Posted on 05/15/2005 4:05:49 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself.
Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.
Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.
The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.
"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.
The conservative [AAARRRRGGGHHH!!!] state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.
State and national science groups boycotted last week's public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.
Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.
The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."
Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals.
One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as "a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." That's close to the current definition.
The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.
The Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards in 1999, but elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives [AAARRRRGGGHHH!!!] recaptured the board's majority in 2004.
Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas.
"I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."
Evolution defenders scoff at the notion.
"In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."
I can't stand it when these creationists are described as "conservative." Everyone be nice.
|
I personally am burned out on this subject - at least for now. I'm just gonna sit back and see what others have to say.
Who says the rules can't be rewritten? Were they written by God or something? :)
It is fool hardy to claim that everything is known. It is theoretical and some pieces may change with new evidence. This is not to say that the theory is entirely wrong, just to admit that there have been changes made to some of the arguments over the past 100 years. Some past explanations even included hoaxed evidence.
Let us extrapolate this to the topics of Global Warming and Homosexuality. Should schools be able to claim that "Global Warming" is real and that it is a measurable trend caused by (Western World) man's industrialization? Should schools be able to claim that homosexuality is genetic? Should they be able to claim that abortion is not murder?
Students should be able to raise questions in the theories. We do them no favors to present it as unquestionable fact. We should be mature enough to explain that there are things that we don't know yet. Note, the "yet". If all of the books on science were already written, there would be no research grants, no new experimentation.
"Who says the rules can't be rewritten? Were they written by God or something? :)"
We shouldn't have to redefine marriage just to make some group feel better about themselves and their lifestyle...oh, wait...wrong thread.
off topic rhetorical question, "Why do homosexuals want the right to marry? Do these couples believe that without same sex marriage they are living in sin in the eyes of God?"
But a perfect analogy.
Coyoteman can't come out to play either.
LOL - I'm really gonna try not to jump in but sometimes it's hard not to. However, I'm having a nice quiet Sunday evening and will do my best to keep it that way!
"But a perfect analogy."
Thanks! I was a little worried it might be lost in the carnage. Glad you caught it.
|
No pun intended, I'm sure.
We have to face this fact: Left wing nut jobs are NOT the ones attempting to toss evolution in favor of creationism. This is part of the fabled "big tent". Some conservatives, not me, are pushing this. They are seen as conservatives and they represent us and define us, wrongly, to the country. I believe this needs to be stifled.
Yes, but the Amish seem content to go their own way. Not so these creationists. They want to undo the entire enterprise of science.
Amen!
Well, maybe "Amen" isn't the right word here. But I agree with you 100%.
I'm skeptical about everything, Darwin's Theory included. Clearly it has some flaws, and almost surely portions of it will be proved wrong. But I had to chose between Darwin's theory and the "universe created last Tuesday" crowd, I wouldn't hesitate to go with the former.
If the creationists want to make their case, and argue for the inclusion of their textbooks in school systems, that is most certainly their right. But I take exception to any appropriation of the "conservative" label.
I like your screen name, but I am not a supporter of evolution. I have a post graduate degree in science and the suggestion that life as incredibly complex as it is arose in a primordial soup somehow strikes me as a relgious and blind faith as a statement that God made the world in six days.
There should be a debate; I am not opposed to having students exposed to the "theory" of evolution, but in the end, if there is no Intelligent Designer, and life is just a big accident, then all life is ultimately meaningless, we are all reduced to cosmic jokes. You can dress up that reality by saying we human beings can invent "human rights, be nice to people, blah, blah, blah," but it's just your opinion and no one has to believe it. If life is an accident, then all power is really to the strong among us and the weak have no right to be here if a strong person wants them out of the way.
All things must have a first cause, that first cause is God. DNA, RNA, proteins just assembled themselves, all by themselves---sorry to disagree with a FReeper, but that's the real fairy tale here.
"a systematic method of continuing investigation..."
What does systematic mean in this context? Would a carefully monitored and measured usage of LSD as a means of gaining knowledge of God and the super-physical realms meet this standard of "systematic?" It seems to me that such a method of enquiry could be made quite "systematic."
The place to make their case is in the world of science, where they don't even try. They do no research, and they have no scientific theory. What they want is a form of affirmative action for their unsupported and untestable views.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.