Posted on 11/28/2005 6:54:46 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
Intelligent design — already the planned subject of a controversial Kansas University seminar this spring — will make its way into a second KU classroom in the fall, this time labeled as a “pseudoscience.”
In addition to intelligent design, the class Archaeological Myths and Realities will cover such topics as UFOs, crop circles, extrasensory perception and the ancient pyramids.
John Hoopes, associate professor of anthropology, said the course focused on critical thinking and taught how to differentiate science and “pseudoscience.” Intelligent design belongs in the second category, he said, because it cannot be tested and proven false.
“I think this is very important for students to be articulate about — they need to be able to define and recognize pseudoscience,” Hoopes said.
News of the new class provided fresh fuel to conservatives already angered that KU planned to offer a religious studies class this spring on intelligent design as “mythology.”
“The two areas that KU is trying to box this issue into are completely inappropriate,” said Brian Sandefur, a mechanical engineer in Lawrence who has been a vocal proponent of intelligent design.
Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without a “designer,” presumably a god or other supernatural being. That concept is at the heart of Kansas’ new public school science standards — greatly ridiculed by the mainstream science community but lauded by religious conservatives — that critique the theory of evolution.
Hoopes said his class would be a version of another course, titled Fantastic Archaeology, which he helped develop as a graduate student at Harvard University.
The course will look at the myths people have created to explain mysterious occurrences, such as crop circles, which some speculate were caused by extraterrestrials.
The course will explore how myth can be created to negative effects, as in the case of the “myth of the moundbuilders.” In early American history, some people believed the earthen mounds found primarily in the area of the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys were the works of an ancient civilization destroyed by American Indians. The myth contributed to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which relocated American Indians east of the Mississippi to lands in the west, Hoopes said.
“It was that popular explanation that then became a cause for genocide,” Hoopes said.
That example shows the need to identify pseudoscience, he said.
“What I’m trying to do is deal with pseudoscience regardless of where it’s coming from,” he said.
But Sandefur said intelligent design was rooted in chemistry and molecular biology, not religion, and it should be discussed in science courses.
“The way KU is addressing it I think is completely inadequate,” he said.
Hoopes said he hoped his class stirs controversy. He said students liked to discuss topics that are current and relevant to their lives.
“Controversy makes people think,” he said. “The more controversy, the stronger the course is.”
Aggressive threat noted.
Would you get upset if I called her a mammal, or a vertebrate? If not why not?
that it is being taught as a myhtology
What's myhtology?
As my high-school history teacher said, never overlook the obvious.
I'm a believer in human freedom in general and the US Constitution in particular. The actions of the Kansas School Board infroinge on both
If I don't live in Kansas what difference does the action of some Kansas political board make to me? I think the notion that the decision of some Kansas governmental education board violates the U.S. Constituion is ridiculous, turns the meaing of the First Amendment upside down, and results in the infringment of certain preogatives of human freedom, such as self-government.
Fundamentalist Christians; Kansans.
A caricature of ID proponents as Fundamentalist Christians is false and unsustainable, but even if it were true it is irrelevant to whether ID is science or not because it confuses the legitimacy of an idea with its purported source, which is a genetic fallacy.
But if Kansas wants to do what it wants to do, what is that to me? I believe in a republican form of government. I'm not interested in stamping out the ideas of people in another state who might disagree with me about what is science or not.
Cordially,
There you go, making the mistake of being honest again. How are we ever going to get into a flame war with you?
him to another---The controversy is really between Christian culture and the homosexual agenda. Choose your side!-----
Huh?
Actually, it's not necessarily ONE particular religious groups, as different groups of Christianity have different views on creation.
OK What did Karl Popper know about either?
I think he's good at popcorn.
Science is pretty much responsible for every comfort we have in life. I resent that this ID debate gets equated to/applied to ALL science. I'm an IDer, but I've never had a problem with learning science.
Huh?
If you are talking about mild variation within limits, OK.
If you are talking about viruses to bacteria, or bacteria
to viruses, or dinoflaggelates to amoeba, or chemicals to
prions, or fungi to bacteria, or protozoa to viruses, or
fish to amphibian, etc...i think you are incorrect. I don't
believe that these have every been demonstrated in any
laboratory. All changes seem to be small, and may involve
mostly malfunctions or deletions of the already present
structures. The best example is the "resistance" to certain
antibiotics of staph aureus..
Too many American kids think their future is in marketing or entertainment or the social sciences.
Nice point.
In my view they are. I just believe God was behind the process. I believe in creation, but I've never had a problem with evolution. I see science as man's way of explaining God's processes. The truth is that NO ONE knows everything for sure. I don't and I'm comfortable with that. I'm more worried about where I came from than where I'm going anyways.
"Evolutionists ... know they have not found all the answers." You've ceded my point, of which you accused me of not having one."
Actually, I wrote (in post#92),
"Evolutionists, unlike creationists, know they have not found all the answers.". Wonder why you edited that part out...
This was in response to your false claim that scientists think they have found all the answers. You posted this claim in post#90. When I was asking you for a point to your post, that was in reference to your post#85.
Nice turn of events for me. :)
There has never been seen a verified example of one species evolving into another.
Actually it has happened with isolated populations (especially in mice) that get cut off from another population of the same species. It happens to a lesser extent with isolated peoples--they don't necessarily "evolve" into another species, but they do develop their own culture, customs, and such.
But I see plenty of adults that act like lower life forms. It HAS to be true:).
The pertinent Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote is so obvious here, I'll let you fill it in.
I think the notion that the decision of some Kansas governmental education board violates the U.S. Constituion is ridiculous, turns the meaing of the First Amendment upside down, and results in the infringment of certain preogatives of human freedom, such as self-government.
Please review the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy, and recall we are the former and not the latter.
A caricature of ID proponents as Fundamentalist Christians is false and unsustainable, but even if it were true it is irrelevant to whether ID is science or not because it confuses the legitimacy of an idea with its purported source, which is a genetic fallacy.
ID is primarily a political movement, not an idea. Testimony in the Dover trial made that crystal clear. It's creationism in a cheap tuxedo; nothing more.
keep...
"they want to (keep) science (education) out of the realm of politics"
Do you believe in the global flood too?
I don't know if there was a global one, but there are sure a lot of legends about one besides the Biblical story. There has been evidence of gigantic floods happening before, though, like in the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest US.
Go back and read my post. My criticism was specifically targeted at Behe's definition of IC, upon which he bases his argument. Since his definition is fundamentally flawed, any conclusions vis-a-vis the Theory of Evolution that he derives from it are equally suspect.
Do you have difficulty with the idea that big changes can result from a series of small changes? For example, do you think that because interest only compounds at 4% every year, your money market account will never double? And mutations resulting in new, positive functionality have been amply demonstrated.
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.