—> Kentucky state senator doesn’t like evolution and climate change in new national Next Generation Science Standards. Science Standards Draw Fire From Ed. Leader in Kentucky Senate
It remains to be seen what influence Sen. Wilson will have with the state board of education in Kentucky. The board is expected to vote on provisional adoption of the standards in June.
And here’s his piece: Sen. Mike Wilson | Science standards include troubling assumptions
Another area of contention is evolution. The standards make it clear that evolution is fundamental to understanding the life sciences. Generally, the standards focus on changes in gene pools, genetic mutations and effects of the environment on changes within species. The controversy arises with the statement that “Students can evaluate evidence of the conditions that may result in new species and understand the role of genetic variation in natural selection.†This is supposition and implies that one species may evolve into a different species. There is no factual evidence that this has ever occurred and to suppose that it happens is counter to the beliefs of many Kentuckians.
—>Fur flies over cat dissections at Palm Beach schools:
[Parent Terri Cavanaugh] started an online petition against the practice [of dissecting cats] last school year when her son, then a freshman at Lake Worth High, refused to dissect a cat as part of the school’s medical program. So far, more than 5,000 have joined her crusade.
Con quote: “It teaches kids to be insensitive rather than teaching them to learn science and biology.”
Pro quote: “It’s hands on, you can look at an organ in a book, but until you see it in the flesh, that’s when it comes alive.”
—> Here’s the full story of what happened at Bartow High School when student Kiera Wilmot conducted an impromtu science experiment. It’s nice to have the details filled in, finally. But some of the comments readers left are just brutal! Kiera Wilmot on arrest: ‘I didn’t want anybody to get hurt’
Mr Wilson’s troubling assumptions should be cause for concern. “This is supposition and implies that one species may evolve into a different species. There is no factual evidence that this has ever occurred and to suppose that it happens is counter to the beliefs of many Kentuckians.”
Kentuckians are not alone, But wile he indicates species, wouldn’t everyone agree that the step from family to family would be the point where he thinks science ends and belief begins.
As a scientist I really don’t consider the unlettered opinions of Mike Wilson or at what point he, or other Kentuckians think science ends and belief begin. Science isn’t a democracy it’s based on fact and the facts for one species evolving into another are overwhelming.
I would agree, the evidence for speciation is overwhelming. And the lack of evidence for any one species changing families is equally overwhelming. Facts can be accumulated to validate most anything. Here in lies the problem, facts don’t necessarily produce truth.
Chris,
It becomes blatantly obvious that your sole reason for commenting on this blog is to act as an agent provocateur. Well I’m not going to take the bait this time, because no amount of evidence that I could provide is going to convince you that you are mistaken. Such is your mindset. Perhaps someone with more time and patience than I posses can respond to you
I hadn’t really thought my comments would rise to the level of an agent provocateur. However, it’s not a mindset or the volume of evidence that is the issue. The questionable interpretation of the evidence sighted and the insistence that said evidence has settled the issue of origins which has created millions of skeptics. The ongoing struggle to impede any comment or proposition contrary to a secular view suggest there is an alternative motive to protect here apart from any science education. It’s apparent why there is a large number of parents and educators who are becoming fed up with evolution’s shrouded story.
Sorry Jonathan but I cannot be so judicious in my choice of epithets when it comes to Chris. Chris is a “lying for Jesus†troll, whose shriveled peach like brain has been so suppressed with dogma he wouldn’t recognize real science if it bit him on the ass. He takes cognitive dissonance to a whole new level. Someone should ask Chris whether his mother was married to his father before he was born, and how does he know? Was he there?
Chris: … any comment or proposition contrary to a secular view …
We’re talking science here, in case you haven’t noticed.
Please tell us of any scientific advance based on any non-secular studies, or even of any scientific anomalies in which non-secular influences might have been detected, such as effects observed where no material cause acted.
…
The sound of crickets, by the way, *does* have secular/material/physical causation.
Mr Butler, no, I don’t believe we were talking about science here at all. Wilson had commented on a species to species change as having no factual evidence. I said he must have meant a family to family change because speciation is common. Jonathan said there is overwhelming evidence for speciation, which no one is questioning. Ivorygirl provided a little psychobabble, but other than that I don’t see any science discussed here. The conversation is about evolution’s unproven and unprovable belief.
My reference to secular view was a little mild. To set the record straight I should have said a religious humanist view.
Chris: … I don’t believe we were talking about science here at all.
The gap between your beliefs and reality looks wider with every comment.
… overwhelming evidence for speciation, which no one is questioning.
Look around – creationists from Ken Ham to Casey Luskin to Ray Comfort to … deny it vociferously.
… secular view … a religious humanist view.
Either way, you’re not making much sense. Do you know that there is a tradition called religious humanism (Erasmus, Spinoza, et al),which says very little about modern scientific issues, or are you making an awkward attempt at calling non-religion a religion?
Now how about trying to answer my question above, the one about “any scientific advance based on any non-secular studies…”?
Pierce R. Butler
My understanding of speciation has been variation within a species producing variety. I suppose I would be wrong and Wilson would be right if the term was used as the process to facilitate molecule to man evolution.
Chris –
Nice bit of question-dodging; unsuccessful (I don’t think either of your proffered definitions work, for one thing), but better than previous attempts.
Thought of any case ever in which the “physicalist” paradigm has been falsified in scientific terms, yet?
Pierce
So neither definition of ‘speciation’ works for you. Perhaps you can broaden my understanding of the term and correct all the misinformation published on the subject.
A problem for physicalism could be the near death experience. Scores of well document events note consciousness can function outside of the brain.
The ‘Big Bang’ might also fit into your request, where nothing comes together from nowhere for no reason, then nothing explodes producing everything.
Chris –
Note that John S. Wilkins reports that working biologists use more than two dozen definitions of “species”, depending on the context of their research.
And that “NDEs” can all be accounted for by the physiological reactions of brains to anoxia.
And that your description of the BB apparently comes straight from knuckle-dragging fundamentalist preachers who’ve only read one book in their lives.
Now, how ’bout trying to answer my question(s)? [Helpful hint: this will be my last reply to your feeble attempts at distraction.]
Pierce
Speciation having more than two dozen definitions must indicate that Wilson and myself can both be right.
I see you have no knowledge of the NDE beyond atheist propaganda, thats ok, At some point we both will have a DE and know for sure if the thousands of testimonies were accurate or not.
Your question was answered, you just don’t like the answer.
I just happened to stumble across this article which fits in with our conversation quite well, enjoy. ‘Why Atheists Have No Ears’ http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/ears.html
Chris –
It’s tempting to try to rebut your multiple fallacies, but one of us has to stay on topic.
I haven’t liked any of your pseudo-answers, but no matter. Just where was my question “answered”?
Pierce
Pierce
I believe your question was, “Please tell us of any scientific advance based on any non-secular studies, or even of any scientific anomalies in which non-secular influences might have been detected, such as effects observed where no material cause acted.”
MY answer was, “My reference to secular view was a little mild. To set the record straight I should have said a religious humanist view.”
If your not aware of religious and or secular humanism just google it.
In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion. You really don’t need the courts findings, the doctrines are clearly religious beliefs. For the sake of not taking up a page or two here, here is the Humanist Manifesto 1. http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
Another interesting article about humanism. Secular Humanism” America’s Established or Religion http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/11549-secular-humanism-americas-establishment-of-religion
Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. (Charles Francis Potter, Humanism: A New Religion. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930, p. 128).
Humanism is alive and well today with it’s advances against morality and any suggestion that might test it’s beliefs. My comment was not about test tubes or materialistic tools used by scientist but rather an evil organized system with the world view man is god.
Chris – Bzzzt! Thanks for playing.
I don’t have time to enumerate, or even count, how many failures in that reply.
Suffice it to say that your lame counterattack still fails to answer my question; that an intelligent believer could have responded much better; that you illustrate quite well why “moralism” has become a pejorative term; and that there must be someplace on the Web so dim that your contributions would actually count as constructive, so you should go looking for that place rather than striving to achieve the status of village idiot here.
Go away now, please.
Congratulations Pierce, you have just experienced the creationist two-step shuffle, expertly delivered by “lying for Jesus†godbot troll, Chris. He managed to squirm all the way from answering your question on how one species can evolved into another, to, you will find out the truth when you are dead. He also threw in for good measure, that all scientists are involved in a global atheist plot to deny Bejebus.
… the creationist two-step shuffle, expertly delivered …
Nah, his delivery was beginner-level: you gotta go to A. Plantinga or W.L. Craig to see that sort of thing done with real expertise.
Give credit where due: Chris spells better than most creationists. A pity his thinking & knowledge haven’t kept up…
Pierce
You’ve done a good job pretending you don’t understand anything. Who knows maybe you don’t.
Our firecracker snorting friend has said I managed to squirm all the way from answering your question on how one species can evolved into another. I must have missed that question. Which of the two dozen definitions of species did you choose to use in the question.