Kansas Astronomy

[harlequin]

Look at page 51 of the current draft that the anti-science majority of the Kansas Board of Education wants for the Kansas "science" standards:

July 12, 2005 Draft of the Proposed "Science" Standards

I don't have to tell anyone with even a sixth grade understanding of astronomy what the blunder they are making.

Compare to proposed science standards before the anti-science antievolutionists created created their minority report which is no pretty much being adopted by the Board of Education. Look on page 8 of the PDF (labeled 37 at the bottom of the page):

Majority Report March 9, 2005 proposed science standards for grades 5-7 (This is the pro-science version.)

See the pro-science version had it right. I don't understand what the creationists wanted to do it anyways. Even if the error of fact was not an error of fact, the revision would still be less clear. Indeed the revision has nothing to do with evolution, the age of the earth, anyone's religion, or whether or not science should use naturalism. Maybe it is just an example of why one should not let people who don't know anything about science write science standards.

[Evalain]

Many years ago, I went to a small-town high school in Iowa in an area that was known for having more churchs than bars. And I personally thought that our high school biology teacher said it best. On the first day we started studying the origins of life, he said flat out, "The two main theories right now are evolution and creationism. This is a science class, so we'll be talking about evolution. If you want to learn about creationism, talk to a pastor and read a bible. It's all there. There's no need to cover it in a science class."

This was back in the very early 90's, but there wasn't so much a peep of protest from students or parents, as I recall.

Somehow, I get the feeling that approach might not work anymore.

Eva, she who lurks

[hhEb09'1]

See the pro-science version had it right. I don't understand what the creationists wanted to do it anyways.

I'm still not sure I understand what changes were made. I can see the insertion of "of" between "amount matter" and the removal of the "t" on "weight", but I'm not sure what the result of the rest of the changes end up being.

Maybe they were concerned about Jupiter having no surface on which to stand.

Even if the error of fact was not an error of fact, the revision would still be less clear.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the revision is.

[Karl]

I think it was trying to substitute "the moon" for Jupiter.

[NEOWatcher]

See the pro-science version had it right. I don't understand what the creationists wanted to do it anyways.

I'm still not sure I understand what changes were made. I can see the insertion of "of" between "amount matter" and the removal of the "t" on "weight", but I'm not sure what the result of the rest of the changes end up being.

Maybe they were concerned about Jupiter having no surface on which to stand.

Even if the error of fact was not an error of fact, the revision would still be less clear.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the revision is.

Didn't they call Jupiter a moon?
I think that in the creationist version, the earth is at the center, and all of the objects are moons because they orbit the earth.

[Normandy6644]

I'm not sure, since they seem to say "Jupiter (the moon)" which doesn't appear to refer to Earth's moon, but at the same time I can't tell if they are calling Jupiter a moon or not. Strange.

[hhEb09'1]

Doesn't anybody here have a sixth grade understanding of astronomy?!

I was thinking they were shooting for something like: "An object would weigh less (more) on Earth than on Jupiter (the moon) because Jupiter (the moon) has greater (less) mass than Earth; Jupiter’s (the moon’s mass) mass would have a greater (lesser) gravitational attraction for the object."

[NEOWatcher]

Doesn't anybody here have a sixth grade understanding of astronomy?!

I was thinking they were shooting for something like: "An object would weigh less (more) on Earth than on Jupiter (the moon) because Jupiter (the moon) has greater (less) mass than Earth; Jupiter’s (the moon’s mass) mass would have a greater (lesser) gravitational attraction for the object."

It's amazing how a slight rewording makes it clear.

[hhEb09'1]

It's amazing how a slight rewording makes it clear.

yabbut, I'm still not sure that is the result of those edits. I guess I'm not clear what the final copy would read.

[Normandy6644]

Doesn't anybody here have a sixth grade understanding of astronomy?!

I was thinking they were shooting for something like: "An object would weigh less (more) on Earth than on Jupiter (the moon) because Jupiter (the moon) has greater (less) mass than Earth; Jupiter’s (the moon’s mass) mass would have a greater (lesser) gravitational attraction for the object."

I think I see it now, if in fact that's what they were going for.

[jfribrg]

Perhaps the intention was to deal with the misconception that everything in space is weightless. The changes may have been to emphasize that an object can weigh more or less than on Earth, depending on how much mass is near the object. It doesn't appear to be the final draft, so I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from it.

[publiusr]

Many years ago, I went to a small-town high school in Iowa in an area that was known for having more churchs than bars. And I personally thought that our high school biology teacher said it best. On the first day we started studying the origins of life, he said flat out, "The two main theories right now are evolution and creationism. This is a science class, so we'll be talking about evolution. If you want to learn about creationism, talk to a pastor and read a bible. It's all there. There's no need to cover it in a science class."

This was back in the very early 90's, but there wasn't so much a peep of protest from students or parents, as I recall.

Somehow, I get the feeling that approach might not work anymore.

Eva, she who lurks

It did for me in 1970's Alabama no less.

Something has happened--and I don't quite know what it is. Most folks--whether they believe textbooks or not--vomit out the info and mark their papers and just get it out of the way. The residents in Kansas puzzle me. Even growing up in Alabama--we didn't seem to have as much problems with recent decades. Someone might mention a sticker, then forget about it. That might speak to a dis-interest in science overall--where Kansas residents might actually pay attention to what kids bring home.

When I got home from school--I put my bookbag down and that was that. My workday was done. I wish I had gotten more involved. I should have taken shop. The mechanics make more than just about anyone else here.

[Sam5]

Many years ago, I went to a small-town high school in Iowa in an area that was known for having more churchs than bars. And I personally thought that our high school biology teacher said it best. On the first day we started studying the origins of life, he said flat out, "The two main theories right now are evolution and creationism. This is a science class, so we'll be talking about evolution. If you want to learn about creationism, talk to a pastor and read a bible. It's all there. There's no need to cover it in a science class."

This was back in the very early 90's, but there wasn't so much a peep of protest from students or parents, as I recall.

Somehow, I get the feeling that approach might not work anymore.

Eva, she who lurks

Back in my high school biology class, around 1957, our teacher taught us biology stuff. This class was mainly for kids who might become doctors, nurses, or other medical technicians. We learned about hearts, lungs, feet, toes, bones, blood, etc., etc. The teacher didn't harp about "evolution". We got that stuff out of commercial books and a few TV documentaries and some movies.

Some teacher around the 5th or 6th grade, in the early '50s, said something about in ancient times there were early "ape men", like the "Piltdown man", before modern humans developed, and we all thought that was funny, because we knew some people in the early '50s who we thought could be classified as modern "ape men". We also knew there were primitive people living in other countries in the 1950s. We saw them in movies and books. That's about it.

I don't remember hearing any preachers gripe about that. In church we got a lot of lectures about not drinking, no gambling, no stealing, no cussin', no fooling around with women before marriage, and stuff like that. I don't ever remember being taught by any preacher or Sunday school teacher that the earth was created in 6 days. I got that out of reading the first Chapter of Genesis. Some preachers might have mentioned it from time to time, but it was no big deal. The Baptists and Methodists never said the earth was only 6000 years old. I never heard of that until sometime in the 1970s. I don't remember anyone talking about any discrepancies in the 1950s. We didn't have those kinds of debates back then.

I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal and it isn't worth more than maybe 45 minutes in one class. Or maybe only 15 minutes, or just a couple of sentences. What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses and other diseases today.

[Sam5]

Many years ago, I went to a small-town high school in Iowa in an area that was known for having more churchs than bars. And I personally thought that our high school biology teacher said it best. On the first day we started studying the origins of life, he said flat out, "The two main theories right now are evolution and creationism. This is a science class, so we'll be talking about evolution. If you want to learn about creationism, talk to a pastor and read a bible. It's all there. There's no need to cover it in a science class."

This was back in the very early 90's, but there wasn't so much a peep of protest from students or parents, as I recall.

Somehow, I get the feeling that approach might not work anymore.

Eva, she who lurks

It did for me in 1970's Alabama no less.

Something has happened--and I don't quite know what it is. Most folks--whether they believe textbooks or not--vomit out the info and mark their papers and just get it out of the way. The residents in Kansas puzzle me. Even growing up in Alabama--we didn't seem to have as much problems with recent decades. Someone might mention a sticker, then forget about it. That might speak to a dis-interest in science overall--where Kansas residents might actually pay attention to what kids bring home.

When I got home from school--I put my bookbag down and that was that. My workday was done. I wish I had gotten more involved. I should have taken shop. The mechanics make more than just about anyone else here.

I think I can remember maybe one kid, in one of my Alabama schools, Brewton, around 1952, saying something about how his family didn't "come from no monkeys". That's about all I recall any of us kids discussing that subject back in the '50s, and i'm not even sure if that is a real memory from life, or if I heard that line in an old movie. This subject just wasn't discussed, that I recall, back in the '50s. In fact, every now and then we did see someone who looked primitive, but it was considered impolite to point it out. I think some of our preachers believed in evolution, because I think some of them knew of some primitive people too.

[Donnie B.]

I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal and it isn't worth more than maybe 45 minutes in one class. Or maybe only 15 minutes, or just a couple of sentences. What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses and other diseases today.

So you claim that evolution is not the central organizing principal of biology? Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Sam5]

I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal and it isn't worth more than maybe 45 minutes in one class. Or maybe only 15 minutes, or just a couple of sentences. What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses and other diseases today.

So you claim that evolution is not the central organizing principal of biology? Or am I misunderstanding you?

What? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Cures for most of the major diseases were found by means of biology/medicine research, not by teaching evolution.

When the origin of Malaria was found, they found it by tracking down the right mosquito carrier of the disease, not by analyzing every human’s ancestry.

When I get sick, I go to a “Doctor”, not an “Evolutionist”. I go to a “Hospital” not a “Natural History Museum.”

[KHarvey16]

I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal and it isn't worth more than maybe 45 minutes in one class. Or maybe only 15 minutes, or just a couple of sentences. What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses and other diseases today.

So you claim that evolution is not the central organizing principal of biology? Or am I misunderstanding you?

What? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Cures for most of the major diseases were found by means of biology/medicine research, not by teaching evolution.

When the origin of Malaria was found, they found it by tracking down the right mosquito carrier of the disease, not by analyzing every human’s ancestry.

When I get sick, I go to a “Doctor”, not an “Evolutionist”. I go to a “Hospital” not a “Natural History Museum.”

Are you kidding? Evolution is the very framework of biology! Without this one unifying idea so much of the medical advancement in the past 100+ years simply wouldn't exist!

[Sam5]

I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal and it isn't worth more than maybe 45 minutes in one class. Or maybe only 15 minutes, or just a couple of sentences. What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses and other diseases today.

So you claim that evolution is not the central organizing principal of biology? Or am I misunderstanding you?

What? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Cures for most of the major diseases were found by means of biology/medicine research, not by teaching evolution.

When the origin of Malaria was found, they found it by tracking down the right mosquito carrier of the disease, not by analyzing every human’s ancestry.

When I get sick, I go to a “Doctor”, not an “Evolutionist”. I go to a “Hospital” not a “Natural History Museum.”

Are you kidding? Evolution is the very framework of biology! Without this one unifying idea so much of the medical advancement in the past 100+ years simply wouldn't exist!

I’ve never heard of such a thing. The progress of medicine during the past 200 years has been due to the trial-and-error work of doctors and medical researchers trying to find the cause of illnesses and to find treatments and cures for illnesses. We get illnesses from all kinds of animals and insects, not just from monkeys. And there are all kinds of treatments. These illnesses and treatments don’t have anything to do with whether nor not our ancestors looked monkeylike.

[KHarvey16]

I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal and it isn't worth more than maybe 45 minutes in one class. Or maybe only 15 minutes, or just a couple of sentences. What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses and other diseases today.

So you claim that evolution is not the central organizing principal of biology? Or am I misunderstanding you?

What? I’ve never heard of such a thing. Cures for most of the major diseases were found by means of biology/medicine research, not by teaching evolution.

When the origin of Malaria was found, they found it by tracking down the right mosquito carrier of the disease, not by analyzing every human’s ancestry.

When I get sick, I go to a “Doctor”, not an “Evolutionist”. I go to a “Hospital” not a “Natural History Museum.”

Are you kidding? Evolution is the very framework of biology! Without this one unifying idea so much of the medical advancement in the past 100+ years simply wouldn't exist!

I’ve never heard of such a thing. The progress of medicine during the past 200 years has been due to the trial-and-error work of doctors and medical researchers trying to find the cause of illnesses and to find treatments and cures for illnesses. We get illnesses from all kinds of animals and insects, not just from monkeys. And there are all kinds of treatments. These illnesses and treatments don’t have anything to do with whether nor not our ancestors looked monkeylike.

Why do you limit evolution to primates and humans?

[Sam5]

Why do you limit evolution to primates and humans?

We were talking about medicine, and I think the majority of the medical research during the past 200 years concerned human illnesses.

Back in the 19th Century, most families with more that 2 or 3 kids would usually lose one or more of them to common illnesses that we have cures for today. Also there were still major human plagues and epidemics in the 19th Century, even the big flu epidemic in the world around 1918, so the first big push was on to find cures for these human diseases. Leprosy was a feared illness for thousands of years, but now it can be treated with anti-biotics. This doesn't have anything to do with "evolution".

[KHarvey16]

Why do you limit evolution to primates and humans?

We were talking about medicine, and I think the majority of the medical research during the past 200 years concerned human illnesses.

Back in the 19th Century, most families with more that 2 or 3 kids would usually lose one or more of them to common illnesses that we have cures for today. Also there were still major human plagues and epidemics in the 19th Century, even the big flu epidemic in the world around 1918, so the first big push was on to find cures for these human diseases. Leprosy was a feared illness for thousands of years, but now it can be treated with anti-biotics. This doesn't have anything to do with "evolution".

I don't think you fully understand the issue.

Modern medicine owes an incredible debt to evolution. Can you say genetics? New treatments and medications are found using evolution directly. Evolution allows us to create antibiotics and other medicines.

Sanitation would be seriously behind and I'm sure you can imagine what that would do to health.

I seriously question your understanding of medicine and biology. Without evolution biology is a shell. That's why the idea of evolution is probably the most important in history.

[Peptron]

I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal and it isn't worth more than maybe 45 minutes in one class. Or maybe only 15 minutes, or just a couple of sentences. What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses and other diseases today.

There is a contradiction in that statement...

Sentence: I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal

Contradiction: What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses

(The contradiction is that the paragraph says that evolution is much more important than evolution.)

[Sam5]

Why do you limit evolution to primates and humans?

We were talking about medicine, and I think the majority of the medical research during the past 200 years concerned human illnesses.

Back in the 19th Century, most families with more that 2 or 3 kids would usually lose one or more of them to common illnesses that we have cures for today. Also there were still major human plagues and epidemics in the 19th Century, even the big flu epidemic in the world around 1918, so the first big push was on to find cures for these human diseases. Leprosy was a feared illness for thousands of years, but now it can be treated with anti-biotics. This doesn't have anything to do with "evolution".

I don't think you fully understand the issue.

Modern medicine owes an incredible debt to evolution. Can you say genetics? New treatments and medications are found using evolution directly. Evolution allows us to create antibiotics and other medicines.

Lol, that’s not “natural-selection evolution”, that’s genetic engineering. People were doing selective breeding of livestock thousands of years ago. American Indians developed corn from a type of wild grass, thousands of years ago, but the grass did not “evolve” into the corn by any natural-selection means.

[KHarvey16]

Why do you limit evolution to primates and humans?

We were talking about medicine, and I think the majority of the medical research during the past 200 years concerned human illnesses.

Back in the 19th Century, most families with more that 2 or 3 kids would usually lose one or more of them to common illnesses that we have cures for today. Also there were still major human plagues and epidemics in the 19th Century, even the big flu epidemic in the world around 1918, so the first big push was on to find cures for these human diseases. Leprosy was a feared illness for thousands of years, but now it can be treated with anti-biotics. This doesn't have anything to do with "evolution".

I don't think you fully understand the issue.

Modern medicine owes an incredible debt to evolution. Can you say genetics? New treatments and medications are found using evolution directly. Evolution allows us to create antibiotics and other medicines.

Lol, that’s not “natural-selection evolution”, that’s genetic engineering. People were doing selective breeding of livestock thousands of years ago. American Indians developed corn from a type of wild grass, thousands of years ago, but the grass did not “evolve” into the corn by any natural-selection means.

Of course that's evolution!

Your view of evolution is entirely too narrow. It seriously permeates throughout biology in such a way you can't possibly avoid it. It applies to humans just as much as it applies to the very diseases we treat. If we didn't understand how diseases evolved, we couldn't treat many of them effectively.

[Sam5]

I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal and it isn't worth more than maybe 45 minutes in one class. Or maybe only 15 minutes, or just a couple of sentences. What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses and other diseases today.

There is a contradiction in that statement...

Sentence: I don't understand why ancient "evolution" has become such an important part of modern school biology classes today, because it isn't a very big deal

Contradiction: What is much more important is information about the mutation of viruses

(The contradiction is that the paragraph says that evolution is much more important than evolution.)

No. Viruses change and mutate over time. But the fact that viruses can change over time doesn’t mean that viruses can turn into monkey or people.

People already knew that people, animals, and plants changed over time. In the early 19th Century guys were carefully changing old British wild roses into modern hybrid roses. This type of rapid change was known before Darwin and was used in farming and livestock raising. Back in the ‘50s we young kids could tell that our older relatives were smaller and shorter than us, so we could see that people changed over time.

Evolution involves a different natural process of less complex life-forms naturally evolving over long periods of time into more complex life-forms and certain kinds of plants and animals turning into other kinds. That’s got nothing to do with modern medicine. Do you know of a virus that has turned into something other than a virus?

[Sam5]

Why do you limit evolution to primates and humans?

We were talking about medicine, and I think the majority of the medical research during the past 200 years concerned human illnesses.

Back in the 19th Century, most families with more that 2 or 3 kids would usually lose one or more of them to common illnesses that we have cures for today. Also there were still major human plagues and epidemics in the 19th Century, even the big flu epidemic in the world around 1918, so the first big push was on to find cures for these human diseases. Leprosy was a feared illness for thousands of years, but now it can be treated with anti-biotics. This doesn't have anything to do with "evolution".

I don't think you fully understand the issue.

Modern medicine owes an incredible debt to evolution. Can you say genetics? New treatments and medications are found using evolution directly. Evolution allows us to create antibiotics and other medicines.

Lol, that’s not “natural-selection evolution”, that’s genetic engineering. People were doing selective breeding of livestock thousands of years ago. American Indians developed corn from a type of wild grass, thousands of years ago, but the grass did not “evolve” into the corn by any natural-selection means.

Of course that's evolution!

Your view of evolution is entirely too narrow. It seriously permeates throughout biology in such a way you can't possibly avoid it. It applies to humans just as much as it applies to the very diseases we treat. If we didn't understand how diseases evolved, we couldn't treat many of them effectively.

I think you are calling short-term minor changes within species "evolution", whether man-induced or naturally occurring. Maybe that's what they are teaching you in school today. Back in the '50s "evolution" meant one kind or species of animal or plant changing into another kind, that couldn't inter-breed with each other, over a long period of time.

[KHarvey16]

Why do you limit evolution to primates and humans?

We were talking about medicine, and I think the majority of the medical research during the past 200 years concerned human illnesses.

Back in the 19th Century, most families with more that 2 or 3 kids would usually lose one or more of them to common illnesses that we have cures for today. Also there were still major human plagues and epidemics in the 19th Century, even the big flu epidemic in the world around 1918, so the first big push was on to find cures for these human diseases. Leprosy was a feared illness for thousands of years, but now it can be treated with anti-biotics. This doesn't have anything to do with "evolution".

I don't think you fully understand the issue.

Modern medicine owes an incredible debt to evolution. Can you say genetics? New treatments and medications are found using evolution directly. Evolution allows us to create antibiotics and other medicines.

Lol, that’s not “natural-selection evolution”, that’s genetic engineering. People were doing selective breeding of livestock thousands of years ago. American Indians developed corn from a type of wild grass, thousands of years ago, but the grass did not “evolve” into the corn by any natural-selection means.

Of course that's evolution!

Your view of evolution is entirely too narrow. It seriously permeates throughout biology in such a way you can't possibly avoid it. It applies to humans just as much as it applies to the very diseases we treat. If we didn't understand how diseases evolved, we couldn't treat many of them effectively.

I think you are calling short-term minor changes within species "evolution", whether man-induced or naturally occurring. Maybe that's what they are teaching you in school today. Back in the '50s "evolution" meant one kind or species of animal or plant changing into another kind, that couldn't inter-breed with each other, over a long period of time.

Like I said, your view of evolution is entirely too narrow. It deals with so much more than primates evolving into humans.

[Sam5]

The ability for plants and animals to change in one way over short periods of time, and to change in other ways over long periods of time, was built into the overall system of the universe from the beginning. Just as the abilities of elements to combine and form molecules was built into the system from the beginning. The universe was quite complexly designed. Rather amazing.

[KHarvey16]

The ability for plants and animals to change in one way over short periods of time, and to change in other ways over long periods of time, was built into the overall system of the universe from the beginning.

Yeah, and we have a name for it. Starts with an E.

[Sam5]

Why do you limit evolution to primates and humans?

We were talking about medicine, and I think the majority of the medical research during the past 200 years concerned human illnesses.

Back in the 19th Century, most families with more that 2 or 3 kids would usually lose one or more of them to common illnesses that we have cures for today. Also there were still major human plagues and epidemics in the 19th Century, even the big flu epidemic in the world around 1918, so the first big push was on to find cures for these human diseases. Leprosy was a feared illness for thousands of years, but now it can be treated with anti-biotics. This doesn't have anything to do with "evolution".

I don't think you fully understand the issue.

Modern medicine owes an incredible debt to evolution. Can you say genetics? New treatments and medications are found using evolution directly. Evolution allows us to create antibiotics and other medicines.

Lol, that’s not “natural-selection evolution”, that’s genetic engineering. People were doing selective breeding of livestock thousands of years ago. American Indians developed corn from a type of wild grass, thousands of years ago, but the grass did not “evolve” into the corn by any natural-selection means.

Of course that's evolution!

Your view of evolution is entirely too narrow. It seriously permeates throughout biology in such a way you can't possibly avoid it. It applies to humans just as much as it applies to the very diseases we treat. If we didn't understand how diseases evolved, we couldn't treat many of them effectively.

I think you are calling short-term minor changes within species "evolution", whether man-induced or naturally occurring. Maybe that's what they are teaching you in school today. Back in the '50s "evolution" meant one kind or species of animal or plant changing into another kind, that couldn't inter-breed with each other, over a long period of time.

Like I said, your view of evolution is entirely too narrow. It deals with so much more than primates evolving into humans.

What you are calling “evolution” now, is not what we called the various biological traits in the ‘50s. I think we had a lot of different names for the various traits, such as “inter-breeding”, “hybridizing”, “mutations”, etc. Apparently schools today call all of this “evolution”. We were taught that “evolution” was the long-term changes in plants and animals in a progressive series of gradual and natural changes that generally moved in the direction of less complex to more complex as long periods of time passed. We didn’t call the selective breeding of “better” plants and animals “evolution”. Evolution in the ‘50s was taught as a “natural” process with no human intervention. Another type of evolution we were taught was during long-term climate changes, certain plants and animals adapted to the new (cold or hot) climate by gradually changing over time.