Freedom from fear, freedom from want ... and freedom from reason? According to CNN.com, the theory of Intelligent Design "cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district." Excuse me, what country are we in?
When I think back to the short list of things that CAN'T be discussed in public schools, this is puzzling to me. When they wanted to ban the teaching of evolution, people raised hell. They should do the same now. Not because teachers should get to say whatever they want to our kids, but that banning an idea from a science class (in which a "theory" is taught as fact) blows my mind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
You need to read more than the headline. It's not prohibited in school - but prohibited as a SCIENTIFIC subject in BIOLOGY. ID is not a science and doesn't belong in a science class. Sensational journalists of course wants attention and distort the content into a catchline like the one you saw.
As evidenced by my screen name and profile, I'm no stranger to journalism nor its sensational side. Quoting the lead was for dramatic effect. I realize they can't stop people from discussing ID in a classroom. But there's no denying this case is the Scopes Monkey Trial in reverse. What's to stop the school board from slapping a fine on a teacher who talks about it, although not directly endorsing it? ID may not be an exact science, but it is a science (definition: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena"). The school board may not have handled their original intention well with the requirements it imposed. But the result will be a witch hunt, just as it was decades ago in Tennessee. Talk about trading places. Thanks for stopping by!
You're welcome. I don't see this as the "monkey trial" in reverse; but more or less duplicated.
If a teacher started to teach about Jesus in biology, I sure would hope that he/she would be given a warning and if severe, fired. That's bad teaching. Religion belongs in a class where we teach religion. Not in biology, english or PE. And that's what this is all about.
The judge makes a good explenation why this isn't science. Even Behe had to admit that under cross-examiniation; unless you want to include astrology and santa in the same category.
What emperical observations do you have of a God? And how could you falsify ID? This makes it non-science. There are more details in this case writen by the judge. This should bring the "ID is science" discussion to an end.
Interesting to note, that this judge actually personally believes in ID.
Ok, before this gets out of hand - I just "replied" to your comment on my blog; you're welcome to email me direct, but I really hate these small comment things - it's hard to follow the dialog after a while. Doesn't mean I'm against a dialog ;)
You'll find me at ego.alter@gmail.com - should you care to continue.
Under Webster's and others' definition of science, I still think there are theories such as ID that can fit under that broad canopy. As long as the researchers are "observing," "identifying," "describing," (etc.), why not let them be labeled scientists? The fact of the matter is that a big bang leaves as many (if not more) questions about our origins than an intelligent designer. Afterall, what in our society was not made by someone? (buildings, roads, gardens) That should be the ultimate model. We don't have anything we haven't made. I don't think I'll ever understand why something from something is harder to swallow than something from nothing.
Although I don't know exactly what to think about the Penn. school board's initial requirement to read that ID statement, the statement itself isn't that radical: Evolution is a theory, there are other theories out there, here's how you could learn about one. Sure, it's a little suspect to single out ID as the one to seek out, but it is arguably the most popular alternative to Darwin's standard natural selection.
What's wrong is that your webster definition, while I haven't looked it up, is incomplete. For something to be a scientific theory there has to be several requirements fulfilled, of which ID doesn't even come close. One of them is falsification. The verdict spells this out nicely.
As to the note it had it wrong; very wrong. It's not "just a theroy". Key word here is JUST. Everything is JUST a theory in science - except for Math that works with evidence. It tries to make evolution to less than it actually is. Evolution explains so many things that it's crazy to dismiss it. We've had 150 years to falsify it so far, but alas it hasn't happend. Just the opposite - we have even more details worked out.
What I don't understand is why religion is so affraid of evolution.
This is interesting. I was just talking about this yesterday with the executive director of a non-profit organization trying to tie science, philosophy and religion together. On his board of directors is Scott Minnich, a biologist and leading proponent of ID. Their definition of intelligent design: there appears to be design in the structure of life, therefore we assume a designer. Because Science cannot discuss the existence or non-existence of God, we cannot take the argument further.
Excellent point, ibid. I remember reading about the "design" observations. Every design is designed, to put is simply. P.S. Religion is not "afraid" of evoluion, bitman.
As the Dover trail just pointed out, that idea of "design is design" is a belief, not science. There is no conflict between religion and science; there's a conflict in religion which some is trying to blame on science. I've never seen any scientists trying to disprove God. God doesn't matter to them (they describe the created - not the creation).
I would very much like to know what organization ibid is talking about. Sounds a bit like "Disocvery Sociaty" from the PA Dover trial. Science is science; philosphy is philosophy. Why anyone would make the mistake and equate the two ... ??
Sciphre institute. Who knows how well it will work. But if you think that science and philosophy exist mutually exclusive of one another, you are mistaken. One only has to look at scientific trends to see that what we have called science is now mere philosophy (the four humours, for example).
Science is based on observation, but observation is based on the individual.
Sciphre is unknown to me. A short google didn't turn anything up either. Got any reference?
Not sure I follow you on the philosphy argument. I don't see any philosophy in science - other than the basic assumptions we all do to avoid going crazy (do we really see a forest or are our eyes playing tricks on us etc).
Post a Comment