castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Kan. Debate Challenges Science Itself

May 15, 2005 7:20 PM EDT
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.

"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.

The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.

State and national science groups boycotted last week's public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.

Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.

The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."

Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals.

One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as "a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." That's close to the current definition.

The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.

The Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards in 1999, but elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives recaptured the board's majority in 2004.

Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas.

"I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."

Evolution defenders scoff at the notion.

"In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."

----

On the Net:

State Board of Education: http://www.ksbe.state.ks.us

Discovery Institute: http://www.discovery.org

American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org

Copyright 2005 Associated Press.

[JuntaJoe]

This whole Kansas thing scares the crap out of me.

[s_stabeler]

i don't understand what they are trying to do. are they trying to make science more creation-friendly?

[JuntaJoe]

They want to insert Genesis into public education.

[Brf]

yup. They want to be able to teach creationism without envoking The Bible.

[JuntaJoe]

If parents wish their children to learn Creationism then all they have to do is put the kid into Sunday school.

No biggie. Most churches have it. No parent needs to feel that their desires for Creation teaching will be missed.

But to demand that government redefine the basic concept that science is based in physical and demonstratable proofs is just wrong.

Science will crumble without that underpinning.

I would never begrudge a parent to let their child learn Creationism, but let the concept be learned in the proper place. Church.

[CooJoe]

what about teaching both as possibilities?

[Batchman]

Yes, and what about teaching evolution as a theory, instead of as fact, which is how it is taught in almost all public schools.

[JuntaJoe]

Teach both?

How?

Discuss material from the Bible in a publicly funded school?

Or perhaps they could discuss any proven scientific data on the topic? Oh right, there is none.

Look, there's no real way to teach creationism when you consider the twin pillars of church/state separation and proper scientific theory.

Sure, they could add something like this at the begining of the book:

There are alternate hypotheses concerning the way our universe came to be as it is today as proposed by many spiritual institutions. Please contact you spiritual counselor of choice for more information.

But that's about as far as it's safe to go and not totally shatter the concept of the scientific method. Without the scientific method, we would still be riding horses, eating about 10 total foods in our regular diet, die before 50, and be going to the local blood leech for our ailments. Nothankyouverymuch!

[CooJoe]

I was thinking of giving an overview of the various point of view, about creation.

IE:

Hindis believe that the brahma bull sacrificed himself to create the universe...

Judeo-Christian Beliefs, and Islam teach that God created the earth in 6 days, them on the 6th day created man from the dirt...

Bhuddist tradition dictates...

That sorta thing.

[s_stabeler]

it has been floated in my religious education lessons( part of the curriculum in britain) that rather than meaning 24 hours as suck, it means the periods in which life developed, in other words, that it was talking about not the time, but how life developed. seems rather similar to evolution, if yoiu ask me, just put in a much simpler form, and trying to explain how life began on earth. not nessecasrily stricly true in the details, but right in the big picture. and it even has the rough order corect( the only part where there is a factual error is that the seas came after the land)

[JuntaJoe]

Both ideas are fine, but they are best given in a religious education class when you discuss American public education. The Constitution is pretty clear. If they can drag copies of the 10 Commandments out of courthouses then Creationism has no place in a publicly built classroom. Sunday school at churches or part of a private school curriculum is perfectly fine.

Another option would be a purpose built anthropology/sociology class that is built around an overview of all religions, past and up to 50 years before the present. No discussion of the current state of world religion. No weight would be given to any religious culture either. Dogma could be explained, but not tested for. Only locations, times, and significant figureheads would be tested. Toss in a bit of geography and migration patterns for good measure. Last, make it an optional credit class. As an elective with an ability to skip it for another course without affecting a student's gpa then I feel most bases are covered in a public school setting.

But in a proper science class in a publicly funded school, the absolute limit would be the passage I mentioned earlier. It would be explained on the first day in the class and the topic never brought up again for the rest of the semester. Nothing involved with Creationism should be tested on in a proper science course.

[Anonymous]

Here's my take on it: Only scientifically valid theories should be presented in a science class. This completely excludes creationism, as it is a mythological theory, and thus if taught at all belongs in a social studies/ social science course, not a biological / life science course. Plain and simple. It would be like teaching astrology in an astronomy class....They're not compatable, damnit...

[JuntaJoe]

You don't have to sell me on that one. :wink:

[Decoy]

Creation is no less likely than evolution, but creation requires the acceptance of religion, which is unheard of in secular society. Creation (or 'intelligent design') is no less scientifically valid, as it does not (except if you specify a particular religion's creation) necessitate a deity taking part, but could simply be an intelligent race. It sounds more farfetched to most, simply because they are of the opinion that creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

The other thing that the definition implies is that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, something which is most definitely not the case in the traditional definition.

[Eddy]

I have no problem with "intelligent design" being taught in science class. As long as I can teach evolution in church.

[JuntaJoe]

We may nave been "created" by a more powerful entity, but there is no proof.

Whereas, we have tons of information based off sedimentary layers and carbon dating to refute the claims by religions as to their idea of creation. All major religions have some form of "story" on how it happened. All have been debunked. If creation did happen then it follows absolutely none of the hypothesis already proposed.

The point is that modern science is taught all over the world based on the scientific method. To date, no religion has bothered to include that critical filter in their proposal. Thus, it doesn't belong in a science class. Anthropology, sociology, or theology classes are the better fit for Creation hypotheses.

Note that I didn't say Creation Theory. By proper definition a theory requires some verified data for the supposition.


Btw Decoy, welcome to the debate board. You are the first of the TWG group to step in here. I let this board have boundaries that are further out, but are more solid. I have long term members that still shy away from this area. Some find the heat a bit too much. Expect to be challenged on your comments. Of course the converse is true too. Don't be shy about challenging back.

Or as some of my more shy members might say: May God have mercy on your soul if you go in there. :lol:

[JuntaJoe]

I post too slow!


Eddy wrote: I have no problem with "intelligent design" being taught in science class. As long as I can teach evolution in church.

Hehehe. Now that would be fun to watch. :P

[CooJoe]

Actually, we have been learning about evolution in bible study.

[JuntaJoe]

You go to a private school, CooJoe, and have a blended ciriculum.

They are free to mix the two up and have the luxury of time.

A church based Bible study group only has one day a week and no mandatory attendance requirement. Thus, those classes will avoid aspects of evolution as simply a time waster.