HuffPo: Kentucky State Exams foil anti-evolution legislators

[Skgoa]

The original title wouldn't fit.

Kentucky Evolution Fight: GOP Lawmakers Upset State Exams Test Students On 'Made Up' Theory

The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing Posted: 08/16/2012 12:24 pm Updated: 08/16/2012 5:57 pm


A group of Kentucky Republicans is up in arms over a state testing program that requires high school students preparing for college to have an understanding of biological evolution.

When the Republican state legislature voted in 2009 to link Kentucky's testing system to national education standards, it opened the door for biology exams that would test students' proficiency in the field of evolution. State Rep. Carl Rollins, a Democrat, told the Lexington Herald-Leader that this was standard practice, as ACT, the company that coordinates Kentucky's testing program, developed the material by surveying biology teachers across the country on which studies they believed should be included. They responded, rather unsurprisingly, that biological evolution was an important concept for incoming college students to grasp.

But state Republicans are now recoiling at their decision. They claim it doesn't give the theory of creationism a fair shake and places undue emphasis on the teaching of evolution, which they maintain exists only as a "theory."

"I would hope that creationism is presented as a theory in the classroom, in a science classroom, alongside evolution," state Sen. David Givens (R) said in an interview with the Herald-Leader. "We're simply saying to the ACT people we don't want what is a theory to be taught as a fact in such a way it may damage students' ability to do critical thinking."

Other Republicans voiced their concerns more colorfully.

"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up," state Sen. Ben Waide (R) said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

State Sen. Mike Wilson (R) said he thinks the system could allow students to be "indoctrinated" by the study of evolution.

Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday responded to the lawmakers' inquiry, telling them that the test is “based on evolution as a theory, not as fact.” Asked by the Republicans why teachers couldn't simply include creationism as a counterpoint to lessons on evolution, Holliday reportedly reminded them that creationism is a religious belief and doesn't have a place in a science classroom.

The National Center for Science Education took note of the report, reminding that Kentucky has a history of combativeness toward the teaching of evolution:

Previous legislative activity aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution in Kentucky's public schools includes House Bill 169 in 2011 and House Bill 397 in 2010, both based on the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act; both bills died in committee. Kentucky is apparently unique in having a statute (PDF; Kentucky Revised Statutes 158.177) on the books that authorizes teachers to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." Yet the Louisville Courier-Journal (January 11, 2006) reported that in a November 2005 survey of the state's 176 school districts, none was teaching or discussing "intelligent design."

While the debate has been rehashed countless times, Vincent Cassone, chairman of the University of Kentucky biology department and a member of the committee that helped developed ACT's testing curriculum, told the Herald-Leader that the Republicans' rejection of evolution was incomprehensible.

"The theory of evolution is the fundamental backbone of all biological research," he said. "There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein's theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised."

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... f=politics


I would really like to know how nobody saw that one coming. Especially since the US seems to willfully and consciously moving towards a "study for tests, not for real life" system of education.

[K. A. Pital]

"I would hope that creationism is presented as a theory in the classroom, in a science classroom, alongside evolution," state Sen. David Givens (R) said in an interview with the Herald-Leader. "We're simply saying to the ACT people we don't want what is a theory to be taught as a fact in such a way it may damage students' ability to do critical thinking."

"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up," state Sen. Ben Waide (R) said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

Can someone tell me why these people are in positions of power?

[Slacker]

Because there's a statistically very significant portion of our population who is mentally challenged when it comes to thinking about hard stuff and just want a bearded old dude in a robe to solve all of their problems.

On-topic, the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Common Core is delicious. There are certainly potential execution problems here in New York we're still working out, but thank god the content isn't much in question, given it's mostly our list to begin with.

[Mr Bean]

Can someone tell me why these people are in positions of power?

American gerrymandering of districts and general disinterest in politics. It used to be a big deal that Democrats and Republicans got together and built crazy looking districts to ensure one side or another had a 60% or greater share of the vote to make districts "safe" by ensuring that the 40% of those belong to a party who always vote strait ticket for that party is sufficient to get 50% of the vote of the district with only a tiny sliver of the other 10% who can vote for people on the other side.

That used to be a private concern, shared only in smoke filled rooms, these days it's in the open for all to see without comment by any media outlet of note.

[wautd]

Well, you can say a lot about republitards, but at least they're consistant in their ignorance of anything remotely scientific. Evolution, global warming, women getting pregnant from rape, plate tectonics, gravity.... all a lie. Because Magic!

[TheHammer]

"I would hope that creationism is presented as a theory in the classroom, in a science classroom, alongside evolution," state Sen. David Givens (R) said in an interview with the Herald-Leader. "We're simply saying to the ACT people we don't want what is a theory to be taught as a fact in such a way it may damage students' ability to do critical thinking."

"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up," state Sen. Ben Waide (R) said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

Can someone tell me why these people are in positions of power?

I doubt that the majority of the Republican officials actually believe what is coming out of their mouths when they say these things. However, the Republican party's base consists primarily of the rich and the ignorant. They can't afford to lose the ignorant by allowing them to be educated.

[Wing Commander MAD]

"I would hope that creationism is presented as a theory in the classroom, in a science classroom, alongside evolution," state Sen. David Givens (R) said in an interview with the Herald-Leader. "We're simply saying to the ACT people we don't want what is a theory to be taught as a fact in such a way it may damage students' ability to do critical thinking."

"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up," state Sen. Ben Waide (R) said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."

Can someone tell me why these people are in positions of power?

Representative democracy working as intended, for better or worse. I imagine the issues of low voter turn out, gerrymandering, voter suprression, etc. certainly also contribute to some degree as well.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Can someone tell me why these people are in positions of power?

Because 46% of Americans and 58% of Republicans are Creationists.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

<snip>

While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree.

[CJvR]

Can someone tell me why these people are in positions of power?

Because they are brilliant compared to the people who elected them?

[CJvR]

Funny Atheist Experience bit on unforeseen consequences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLliD2-7jLA

[Thanas]

So, 46% of US citizens are retards. Who knew.

[Themightytom]

"What a wonderful magical unknowable world we live in," the teachers said as they pushed books aside, "Let us dream of unicorns, and dinosaurs, and dragons, and kangaroos before we prepare to take the SAT's..."

[K. A. Pital]

Nice discussion there folks. There's certainly more than one answer and more than one reason. Howver, it is not just democracy "working", though, since many other places also have democracy and yet creationism doesn't seem to get a strong following there, neither among the general public nor in government.

[LaCroix]

The point is that democracy always gives power to the biggest mob. Since America was basically founded by missionaries of various types, in order to live their religious utopias, it's no wonder that they do have a loud voice.

While Europe is still rather religious, on paper, the number of people actually going to church is less than half of the official numbers. Austria, for example, is really catholic on paper, but the 'Church' has started to sell unused churches off. Most people I know are catholic on paper, because everybody gets baptized after birth, but they are in name only, and haven't stepped into a church for years, except if an event absolutely demands it. Even though their parent still claim, I guess out of habit, that they are Christians, they actually haven't even prayed in years. People just don't leave church because of what the neighbours would think...

[Wing Commander MAD]

How is the education system in those other places, now and in the recent past? The U.S. never really did all that well as a whole in getting education standards past that of your early 20th century factory worker. I'd imagine creationism would be a lot less prevalent if the education system was better. As it currently stands, I imagine there are plenty of places (particularly in the South) where teaching evolution never really got well established, add to the fact that states set their own educational curriculum (quite possibly done by politicians and not educators), and you get a rather vicious feedback loop where creationism becomes self-perpetuating. There is also the fact that Texas has undue influence over what other states teach children via their massive stake in the textbook market, I believe most publishers gravitate to either Texas or California curricula in their textbooks. The more modern trend of teaching to the big standardized tests also probably hurts, as I imagine such an environment would be more conducive to compartmentalization. Learning to regurgitate information to pass a test certainly doesn't require a conceptual understanding of the topic, and can probably easily be rationalized away after, if not outright forgotten.

Regarding educational requirements, I am not sure what the science requirements for graduation of high school in Pennsylvania were when I graduated in '05, as I took all but advanced biology and the Vocation Agricultural courses, but there was a definite divide based on academic performance. The lower performing and probably some of the average students took their science credits through the Vocational Agriculture department. I don't know what was taught, but I have doubts about whether evolution would ever come up in any significant degree in those courses. I'm almost certain though, that it was possible to graduate without taking basic biology, chemistry or physics courses. Mind you, that those subjects get touched on throughout elementary and middle school through the general science courses that all students are required to take, just not in any great detail. Then again, those who took the VoAG courses for their science requirement also were more likely to not finish traditional high school, instead transferring to the local vocational institute to finish their education. There is also the whole issue of those who choose to drop out of the educational system altogether, though I have no personal anecdotes or data regarding that.

In short, I’d lay this problem of how such people get into power at the feet of the education system in the U.S., though there are other issues. I imagine there are plenty of intelligent or even people of average intellect who none the less would be competent, who have no inclination to seek power. Therefore you have power tending to be concentrated in the hands of those who seek it rather than those who would actually use it well, to say nothing of the issues of cronyism and nepotism.