Posted on 08/04/2005 10:31:34 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
WASHINGTON - "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses."
In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."
"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.
AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists. It publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series and holds meetings at which current research is presented to the scientific community and the public.
You have a point with regard to philosophies of law and inalienable rights.
But you don't have a point with regard to science.
The problem with the ID movement is that it seeks by the power of government to force science to expand into philosophy and religion. Issues with no evidence for science to consider.
I agree that philosophy and history of religion classes should be requirements in school. And that is where ID should be discussed. But NOT in science class, because it damages the scientific method that it is built upon.
And you know what ? My mom and Grand father, both teach Grammar at high schools.
But there is precisely the problem. Epistemologically, this is a very imprecise and parochial definition of science. "Hard science bigots," a group that I tend to include myself in, would say that you have confounded "test," in the experimental,and empirical sense, with "intertrpetation of evidence," and these are not at all the same thing.
Not that I am supporting ID. I tend to think both sides are really pursuing Ontology, not science, but neither wants to admit it.
It may be obvious in the IDer's case, but this sort of wrror is all over what we call "The sciences" today, and not just in "Evolutiob Science," if there is indeed shuch a thing.
They often can examine the object closely for tell-tale markings that fit certain uses or even make their own replicas and try out different things until it matches what it was probably used for.
It largely is educated guesswork, but there are ways to narrow the options until you hit what probably is the right one.
This headline speaks volumes about the writer's generally atrophied scientific and philosophical understanding.
I think the headline had it about right.
Headline: President Confuses Science and Belief, Puts Schoolchildren at Risk
aruanan: This headline speaks volumes about the writer's generally atrophied scientific and philosophical understanding.
narby: I think the headline had it about right
Writing skills are much more vital than science unless you actually are going into a science career.
I have not used anything I learned in science class except in debates or as reference sometimes. Never in a job setting.
Nope, too easy. I'll leave this one for someone else.
:)
Silly suggestion.
The "risk" to children in hearing that evolution isn't the only theory out there is about the same risk there would be to teaching home-ec students that there is more than one recipe for chocolate chip cookies, or showing art students that there is painting, pottery, sculpture, etc. Since when does a second point of view put students at risk? It seems that some folks fear that their own pet theories are at risk if another point of view is offered.
Differing recipies for chocolate chip cookies can be tried and evaluated. Once there is another scientific theory that addresses the evidence, it will be tried and evaluated as well.
There is nothing wrong with exposing students to a second point of view. We only require that the second point of view have the appearance of validity.
In two hundred years of opposition to Darwin, there hasn't been a single scientific theory that even comes close to evolution. Wonder why that is?
grandfather is one word
What perplexes me is the enormous amount of ingratitude that some of these people exhibit.. scientists are those who have made this country a super power, NOT Grammar teachers or trial lawyers.
There are no similarities between the two "sides".
The scientific establishment has accumulated masses of information regarding fulfilled predictions of evolution, DNA maps that agree with apparent physiological differences between species. Literally hundreds of thousands of papers presented over the 150+ years that evolution has been confirmed.
While "ID" is primarily a promotional gimmick launched and sustained by the Discovery Institute using large donations by the moonies, among others. ID is popularly supported by the fundimentalist Christian crowd, like the environmental movement is supported by fundimentalist liberals.
The ID movement has much more in common with the environmental movement, which is a parasite of science, and does most of its work in the political/PR arena, not in the truth finding arena.
You could say that, but it would not be true. Forensic science is not rubbish just because you can't repeat historic events in the laboratory. The simple fact is that all science is questionable at its frontiers and becomes increasingly confident when expectations based on hypotheses are met for decades or centuries.
But no science, not even physics, ever proves anything or reaches finality with perfect mathematical relationships.
The only thing that comes close is quantum theory, and that covers a limited (although vast) range of phenomena.
..and Kansas should have a capital K (apropos your ID)
world-gone-mad alert.
Exactly. Plus there is much more harm to them in learning about sexual techniques in grade school. But, we can't have any independent thinking going on, now can we! ;-)
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.