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.”
It is a bad thing. The United States is the leader in technological innovation in the world, but it's lead is shrinking. Somewhere around half of the scientific and engineering grad students in American schools are foreign-born. Sure, some stay and become American, but more and more are going back home and doing their work there. Too many American kids think their future is in marketing or entertainment or the social sciences.
What I just don't understand is why proponents of ID think that the concepts of natural selection and the origin of species are not consistent with the existence of God?
"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."
The same test if it were objectively applied to the 'THEORY' of Evolution would also produce a label of “pseudoscience" since the 'THEORY' of Evolution cannot be reproduced or proven (true or false) scientifically.
The 'THEORY' of Evolution is just as dependent upon the researcher's belief system as is Intelligent Design and requires a great deal more faith considering the prerequisite assumptions and ignored facts in conflict.
bump
The same test if it were objectively applied to the 'THEORY' of Evolution would also produce a label of “pseudoscience" since the 'THEORY' of Evolution cannot be reproduced or proven (true or false) scientifically.
The 'THEORY' of Evolution is just as dependent upon the researcher's belief system as is Intelligent Design and requires a great deal more faith considering the prerequisite assumptions and ignored facts in conflict.
Seems like I have to post these definitions on almost every thread. Study these for a while and then try again (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
Your apparent hostility to anything Christian (?)is duly noted. Realize Christians are fighting back! I repeat, choose your side, it is a free country.
How many times must we see this false statement repeated?
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.
"Establishing demaraction criteria for science is something philosophers of science have been unable to agree upon"
I agree but not all those philosophical battles are in play among practicing scientists. For instance I haven't met a scientist that doesn't believe in objective reality or that the object of inquiry in modern science is material existence, or that science doesn't seek proof but rather evidence, etc. I'd like to see how and why these ideas have been formulated before looking at how they've come to be applied.
Just so you know, you've been added to my ignore list.
And this is a problem, becuse?:^)
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.
In the second place, to what "particular religious group" and to what "whole community" do you refer?
Fundamentalist Christians; Kansans.
Are we done with the obvious questions, now?
Trying to claim that the evolution/Christianity debate is really a homosexuality/Christianity debate demonstrates that you are completely deranged, as is your calling anyone who points out your apparent lack of mental faculties "hostile to anything Christian".
"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."
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.
It doesn't need to be directly observed. All the evidence points to it happening.
How about Homo erectus =====> Homo sapiens.
rephrase: change "all the evidence points to it happening" to "there is evidence that points to it happening"
That is a understatement.
"How about Homo erectus =====> Homo sapiens."
This example was not observed and cannot be reproduced. The association is based on preconception, assumption and speculation.
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.