Nonprofit group criticizes proposed Kansas science standards [that attack evolution]

The Wichita Eagle ^ | 13 October 2005 | JOHN MILBURN

[balrog666]

You want useless, try education departments. At every college I attended they were laughed at; worse even than sociology.

Worse even than PE!

Auugghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[b_sharp]

The big question is still unanswered...Are we CS dudes 'cool'?

[Coyoteman]

The big question is still unanswered...Are we CS dudes 'cool'?

Well, if you have to ask...

But, archaeologists are definitely cool! (Think dirty--shower with an archaeologist)

[furball4paws]

You don't know yet?

[furball4paws]

It would be better called computer engineering.

[furball4paws]

Science has a big experimental piece to it. CS is largely application driven engineering, although a portion with the R&D on new semiconductors, etc. is certainly scientific. Take your pick.

You want to be a computer geek or a science geek?

[WildTurkey]

Cobol was cool .... in 1999.

[csense]

Another article about the Kansas mess: Antievolutionism bad for business in Kansas.

I might add that it's bad for conservatism too.

And to imply that free inquiry into a category of thought is inherently bad...is itself bad for conservatism.

[WildTurkey]

And to imply that free inquiry into a category of thought is inherently bad...is itself bad for conservatism.

Of course, part of that ID philosophy is that God may be dead since there is no recent evidence for his existence. You are ok with that free inquiry in the science class, right?

[b_sharp]

"You want to be a computer geek or a science geek?"

I am a Computer geek. I'd like to be a science geek too.

I've been a geek for 45 years, I might as well go all the way.

[b_sharp]

What, you think I'm a mind reader? You expect me to read my own mind? Eeewwww.

[b_sharp]

"Cobol was cool .... in 1999"

Prove it!

[Coyoteman]

And to imply that free inquiry into a category of thought is inherently bad...is itself bad for conservatism.

It is not free inquiry. It is not inquiry at all. CS/ID has the answer already, so there is no need for data, hypothesis testing, theory building, research, or any of the things science does.

The only way there could be any inquiry is testing competing stories of creation among the world's approximately 4,200 extant religions. Is that what the CS/ID folks want? (And what will you use for data?)

[furball4paws]

I know I am not cool. My sons tell that almost daily. The laugh, though, is that my eldest is just like.

(hah! take that, world)

[furball4paws]

me

[csense]

Of course, part of that ID philosophy is that God may be dead since there is no recent evidence for his existence. You are ok with that free inquiry in the science class, right?

I'm not familiar with the inferences of ID, so I can't comment on whether your characterization is correct here, but, and to address the question in general, aside from just saying it, i.e, God is dead, in what way can one acquire knowledge, or impart knowledge, of something that doesn't exist.

Doesn't sound like much of an inquiry to me, although your mileage could vary...

[csense]

As per my response to Wild Turkey, I'm not familiar with the specific inferences of ID (nor am I here to defend it, for that matter) so I as yet again do not know whether it is being correctly represented. Both of you though are missing the point in my response.

[WildTurkey]

Of course, part of that ID philosophy is that God may be dead since there is no recent evidence for his existence. You are ok with that free inquiry in the science class, right?

I'm not familiar with the inferences of ID, so I can't comment on whether your characterization is correct here,

I notice a big duck on the question. One more duck and I have to assume that you are ok with teaching children that God may be dead.

[PatrickHenry]

I know I am not cool.

I don't need to be cool. The Grand Master smiles upon me.

[b_sharp]

"me"

me too.