Slashdot Mirror


Kansas Challenges Definition of Science

nysus writes "Anti-evolutionists have made classrooms in Kansas a key battleground in America's culture war. Again. The New York Times reports they are proposing to change the definition of science in Kansas: 'instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."'" From the article: "In the first of three daylong hearings being referred to here as a direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science's explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator."

20 of 2,759 comments (clear)

  1. Only in Kansas... by cplusplus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ever been to Kansas (you know, the state where this trial is taking place)? It's SO FLAT there that there is nothing to obstruct your view (like hills and mountains). Basically, everyone there is crazy because the can see to infinity, which would drive anyone mad. "We're so crazy, we ignore observation and reproducible scientific evidence!"
    In Kansas, you can watch your dog run away for ten days.

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
  2. They are doing it for the babes by Timesprout · · Score: 3, Funny

    Saying 'I'm part of a continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena' will be a pussy magnet line when she asks what you do for a living.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  3. Breaking Point. by Malicious · · Score: 3, Funny

    Typical... When the masses won't let you change the bible anymore, you might as well try to change Science.

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Call me a conspiracy nut... by stubear · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...but after reading Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" I'm convinced the Catholic church and its ilk are attempting to subvert science by consuming it like they did pagan religions centuries ago. By using intelligent design as their trojan horse, they can introduce religion into science and public schools without referring to any particular religion.

  6. HHGttG Reference by Log+from+Blammo · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Intelligent Design proponents had better be careful, or they might end up proving God out of existence.

    "I refuse to prove that I exist" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."

    "Oh," says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn't it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don't. Q.E.D."

    "Oh, I hadn't thought of that," says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

    --
    "This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
  7. Re:Laughingstock by HiVizDiver · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, the nuclear arsenal is blessedly safe. The nuculer arsenal, however...

  8. Re:Intelligent Navel Theory by david.given · · Score: 5, Funny
    Wait. You mean, the universe was outsourced?

    You know, this explains a lot of things...

  9. Intelligent designer ? by protolith · · Score: 5, Funny

    what intelligent designer would design us so that we used the same tube for both respiration and eating?

    Yea, and who put a sewer line in a recreational area!?

  10. Re:What Science Really is... by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Funny

    For instance, I could say "All objects fall." I drop rocks, a computer, my girlfriend, and a 1982 Dodge Dart off of a cliff: they all fall.

    Then I drop a duck, and it flies off. So I revise my guess: "All inert objects fall."


    Your girlfriend is inert?

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  11. Re:What Science Really is... by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 5, Funny

    I dispute that - I think it'll be a great example of evolution.

    The rest of the educated world will carry on learning evolution and other current best scientific theories. Our society and culture will advance, our technology will progress and we and our children will prosper in an atmosphere of rationality and freedom.

    Kansas will devolve into a state where new ideas are banned, technology regresses and anything that contradicts the "Big Beard In The Sky" theory is first repressed, then outlawed. The people will grow up stupid and ignorant, to raise even more stupid and ignorant kids. Eventually the vicious cycle will spiral on down, until the populace is exclusively composed of barely-intelligent hominids, eventually losing the powers of speech and fire.

    At this point we'll stop recognising them as human, and we can hunt and kill them for food. Eventually Homo Kansasians will effectively die out in the wild, out-competed by more intellectual wild animals or hunted into extinction by Homo Sapiens. Oh, alright, some small bedraggled breeding colonies might survive in zoos, and may eventually be Uplifted to normal human cognition again, but as a wild species they'll be extinct.

    Voilá. Evolution in action.

    --
    Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
  12. Bumper Sticker by sharp-bang · · Score: 5, Funny

    When Evolution Is Outlawed
    Only Outlaws Will Evolve

    --
    #!
  13. Re:More like Kansas by Fahrenheit+450 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are you my ex girlfriend?

    --
    -30-
  14. Re:What Science Really is... by MagicDude · · Score: 4, Funny

    What Science Really is... (Score:3, Interesting) by mfh (56)

    56??? Geez grandpa, instead of debating the meaning of science, why don't you just tell us whether Evolution or Creationism is the right answer, you must have been around back then.

  15. Re:You know... by Zone-MR · · Score: 4, Funny
    If I say "Unicorns don't exist" I could, if I want to get trapped in the language game, dig myself a hole: by naming unicorns I'm referring to a concept with a name and that concept must then exist - that contradicts the rest of my statement that the thing I names doesn't exist.

    Heh, a nice example from bash.org:
    Let us assume AUT is a University.
    2150km from AUT in Port Douglas, Queensland, there are many crocodiles.
    Crocodiles are wider than they are green:
    Let's look at the crocodile. It is wide on the top and on the bottom, but it is
    green only on the top. Therefore, the crocodile is wider than it is green.
    Crocodiles are greener than they are long:
    Let's look at the crocodile. It is green along its length and width, but it is
    long only along its length. Therefore, the crocodile is greener than it is long.
    Since crocodiles are wider than they are green, and greener than they are long, it follows that a crocodile must be wider than it is long.
    Experimental evidence contradicts this proof. As this proof has been contradicted, the initial assumption must be false. Therefore AUT is not a University.
  16. Inert matter. by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    >>For instance, I could say "All objects fall." I drop rocks, a computer, my girlfriend, and a 1982 Dodge Dart off of a cliff: they all fall.
    >> Then I drop a duck, and it flies off. So I revise my guess: "All inert objects fall."
    >
    > Your girlfriend is inert?

    After we 'trew 'er off the cliff, she done stopped movin'. So we left 'er dere. In'ert? Why, she's under six whole feet o' 'ert!

  17. Re:What Science Really is... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your girlfriend is inert?

    He doesn't actually have a girlfriend. This is theoretical physics.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  18. Re:What Science Really is... by Devil · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am the proponent of an EXCITING NEW SCIENTIFIC THEORY which challenges all basic tenets of computer science. We call our theory the Little Invisible Mathematicians Proposal, or LIMP.

    For the last number of decades, computer science was thought to have been popularized by such so-called "inventions" as the "transistor". Our organization, which is growing in (God-initiated) leaps and bounds, proposes that trapped inside your everyday computer are the souls of literally HUNDREDS of tiny, invisible mathematicians (many of whom were fetuses aborted by their murderous, pro-life, heathen ACLU-type mothers) who use their thousands of holy slide-rules to try and figure out the answer when you ask calc.exe what 1337 squared is (it's 1787569, and I figured that out whith a pen and paper so as not to torture any more fetus' souls).

    These lost souls are being enslaved by terrible companies like Intel and Advanced Micro Devices, who claim to be doing "valid research" into crackpot "computer science" just so you won't find out the horrible truth about the inner workings of your computer. We believe that all these so-called "computers" are nothing more than the work of the left-leaning, limousine-liberal, ACLU-loving Jewish Media Conspiracy which aims to destroy the jobs, souls and minds of countless Christian^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H LIMP supporters who might otherwise be spending their time in the valuable industry of transcribing monkish Bibles by hand.

    By constantly creating new software, these so-called "computer scientists", whom for the sake of objectivity we shall refer to as "child-murdering sociopaths", are working thousands of fetal souls tirelessly, until enough have been sucked into Hell from overwork that the "computer" owner must purchase a new "computer".

    You won't read about our theory in communist rags like "Scientific American" or "Popular Science" because they didn't accept our manifesto^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H article for publication, claiming it was "inconsistent with scientific principles". Clearly, they are simply so afraid of the Truth of our theory that we feel that our theory has been leant extra validity in its very denial by the Godless socialist magazines who are trying to kill religion. We believe that it should not even be called a "theory" any more--as theories are open to question--but rather should be called a fact, since we say that it is one.

  19. Re:What Science Really is... by BOredAtWork · · Score: 4, Funny

    He was around. And the darn kid showed no respect, not even back then!

    --

    --
    Just lurking, thanks!

  20. Re:What Science Really is... by Vadim+Grinshpun · · Score: 4, Funny

    You youngsters never learn your place, do you?