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."

Comments

I work less than a block from the "hearings"

[delcielo]

Many of us are horribly embarrassed by this fiasco. Please don't hold this against all Kansans.

One of the irritating things about this is that while I believe in evolution, I also believe that it's God's method for our developement. So, in a since, I believe in an intelligent design type of concept; but I can't say that now without being associated with those who say they are for intelligent design but are in fact proponents of creationism.

Anyhow, the hearings are being conducted and "judged" by the proponents of ID. The scientists and evolutionists have boycotted the operation as being a farce. I have to agree with them. The witnesses will all be from the ID side, and the 3 school board members who are running the hearings are all ID proponents also.

It's an embarrassing joke.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[davide101]

Here's an article overviewing this bullsh!t (pdf) from Scientific American. Clearly there are limits to the scientific method... but that doesn't make non-science science.

Re:This is more than a culture war, ummm,who?

[Fox_1]

Alice Walker? Who is that? Alice Walker, best known perhaps as the author of The Color Purple, was the eighth child of Georgia sharecroppers.
Margaret Atwood was born in Ottawa, Ontario, on November 18, 1939. She published her first book of poetry in 1961 while attending the University of Toronto. She later received degrees from both Radcliffe College and Harvard University, and pursued a career in teaching at the university level.
Atwood wrote The Handmaid's Tale in West Berlin and Alabama in the mid-1980s. The novel, published in 1986, quickly became a best-seller. The Handmaid's Tale falls squarely within the twentieth-century tradition of anti-utopian, or "dystopian" novels, exemplified by classics like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and George Orwell's 1984.
Yes I agree that the US seems to be trying to develop a theocracy in recent years. Of course the nice thing about democracy is that the madness comes in waves. At some point the pendulum should oscillate back and the US will calm down.

Who Is This God Person, Anyway?

[Dogtanian]

This brings up a number of points.

These include the fact that those who argue for the existence of a deity mix science and faith together (often unintentionally). And it partly comes down to the definition of "believe" (and of "God"; see later)

I believe (ha!) that this word has at least three distinct meanings; that of faith, that of believing something based on observable fact (*), and that of opinion.

Belief in the third sense often surreptitiously invokes the first sense to add weight to something that, when it comes down to it, is never more than a matter of opinion or personal morality.

However, the first and second senses, although they use the same words, are oil and water. If you want to take something on faith, fine. But (except for (*) below), you cannot use this as the basis for scientific argument. Ever.

Now; assuming we are arguing for an actual deity, as opposed to 'intelligent design' (a vague concept; even if it were true, the argument is often subtley used to imply that intelligence --> God), here is my problem:-

Who, or what, is God?

People ask "Do you believe in God?" or "a god?" or something similar, but neglect to define what this would be.

Do they mean aliens with a higher level of intelligence than us? Are we arguing about intelligent aliens (science) or 'God' (faith)? Because, for me, this non-concrete "definition" of God, rooted in faith, is used in a scientific context, and yet I fail to see how we can do reputable science when we don't even know what we're discussing.

The problem seems to be that, as soon as you pin God down, he is no longer God, he is an intelligent alien. Or something else altogether.

(No; this isn't a reference to the HHGG "puff of logic" passage referenced in the title. It's my genuine opinion that, in making people pin down the meaning God like that, He/She/It would cease to be the God that they were originally discussing)

(*) Of course, there are some things that we must ultimately accept without proof; such as our perception of reality- if reality even exists, and is not an illusion. You can reject this, of course; but in rejecting it, you must reject *everything* around you as unproven, including your own thoughts.

Re:You know...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

I talked to an ex-science teacher and his whole argument came down to "Occam's Razor". But how is this different from having your whole argument coming down to believing that "A God exists"? They both something that you are guiding your life on, either of which you really can't prove is correct/true/THE TRUTH.

Welcome to Justificationalism. That's the classic argument, that we can never prove one or the other, so we just make an arbitrary decision and choose to *believe* science or *believe* religion. It's a false view of what happens. You make a rational decision between two models based on your moral goals.

Science is a tool, a provably efficient method for explaining the mechanics of the Universe in which we live, regardless of the nature of it's creation or it's owner. If your moral goals are such that you believe it would be good to understand the mechanics of a physical event, then science will be the most efficient means for achieving those goals. If your moral goals are such that you value the question Why did something happen, then Faith is a much better tool. Science will never tell us *WHY* the Big Bang happened, only *HOW*. Science does not say whether the Big Bang was a good idea or a bad one, it just tells us how likely it is that something happened in a certain way.

Now, since the *TRUTH* can be defined as the most efficient means for reaching one's moral goals, science can in fact provide the *TRUTH* for some questions. Various theological systems are equally capable of providing the *TRUTH* for other questions. One *TRUTH* does not preclude the other as they each have their own context of moral goals. One can externally evaluate if a moral goal is more efficiently achieved via one method or another. If you adequately describe your moral goals to me and then propose a method for achieving those goals, I can rationally criticize the probability that your are correct, even if I do not share your moral goals. So, while knowledge may be relative and the truth dependent upon the relative context, this does not remove it's ability to be measured and reported upon. If you look at the actual criticism of "relativism" from the religious right, that is the main attack, that it removes standards and measurements, which I've shown here is a false assertion.

What amazes me is how much Protestant Theology had in determining the answer to things like Justificationalism and the definition of science. Those who argue for the arbitrariness of science's hold on truth and that truth as such cannot be measured from a Christian perspective, have a very weak grasp on their own theology. The history of Western Law and Protestant Theology argues contrary to their position. I highly recommend reading WW Bartley's "The Retreat to Commitment" to better understand Justificationalism and the epistemology of science.