By JOHN FITZGERALD - The Billings Gazette - 06/23/05
While the debate rages in Kansas over how to teach evolution in public schools, the topic could come up this summer in Montana.
Kansas officials are debating evolution versus ‘‘intelligent design,'' an increasingly popular theory that claims some elements of the natural world are too complex to be the result of randomness.
In some states, intelligent design has been proffered as a compromise between evolution, which suggests everything in the living world evolved naturally over millions of years, and creationism, which suggests all living things were created by God just as it states in the Bible.
And even though some school districts in the country, and even Montana, have adopted elements of creationism and intelligent design into their science curriculums, in Billings it has been a tough sell.
‘‘We're talking about science classes and this isn't science,'' Shaun Harrington, curriculum director for grades 9-12 in Billings, said of creationism.
Last spring in Darby, a town of about 1,000 people in southwest Montana, the school board adopted a plan to include creationism in its science classes. Although such a move sets the district at odds with the state's accreditation standards, school districts legally can create their own curriculum.
The decision was reversed before it could be implemented, however, when one of the board's pro-creationism members was voted out during the next regular board election.
Earlier this year, the issue came up again when the 2005 Montana Legislature was asked to weigh in.
Sen. Ken Toole, D-Helena, sponsored a bill urging the state to reaffirm the separation of church and state, and asking the state to teach only valid scientific principles. Meanwhile, Rep. Roger Koopman, R-Bozeman, wrote legislation that would allow schools to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.
While both bills died without a vote, they indicate the issue is far from settled.
State review
Intelligent design could become an issue again this summer as Montana undergoes its regular examination of the state science standards.
‘‘We review all the different chapters of the accreditation standards every five years,'' said Steve Meloy, the executive secretary of the Board of Public Education. In addition to a regularly scheduled review, educators have their eye on the federal No Child Left Behind requirements for a standardized science test by 2008.
The Board of Public Education reviews the standards, but board members rely on the Office of Public Instruction for the information they need.
‘‘Each subject, whether it's reading, math, science or whatever, we bring together a broad cross-section of educators to review the standards,'' said OPI spokesman Joe Lamson.
He said the OPI will start the review process this summer, with a finished plan going to the Board of Public Education by 2006. The board will then conduct hearings on the science standards throughout the state, then make a decision on whether to approve the standards, probably by this time next year.
The Board of Public Education is made up of seven people appointed for seven-year terms by the governor. They meet eight times a year, and although Meloy wouldn't speak specifically about hearing from those who promote intelligent design, he did say the board works hard to be open to every Montanan.
‘‘Anybody can bring anything at any time,'' he said.
Dueling bills
Toole, the Helena Democrat, filed his resolution during the last Legislature as a direct result of the Darby creationism incident.
He said someone in the Bitterroot Valley asked him if he could get a law passed against teaching creationism.
‘‘I said no, but we can write a resolution,'' Toole recalled.
The resolution, which ‘‘supports the separation of church and state and promotes a quality science education,'' was forwarded to the Education and Cultural Resources Committee, where it died for lack of support.
Meanwhile, Rep. Koopman, the Bozeman Republican, wrote but didn't introduce a bill that would allow for ‘‘teaching competing theories of origin.''
Jun 22, 2005
Creation Instruction Association in Helena
creationist to give presentation at Helena Alliance Church this SundayBrian Young, the founder and director of Creation Instruction Association, will be giving a presentation at the Helena Alliance Church, 1030 Choteau, on Sunday, June 26, from 6:30-8:30 p.m.
For More Information, Visit www.creationtruth.org (Based in Nebraska)
Another paid speaker with books to sell I'm sure. This is definitely a niche market. There are big bucks in spreading misinformation. These people travel all over the nation, work up the fundies and then the locals go out and try and take over the school boards. It all seems so sad people want to believe this stuff. I would go, but I am highly uncomfortable around these people. They make me very nervous. I wish I had the courage, but for now I don't. I never liked conflict. Every time I write a letter to the editor and its published, I find myself anxious when I see it in print. I literally, physically respond. I can only describe it as stage fright.
I found this link on the above organization's web site.
A guy from Glendive has a dig.
Interesting, I wonder if Otis has any formal training. Doubt it.
Weeks of July 11, 18 and 25, 2005
Dig for Dinosaurs in Montana
Foundation Advancing Creation Truth (FACT)
Also "Dig for a Day" in May & August, 2005
Contact: Foundation Advancing Creation Truth, Otis E. Kline, Jr., P.O. Box 684, Glendive, MT 59330 406-377-1141 or fact{at}midrivers.com
Here is a letter to the editor I wrote concerning ID Theory/Objective Origins/Creation Science.... By whatever term they prefer to use. It all boils down to an attack on science and the public school system.
Dear Editor,
Where did that fantastic I.D. presentation come from as to persuade 3 out of 5 board members into going against their own legal counsel? Type I.D. into an internet search engine and this can be found: Intelligent Design Network, Institute for Creation Research, Access Research Network, Intervals Press, and also remarks of a Sr. Fellow David DeWolf to Darby, MT School Board from the Discovery Institute - A conservative think tank out of Seattle. These internet sites and associated links all point to how and why the Intelligent Design scheme is the latest, greatest and effective ploy since creation science. They are not really interested in the meaning of life. It's just part and parcel of a religious political agenda. A main player inside the ID clan says they should not separate the political from the scientific. They purposely put the cart before the horse. The scientific community tries in vain to point out that the proponents of I.D. either display ignorance or deliberately misrepresent evolutionary science. So ID representatives bypass our scientific and educational professionals. They present ID first to religious groups then to school boards where it is easier to persuade the non-scientific community that ID is scientific.
Lori Gilliland
P.O. Box 72
Clancy MT. 59634
For More Information, Visit www.creationtruth.org (Based in Nebraska)
Another paid speaker with books to sell I'm sure. This is definitely a niche market. There are big bucks in spreading misinformation. These people travel all over the nation, work up the fundies and then the locals go out and try and take over the school boards. It all seems so sad people want to believe this stuff. I would go, but I am highly uncomfortable around these people. They make me very nervous. I wish I had the courage, but for now I don't. I never liked conflict. Every time I write a letter to the editor and its published, I find myself anxious when I see it in print. I literally, physically respond. I can only describe it as stage fright.
I found this link on the above organization's web site.
A guy from Glendive has a dig.
Interesting, I wonder if Otis has any formal training. Doubt it.
Weeks of July 11, 18 and 25, 2005
Dig for Dinosaurs in Montana
Foundation Advancing Creation Truth (FACT)
Also "Dig for a Day" in May & August, 2005
Contact: Foundation Advancing Creation Truth, Otis E. Kline, Jr., P.O. Box 684, Glendive, MT 59330 406-377-1141 or fact{at}midrivers.com
Here is a letter to the editor I wrote concerning ID Theory/Objective Origins/Creation Science.... By whatever term they prefer to use. It all boils down to an attack on science and the public school system.
Dear Editor,
Where did that fantastic I.D. presentation come from as to persuade 3 out of 5 board members into going against their own legal counsel? Type I.D. into an internet search engine and this can be found: Intelligent Design Network, Institute for Creation Research, Access Research Network, Intervals Press, and also remarks of a Sr. Fellow David DeWolf to Darby, MT School Board from the Discovery Institute - A conservative think tank out of Seattle. These internet sites and associated links all point to how and why the Intelligent Design scheme is the latest, greatest and effective ploy since creation science. They are not really interested in the meaning of life. It's just part and parcel of a religious political agenda. A main player inside the ID clan says they should not separate the political from the scientific. They purposely put the cart before the horse. The scientific community tries in vain to point out that the proponents of I.D. either display ignorance or deliberately misrepresent evolutionary science. So ID representatives bypass our scientific and educational professionals. They present ID first to religious groups then to school boards where it is easier to persuade the non-scientific community that ID is scientific.
Lori Gilliland
P.O. Box 72
Clancy MT. 59634
Jun 21, 2005
Bill would allow 'intelligent design' in Pennsylvania schools
Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Posted: 10:13 a.m. EDT (14:13 GMT)
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Experts on both sides of the debate over whether public schools should teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution -- a question already before a federal court -- sparred in front of a state legislative panel in Pennsylvania.
The House Subcommittee on Basic Education heard testimony Monday on a bill that would allow local school boards to mandate that science lessons include intelligent design, a concept that holds the universe must have been created by an unspecified guiding force because it is so complex.
The legislation is sponsored by only a dozen lawmakers, and its prospects of passing the General Assembly are unclear as lawmakers try to meet a June 30 state budget deadline.
But a federal judge will consider the issue this fall, when a lawsuit against the Dover Area School District is scheduled to go to trial. The suit alleges that the school board violated the constitutional separation of church and state when it voted in October to require ninth-grade students to hear about intelligent design during biology class.
Michael J. Behe, a biological sciences professor at Lehigh University, told the subcommittee that intelligent design has no religious underpinnings. Critics argue that it is a variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life.
Behe said intelligent design merely contends that evidence of complex physical structures shows that design, rather than evolution, is responsible for an organism or cell.
Some lawmakers struggled to understand the concept.
"I've always viewed evolution as sort of the ultimate design. It would change and adapt and accommodate to whatever the situation was," said Rep. P. Michael Sturla. "When did the intelligent design occur, in your theory?"
Behe had no answer.
"Questions like, 'When did the designing take place?' ... are all good questions. We'd love to have answers for them, but they are separate questions from the question, 'Was this designed in the first place?"' Behe said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that filed the federal lawsuit, contends that allowing intelligent design to be taught would undermine the state's science standards, which specify the teaching of evolution.
"How many new biotechnology companies will want to locate here in Pennsylvania if our students are being taught a watered-down version of the complexities of evolution?" asked Larry Frankel, legislative director for the state's ACLU chapter.
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Experts on both sides of the debate over whether public schools should teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution -- a question already before a federal court -- sparred in front of a state legislative panel in Pennsylvania.
The House Subcommittee on Basic Education heard testimony Monday on a bill that would allow local school boards to mandate that science lessons include intelligent design, a concept that holds the universe must have been created by an unspecified guiding force because it is so complex.
The legislation is sponsored by only a dozen lawmakers, and its prospects of passing the General Assembly are unclear as lawmakers try to meet a June 30 state budget deadline.
But a federal judge will consider the issue this fall, when a lawsuit against the Dover Area School District is scheduled to go to trial. The suit alleges that the school board violated the constitutional separation of church and state when it voted in October to require ninth-grade students to hear about intelligent design during biology class.
Michael J. Behe, a biological sciences professor at Lehigh University, told the subcommittee that intelligent design has no religious underpinnings. Critics argue that it is a variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life.
Behe said intelligent design merely contends that evidence of complex physical structures shows that design, rather than evolution, is responsible for an organism or cell.
Some lawmakers struggled to understand the concept.
"I've always viewed evolution as sort of the ultimate design. It would change and adapt and accommodate to whatever the situation was," said Rep. P. Michael Sturla. "When did the intelligent design occur, in your theory?"
Behe had no answer.
"Questions like, 'When did the designing take place?' ... are all good questions. We'd love to have answers for them, but they are separate questions from the question, 'Was this designed in the first place?"' Behe said.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that filed the federal lawsuit, contends that allowing intelligent design to be taught would undermine the state's science standards, which specify the teaching of evolution.
"How many new biotechnology companies will want to locate here in Pennsylvania if our students are being taught a watered-down version of the complexities of evolution?" asked Larry Frankel, legislative director for the state's ACLU chapter.
Jun 16, 2005
Denial
LARGO, Florida (AP) -- An autopsy that found Terri Schiavo suffered from severe and irreversible brain-damage has done nothing to sway her parents' position that she deserved to live and may have gotten better with therapy
xtain denials are amazing, sometimes plain blatant misinformation
Such as'
No global warming
Teaching only abstenance works....
Evolution is not a fact
They have thier own facts and figures that contridict true scientific research
I remember there was a woman in Bozeman who came to talk to a school about sex and her facts and figures were so horribly wrong a parent couldn't believe the school let her do it.
Its the same with the ID folks, they pretend to be scientific when they are not accepted by the scientific community.
Why is the public falling for this?
xtain denials are amazing, sometimes plain blatant misinformation
Such as'
No global warming
Teaching only abstenance works....
Evolution is not a fact
They have thier own facts and figures that contridict true scientific research
I remember there was a woman in Bozeman who came to talk to a school about sex and her facts and figures were so horribly wrong a parent couldn't believe the school let her do it.
Its the same with the ID folks, they pretend to be scientific when they are not accepted by the scientific community.
Why is the public falling for this?
Kansas Krisis
Here we go again.
Mr. Moore asked his fans what new topic should he consider filming for a new documentary.
I emailed him back and told him to check out the ID Theory controversary.
It would be great for the public to see what these wackos are up to, see what their tactics are and expose what their real motives are.
Evolution debate gets personal in Kansas
School board members hurl insults at each otherThe Associated Press
Updated: 8:44 p.m. ET June 15, 2005TOPEKA, Kan. - A discussion about how evolution should be taught in Kansas' public schools degenerated Wednesday into personal attacks among State Board of Education members.
The board reviewed proposed standards drafted by three conservative members, designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution in the classroom.
The standards, which determine how students in fourth, seventh and 10th grades are tested on science, currently describe evolution as a key concept for students to learn before graduating from high school, treating it as the best explanation for how life developed and changed over time.
The three members who drafted the latest proposal are among six conservatives who control the board — and likely to approve much if not all of it. Four moderates, who favor retaining the standards' evolution-friendly tone, assailed the proposal.
Board member Bill Wagnon, of Topeka, told the three conservatives they had become "dupes" of intelligent design advocates and said their proposal was based "on absolute and total fraud."
Board member Sue Gamble, of Shawnee, said while board members should review proposed standards, they shouldn't write their own language, as the three conservatives did. She said the writing should be left to scientists and science teachers.
Board Chairman Steve Abrams, one of the three conservatives who drafted the latest proposal, said he had studied "a huge amount" of science, including in postgraduate classes. He is an Arkansas City veterinarian.
But Gamble replied: "I question your qualifications."
Helping Abrams draft the latest proposal were board members Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, and Connie Morris, of St. Francis. Morris chastised the board's four moderates for not attending the public hearings in May.
During the hearings, witnesses criticized evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes may have created the first building blocks of life, that all life has descended from a common origin and that man and apes share a common ancestor.
"Had you attended, you would have been informed," Morris said. "You would be sitting here as informed individuals and not arrogantly calling us dupes."
Mr. Moore asked his fans what new topic should he consider filming for a new documentary.
I emailed him back and told him to check out the ID Theory controversary.
It would be great for the public to see what these wackos are up to, see what their tactics are and expose what their real motives are.
Evolution debate gets personal in Kansas
School board members hurl insults at each otherThe Associated Press
Updated: 8:44 p.m. ET June 15, 2005TOPEKA, Kan. - A discussion about how evolution should be taught in Kansas' public schools degenerated Wednesday into personal attacks among State Board of Education members.
The board reviewed proposed standards drafted by three conservative members, designed to expose students to more criticism of evolution in the classroom.
The standards, which determine how students in fourth, seventh and 10th grades are tested on science, currently describe evolution as a key concept for students to learn before graduating from high school, treating it as the best explanation for how life developed and changed over time.
The three members who drafted the latest proposal are among six conservatives who control the board — and likely to approve much if not all of it. Four moderates, who favor retaining the standards' evolution-friendly tone, assailed the proposal.
Board member Bill Wagnon, of Topeka, told the three conservatives they had become "dupes" of intelligent design advocates and said their proposal was based "on absolute and total fraud."
Board member Sue Gamble, of Shawnee, said while board members should review proposed standards, they shouldn't write their own language, as the three conservatives did. She said the writing should be left to scientists and science teachers.
Board Chairman Steve Abrams, one of the three conservatives who drafted the latest proposal, said he had studied "a huge amount" of science, including in postgraduate classes. He is an Arkansas City veterinarian.
But Gamble replied: "I question your qualifications."
Helping Abrams draft the latest proposal were board members Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, and Connie Morris, of St. Francis. Morris chastised the board's four moderates for not attending the public hearings in May.
During the hearings, witnesses criticized evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes may have created the first building blocks of life, that all life has descended from a common origin and that man and apes share a common ancestor.
"Had you attended, you would have been informed," Morris said. "You would be sitting here as informed individuals and not arrogantly calling us dupes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
