljworld.com/section/state...l/story/197795)



A committee of conservative Kansas State Board of Education members Tuesday backed off a plan to preside over a public debate between advocates of evolution and advocates of intelligent design, which critics had said would constitute a second Scopes Monkey Trial.

Instead, the three-member panel decided to have the experts address in writing eight questions (listed on page 3B) that deal with the definition of science, evidence concerning evolution and evidence that can falsify evolution.

....................


Subcommittee wants questions addressed in papers
1. Discuss your understanding of the definition of science, particularly with reference to the majority and minority definitions.

2. Discuss your understanding of a hypothesis and theory, particularly with regard to evolution and how an individual hypothesis and theory is used and supported and what happens when competing hypotheses and theories are at odds.

3. Discuss the idea that the best scientific inquiry is performed in the fashion of empirical science, that is, observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable.

4. Discuss the scientific evidence concerning the idea that natural selection and/or mutations produce speciation.

5. Discuss the scientific evidence concerning the idea that there is a common biological ancestor.

6. Discuss the scientific evidence concerning the idea of what can falsify the Theory of Biological Evolution, particularly how radiometric dating and the fossil record interacts with the idea of falsification.

7. Discuss the idea that students (after moving from concrete thinking and being able to think in the abstract) should be able to explain, in scientific terms, the philosophy of science and various theories of science, as well as various scientific criticisms.

8. U.S. education, particularly with regard to mathematics and science, has been criticized for being a mile wide and an inch deep and thus not promoting critical thinking and/or problem-solving skills. With regard to science education, is this a valid concern? Discuss the idea of how teachers need to or need not address this situation.



(OK.... where to start.... where to start....)

Integra96

IIDB could compile answers to their questions and mail it to the Kansas BOE!

Bushido216

Gar. The only thing I can submit to this is a willingness to be an editor. Unfortunately I know only enough about the questions to explain it anecdotally to your average creationist.

Jack the Bodiless

THAR SHE BLOWS!

How would this be relevant in any contest between evolution and intelligent design (which should accept a common biological ancestor, the validity of radiometric dating, and the fossil record... right?)

YEC creationism is wallowing on the surface here!

jar

I think the questions are great. In fact, the answers, although each would be several textbooks long, would make a great curriculum.

Angrillori

To a certain extent though, if it was going to be creationist moderated, this probably beats a debate. I shudder at the extent to which they would twist and frame an oral debate.

At least when they've put their bias in writing, you can answer the questions as written, clearly, and concisely, with cited sources. It's why Hovind, for example, refuses any sort of written debate.

If they wanted to be fair, they'd have each side swap and attempt to rebut the other side's answers before a final decision is made. Help avoid any lyin' for Jebus...not that anyone would ever do that....

But man oh maneshewitz, did they hire a YEC to ghost-write their questions for them or what?

Angrillori

Majority and minority definitions?

How about the "scientist" and "non-scientist" definitions instead?

Fishing for any label to make ID and creationism a theory or hypothesis worth comparing to evolution in school. "what happens when competing hypotheses and theories are at odds." As soon as anyone says: "when competing theories are at odds then they are compared," BANG. There's the justification the BoE wants to introduce creationism, under the guise that it is a "theory or hypothesis at odds with evolution". Even though it is neither a scientific hypothesis nor a scientific theory.

Scientific respondants to this question will need to be very very careful to emphasize that "theories and hypotheses at odds" does NOT include any crack-pot whack-job rantings and imaginings.

Can't you just hear the: "That can't be the best method, because it doesn't study anything that isn't observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable so it is incomplete, and worthless!"

Did you notice how these are all attacking evolution and not creationism? As opposed to asking: Discuss the scientific evidence concerning the idea that natural selection and/or mutations can not produce speciation. OR "Discuss the scientific evidence concerning ID or creationism."
A good question, even if there is no counter-question to ask for the scientific evidence concerning an intelligent designer...
Like the last, a good question, though I get the feeling the BoE didn't intend it that way...
Again, trying to sneak in creationism/ID as a "theory" by the back door.
Why do they seem to assume ID is a "theory" that has merit, without asking a single question as to its evidence, meanwhile hammering hammering hammering the evolutionist to keep producing evidence. Double standard much?
Uncited sources? Not much better thatn a "some guy said once"...sheesh. Again, "critical thinking" another code-word for "we should teach them copteing theories, like ID and creationism." Be very careful with this one too.

Martin B

I suspect that this is a new approach to quote mining: quote harvesting. It looks like a trick to get honest answers to these questions and then selectively use parts of the answers to make it look like there is disagreement among scientists and, let's not forget, that evolutionists are unsure of their own theory.

I discovered this as I tried to write honest, robust answers to some of these questions. My answers were littered with statements that could be easliy clipped out of of context.

I agree that this is a step forward from public oral debates. However, I would advise anyone wishing to answer them to tread carefully. Maybe get The Bible Thumper or WILLOWTREE to proof-read it for you

Clivedurdle

Mods, is it possible to get a collective IIDB effort on this, with people from science, philosophy and other forums joining in? Could we divide up the questions amonst the forums and then work up agreed answers?

Angrillori

Hmm. I saw the slant right away, but yeah, looking at all the questions together, it sure does seem a great way to collect mine-able materials.

OTOH, and I want to broach this, is it possible, that these are honest queries, and these people have just been lobbied so hard by the creationist camp that these are questions they actually believe are legitimate?

Like if a person knew nothing about evolution, and visited Dr. ( :rolling: ) Dino's site, you can see him asking some of Hovind's questions sincerely believing they are problems with evolution, simply because he didn't know they are actually only facets of bizzaro-strawman-evolutionism c/o Kenny Hovind?