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.”
Sure. It's a fantasy cooked up by Michael Behe to sell books to suckers.
What do I win for the first correct answer?
>>>Science education will be destroyed if something that is not science is presented as science. <<<
It survived okay with the presentation of evolution as science.
"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."
Actually, it would be far more helpful if the proponents of the notion of "irreducible complexity" could explain what the heck they mean by the term. Since they cannot explain what "irreducible complexity" is, any theory that depends on the concept is automatically non-falsifiable and thus untestable.
>>>Evolution can be reproduced in the laboratory. No scientific theory can be proven; but any scientific theory is testable. Evolution has been tested many, many times, and has held up.<<<
How so?
>>>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.<<<
How did the actions of the Kansas School Board infringe on the Constitution and human freedom?
>>>This is a fallacy with no basis in fact. There has never been seen a verified example of one species evolving into another. It just doesn't happen.<<<
At least not that anyone can prove. Variations of individual species do occur, depending on habitat (or, maybe, the pleasure of the Designer). But specie jumps are unproven, and highly unlikely.
Asked and answered. Read the thread.
You wrote: "Not to be confused with the secular views of a particular anti-religious group that are being imposed on the whole community and nation."
Reply: Secular means "not based on religion." Our Constitution is secular--it never mentions a god or Christian doctrines. It specifically mentions "no religious test." This is NOT anti-religious. Please consider...
The role of government is to deal with civil matters, and in doing so neither to promote religion nor to hinder personal beliefs. Every property owner is free to put up Christian or Hindu or Muslim or Jewish symbols--but, as the Supreme Court said in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale), "It is no part of the businesss of Governments to be composing prayers."
Secular is the neutral position. Government is to be neutral.
Throughout all time, churches and cults have tried to capture the power of government to promote their own agendas. There are many instances. Secular means that the power of priests and pastors is to be separate from the power of civil authority.
Every genome and gene sequence published is a test of evolution.
Science does not come to an end when alternative scientific views are acknowledged. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a) holding that a particular philosophical point is science, when it's not, and then b) teaching children that something non-scientific is scientific.
If a bunch of adults want to beat their gums about this, fine. No harm done. But don't teach kids that something non-scientific is scientific, or you're creating a mess of science education. Kansas is taking the correct approach; they're teaching ID, but they are teaching it in a philosophical setting, not a scientific one.
Asked and answered. Read the thread.
Actually, your answer wasn't all that responsive. You said, "By adding religiously motivated falsehoods to the biology curriculum, they infringe on the right of Kansans to be free of an established religion.", but you failed to make it clear how the actions of the Kansas BoE can be considered to have either added religiously motivated falsehoods to the biology curriculum or how these actions comprise an establishment of a religion.
>>>Wrong. In fact, very wrong. You'd think people would know by now how how false this statement is. Yet people keep claiming it, in willful disregard for the truth.<<<
That is quite a stretch to claim those meager papers -- even if not fabricated -- prove the theory of evolution.
>>>You asked for a verified example, and I gave you one -- How about Homo erectus =====> Homo sapiens.<<<
LOL. You are some comedian!
I should hope so. The various theories comprising evolution and natural selection is one of the triumphs of modern day science.
No one claimed they proved the theory of evolution. They are instances of speciation. Please try to argue honestly.
It would be helpful if evolutionists could explain irreducible complexity
Sure. It's a fantasy cooked up by Michael Behe to sell books to suckers.
What do I win for the first correct answer?
>>>Behe wasn't functioning as a scientist when he formulated his ID theories...there's not a bit of science in ID.<<<
You mean, there is no Math in Behe's theories, don't you?
number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
I think it is 35.
>>>By adding religiously motivated falsehoods to the biology curriculum, they infringe on the right of Kansans to be free of an established religion.<<<
You have been reading too much ACLU. There is no Constitutional right to be free of an established religion. The Constitution protects us only from the Congress, in that the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were clear that this meant no particular Christian denomination shall be imposed on the people by the federal Congress. Nothing else.
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.