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 Im trying to do is deal with pseudoscience regardless of where its 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.
I respect your beliefs and agree with some of your opinions here too. I don't like attacks against Christianity any more than anyone does, though sometimes some of the worst attacks come from one Christian against another--some of the religion threads I've seen are evidence of that. I respect any God-fearing, humble Christian striving to do what's right. And I respect ANYONE who tries to live their life with integrity and forthrightness.
My faith is what makes my religion true to me and the many experience I've had that are demonstrations of that faith. However, those are mine and mine alone. Each person has to develop his faith/beliefs for himself.
You seem like a person I can respect.
"Yeah, and I'll bet you play New Age."
Never heard of it.
Oh yes we are! And our name is Bob.
"We have nothing to argue about."
HEHE. That's why I am not looking to get into an argument here. I'm here to learn what I can from views different from my own.
Right. Most of what is called race is simply adaptation to different climates. Has little to do with descent. To track descent you need DNA, etc.
"Oh yes we are! And our name is Bob."
That's very close. :)
See ya later, Bob!
Sorry bud, that's why I differentiated between humans and animals because we use the term race differently than subspecies when we apply it to humans. With animals, we often don't.
What about quantum theory has changed since 1928?
Anyway, no thread to post for now - you know what I'm talking about, and that's quite enough for the moment.
Nonsense. What could be more conservative than expecting science to be determined by solid evidence and well reasoned arguments that are critically debated? When ID can produce something resembling scientific evidence it can be discussed as science. Until then its just mythology.
That is Dr. Juvenile to you. And I think you just made my VI list as well.
Actually, the statement is pretty much spot-on, and explains why ID can't get any traction in the scientific community.
" That is Dr. Juvenile to you. And I think you just made my VI list as well."
Bob,
But, we're all the same person, remember? If she's on one of our VI lists, wouldn't she be on all of ours? It's like thinking about time travel, gives me a headache... :)
Bob
actually theories of gravity are far less solid than the theory of evolution
They're not. They're about getting your little clique together for a sneer-fest.
You don't participate in the wider threads. You don't even indulge in a chat about a movie. You're just here to find someone you can call stupid. I guess, so your little club can feel really smart?
Liar! Yes we are. I do all the evo posts, imbetween marching in pink-parades, attending anti-globalisation rallies, protesting against Bush's evil war of agression in Iraq, and handing out animal-rights-leaflets. I also write a lot of the stupider creationist posts too, to make the creationists look even more foolish than they look without my help; Oh wait... mamzelle... these split personalities can get real tricky. I am you too.
What about quantum theory has changed since 1928?
Like I said, I'm not an expert. Some of the examples that I gave may or may not apply to quantum physics, but they certainly are relatively new developments. A LOT in science has changed since 1928, that's for sure. Even if quantum physics has not basically changed since then, it has come more into being in the last few years.
C'mon, Bedfellow, what previous incarnation on FR are you?
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.