Posted on 10/06/2005 5:04:43 AM PDT by gobucks
How interesting.
How does creationism qualify as a science course, since it has absolutely no scientific foundation?
Creationism will be a science course when the courts promote it to such status thorugh intellectual affermative action. The Dover, PA case is the first of many. The Univeristy of California is being sued over denying admission to science programs for students that studied creationism in Christian high schools. I suspect there is a strategy to use the courts to force creationism and ID into science classes all the way from kindergraden through graduate school. There are people that want even graduate level biology programs to be forced by the government, through treats of funding, and the courts to stop using evolution and use only ID and creationism. These people will not be satsfied until science is replaced by theology.
That's not the issue. The issue is whether administrators should tell professors what they can or can't mention in a class.
Suppose an administrator said that no economics course could mention Adam Smith ... or that no economics course could mention Karl Marx? Either way, it's a question of control over the content of courses.
ID begs the question by pre-supposing an intelligent creator. Furthermore, a mere question, no matter what the topic, does not make a science. Neither ID nor creationism are based upon the scientific method.
Nevertheless, as a past chairman of our University's Academic Standards Committee, I can answer your question. The curricula are established by the University Faculty Senate, or a subset thereof: The Academic Standards Committee. The chief admninistrator is responsible to oversee that the curricula are followed. Putting non-scientific content, such as the super-naturalism of ID or creationism, into science courses violates the academic standards.
Thanks, but pass.
Just an FYI ping.
No, it doesn't. You've overlooked your own definition, to wit: "...according to scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or The organized body of knowledge gained by such research."
To a scientist, science, first of all, is a method of inquiry. Those unfamiliar with science often cannot grasp this fact and try, instead, to elevate science to a status as being one of the ultimate search for truth. It is not.
Science has inherent limitations and, as such, does not search for truth among the supernatural or non-empirical.
It's a good start. Now if only we can get rid of nuttiness which has infected the social sciences and humanities, we would be able to return our learning institutions to their former glories. We should still keep a few radical feminists around, but only on display, as evidence of our common ancestry with apes.
>If it is taught as science, it will only confuse what is the meaning of science and will denigrate all scientific disciplines,
That's an illinformed piece of fiction.The major principles that form the bed rock for science and the scientific method were developed by creationist before Darwin was born.Francis Bacon etc.
> To humanists, any suggestion of uncertainty in any element of evolution is unforgivable.
This is, of course, patently absurd. Take a look at the current state of evolutionary science; it's constantly in flux as new information comes in. This is as it should be in a *real* science.
> The major principles that form the bed rock for science and the scientific method were developed by creationist before Darwin was born.Francis Bacon etc.
You forgot to mention that the major principles that form the bed rock for science and the scientific method were developed by ancient Greek pagans, atheists and agnostics. Aristarchos, Archimedes, etc.
The point is that teaching about intelligent design and the weaknesses of the evolution theory will not retard science education or development in the US.
"The point is that teaching about intelligent design and the weaknesses of the evolution theory will not retard science education or development in the US."
It will when the alleged *weaknesses* don't exist. ID is an argument from ignorance and incredulity.
Here's your whole quote: "Reasoned investigation or study of nature, aimed at finding out the truth. Such an investigation is normally felt to be necessarily methodical, or according to scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or The organized body of knowledge gained by such research. Science is knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method. Scientific knowledge relies heavily upon logic."
Relying heavily upon logic does not mean relying solely upon logic. Logic that is based upon emirical observation is the key here, not logic based upon the pre-suppostion of the supernatural. Logic alone does not make a science.
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.