Slashdot Mirror
Kansas Board of Ed. Adopts Intelligent Design
kwietman writes "The Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 to allow science students in public schools to hear materials critical of evolution in biology classes. The new curriculum mentions that theories of life arising from similar building-block molecules through purely random processes can be challenged by recent findings in the fossil record and by molecular biology. Not all were happy, however. 'This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,' said board member Janet Waugh. The new standards will be used in statewide standardized testing; the students are still expected to know 'basic evolutionary principles.' As part of the decision, the Board of Education also went so far as to redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.'"
Mod this 'troll' if you want, but he's right. While the article says it makes things easier for intelligent design's proponents, it doesn't say that the Board has adopted ID. True, the language was drafted by ID proponents, and it did sort of break the concept of science, but TECHNICALLY they didn't say they'd be teaching ID - just that they'd teach things "critical" of evolution.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
So, should students be made to think and believe one way, or is science about theories, alternatives, establishment, proofs, etc., etc?
A few years ago a Denver student made a valiant attempt to open classroom discussion in his school system about alternatives to evolution. He was shot down by the "free minded" educators. No discussion, no alternative, "it's our way and that's it". Is this what teaching science has come to in this nation?
Perhaps a bit misguided, but I still like teaching students to think, not "follow the yellow brick road."
Besides, such great scientist as Agassi, Faraday and Einstein don't seem to have bought into mindless evolution. How many have studied any of them or read any of their writings?
You and the people who insist that ID has been falsified (Behe's "irreducibly complex" molecular machines aren't, Dembski's understanding of information theory is flawed, etc) need to get together to work out a consistent position.
I didn't insist it was falsified
Did I say that you did?
please try reading next time.
Indeed.
I don't know where to begin to poke holes in most of the arguments made here.
"Evolution is the foundation of our current understanding of Biology. Everything from DNA to resistant viruses is predicted by evolution"
Did you know that as viruses "mutate" or "evolve", they are loosing part of their DNA? They don't become resistive because they effect a positive change, or an addition, to thwart antibodies. They become unrecognisable because they have lost part of their idenity. At least that is a scientific theory. Or don't ID people know how to formulate scientific theory? So if evolution "predicted" resistive viruses, wouldn't it then be considered the Deconstruction of Species?
How many of you here understand molecular biology well enough to debate someone else on the subject? I know of plenty of Christian scientists who can. Some of the most intelligent people of our time have believed that science is not harmed if an intelligent designer created the reality we know currently. And we still can't prove or disprove some of Einstin's theories.
The fact is that we will never understand how the earth was formed, or how humans came to be here. Why? Because none of us were there. That doesn't mean however that science is hericy. If it were not for scientific discovery we couldn't carry on this debate over the internet.
Liberally minded people like to think themselves more capable of independant thought because they don't subscribe to this Christian mumbo jumbo. While you yourselves have taken up evolution as religon, and will blindly believe anything someone else tells you. I say blindly because as I have already stated unless you can adequately debate molecular biology, or some of the other sciences, you can't really form a completely independant opinion. And each person who does posess the capacity for such scientifc deduction must make up his/her own mind on the subject. So where does that leave the rest of us? Look at the possibilities, judge for yourself which one of them suits you best, and enjoy life. As you go through life you may find more evidence that supports of refutes your belief, at that point you have to make a decision to stick with your current belief system or "Convert" to another. Notice that I didn't use convert in a Christian only context. But in the meantime, don't ridicule or try to make light of someone elses belief, they may know something you don't. Maybe you could ask them to share it with you so that you can add it to your list of ideas.
Science thrives on "Prove It". Well, Intelligent design is throwing down the gauntlet. Most of the worlds population believes in a "god" or "creator". Every civilization has it's own brand of "religon". Intelligent Design espouses none of these, it simply tries to prove it, or make scientists prove otherwise.
All Intelligent Design is trying to say is that humans may not be the most intelligent beings in the universe, and that, The, most intelligent being created life here and has left us to figure out why. Meanwhile, all we can do is quabble about what the meaning of Science is.
"cognitive dissonance"
People make a habit of "justifying" the unjustafiable all the time, whether its why they don't give up a bad habit thats gonna kill them (smoking), or why they won't stop supersizing themselves.
For example, there's more proof for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster than there is for God and Jesus.. Never seen Jesus, never seen God, but even I have seen spaghetti.
And most pastafarians can testify that communing by partaking of a plate of pasta, a glass of vino, and some hot garlic bread can induce a profound state of contentment, a feeling that all is well with the world
Similarly, offering to share that pasta has the immediate effect of putting a smile on the recipients' face, whereas people start looking for the exit when someone offers to "share Jesus". ... so Pastafarianism must be the natural state of mankind.
Telling a starving person "read the Bible - it will nourish you" is cruel - whereas offering them of the body and blood of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will assuage their hunger.
You can make a better case for the FSM and Pastafarias than for the Bible and Christianity.
So, what does this have to do with "cognitive dissonance?" The bible has many contradictions in it - to claim to believe it requires that you maintain several contradictory beliefs at once.