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.”
Many scientists are Christians. That is very much the point here. In fact, despite what was said by another poster, Darwin was himself arguably an intelligent design advocate-- seeing his theory as a reasonable extension of God's orderly development of the universe.
The hyperbolic mischaracterizations of ID scientific work and the panicked suggestion that science comes to an end when alternative views are acknowledged are the true threat to scientific method. This habit of 'suspecting' Christianity only creates a needless intimidation environment within scientific study. 'You're not one of those are you. ' Scientists will learn to hide their assumptions or believe that science is intrinsically opposed to religious belief. This is untrue.
If the anti-ID crowd continues with its 'witch hunt'-- metaphor chosen deliberately-- it will be science that is the loser. More dialogue would have been better. All human conclusions draw upon unprovable assumptions. That should not preclude further inquiry. Even if one wants to suppose that something came from nothing. That is a legitimate assumption as is saying something came from something. We do not know with epistemological human certainty the answer for this assumption.
Postmodernists-- who are hardly Christian conservatives--are more than happy to dismiss all of science as a purely ideological enterprise. This debate is encouraging public distrust of science since they are not open to debate. They simply say, 'oh your contrary view is not science-- it is unproven.'
As for email, I referred to one I rec'd that tried to wheedle personal info out of me--looking for ammunition, under the guise of friendly interest. But posting histories are public property. If one cares to invest any time or interest, posting habits can be very revealing. Almost like an epistolary novel--which is why so many are attracted to online discourse. People bring pet frustrations and issues to the table--usually several competing issues, interests, and frustrations. After a while, you can read between the lines.
With evos, there's never that nuance or sense of discovery. Evis and Darwinhead, blah blah blah. "They're so ignorant, so stupid." It is significant that posters like you are one-subject characters.
Most string musicians aspire beyond the same ole E-chord.
It's as if I wanted to play in the World Series of Poker, but had no money. The absence of chips keeps you out of the game. (You can play in the philosophy or comparative mythology game, if it's any consolation.)
Is anyone going to present any ID scientific work any time soon. I'm looking forward to it.
>>>I think it describes the situation in Kansas accurately. The sectarian views of a particular religious group are being imposed on the whole community.<<<
Not to be confused with the secular views of a particular anti-religious group that are being imposed on the whole community and nation.
How did you do that--post something that doesn't indicate a response to someone?
In the To: box; backspace over the name.
>>>Randomness is the ONLY possible explanation for the complexity of life. <<<
Either that, or a Designer who is a heck of a lot smarter than you.
I figured that, but it was the first time I had seen it.
Some of us have capos.
>>>Science will absolutely collapse and be destroyed if intelligent design is even mentioned as an alternative viewpoint.<<<
A strong belief in a creator by earlier scientists did not cause the collapse of science. I think you have been reading too much "Chicken Little", or too much ACLU.
Some of us have capos.
My old baseball one is getting pretty haggard-looking though.
him to another-- I think you have been reading too much "Chicken Little",
It is playing in the theaters you know.
You wrote: "With evos, there's never that nuance or sense of discovery."
Hmm. It would seem that the scientists have the most wonderful sense of discovery. It was naturalistic, scientific examination that led us to understand that infectious disease is not sent as a punishment from a god or via a "miasma", but from unseen microorganisms. It was the same careful analysis that showed that glaciers moved the rocks and carved the valleys in many mountainous regions--not Noah's flood.
"Holy books" from 2000 years ago got wrong most things related to how the world works. Nothing about reproduction was known. At the time, nobody knew what the brain was for, and they thought that emotions were centered in the heart.
And ID doesn't even have an idea about when the "intelligent meddler" did his/her thing. Having set up a Universe, with zillions of stars and planets, does the "Creator" allow natural laws to just go along or does it meddle from time to time? Based on what whim?
>>>Behe is not religious! But because his research could support Christians, we must take great alarm and protect the sacred domain of science which has always worked best when protected from inquiry?!<<<
LOL. So true. The spirit of Anti-Christ must preval, until the time appointed for its destruction.
"Science is supposed to be about rigorous inquiry."
ID is anything BUT rigorous inquiry.
"Teaching competing theories of various scientists will improve science education."
ID is not, in any way, shape, or form, a scientific theory. Therefore, teaching it as "science" will not improve science education.
ID is, at best, a philosophical statement dressed up in misused scientific language.
"I have seen so many weird lectures on my campus integrating Buddhism and various other metaphysics into evolution, biology and other sciences."
Those aren't science, either.
"I see journals publishing articles on how UFOs dropped of life on planet Earth Billions of years ago."
Those "journals" are not any sort of science journal.
"Behe is not religious!"
Nor is he scientific!
>>>Actually, Behe's contribution pretty much boils down to coming up with a definition for "irreducible complexity" that doesn't really apply to the natural world and then claiming that because the Theory of Evolution didn't jibe with his arbitrary and capricious definition, it was clearly the Theory of Evolution that is wrong.<<<
It would be helpful if evolutionists could explain irreducible complexity so we could put this matter to rest; or stop the book-burning so we could investigate further.
Please feel free to list any specific instances of this you've encountered.
Meanwhile, I'll listen to the crickets.
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.