TOPEKA, Kan. – Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Supporters of the new standards said they would promote academic freedom.
“This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do,” said board chairman Steve Abrams. Another board member who voted in favor of the standards, John Bacon, said the move “gets rid of a lot of dogma that’s being taught in the classroom today.”
John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the Intelligent Design Network, said changes probably would come to classrooms gradually, with some teachers feeling freer to discuss criticisms of evolution. “These changes are not targeted at changing the hearts and minds of the Darwin fundamentalists,” Calvert said.
What is Science. Science is a methodology. It is to prove things, using a problem, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion. It is not THE answer to things, but rather a likely answer. It is expected to change with time, to adopt new theories in face of new evidence. That is the nature of science.
Evolution is an extremely solid theory as far as theories go, mostly because it can actually be seen in motion everywhere. Beyond fossological records, we can see it act in bacteria, in cancerous cells, in butterflies in the UK, birds in remote south pacific islands.
The Kansas board’s action is part of a national debate. In Pennsylvania, a judge is expected to rule soon in a lawsuit against the Dover school board’s policy of requiring high school students to learn about intelligent design in biology class. In August, President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.
The thing is I have nothing against Creationism per se. But it does not belong in a biology class. Intelligent design cannot be proven, it has no evidence, and therefore to teach such an unprovable hypothesis alongside Evolution in a science class would be unscientific and misleading. If you want to dispute Evolution, by all means go ahead: the scientific way is to do so with ample proof of an alternate theory.
The supporters of Intelligent Design claim its all about “choice”. But I ask: what is there to choose? A theory with no evidence of any kind over one with plenty? Might as well make students “choose” that the “World is flat”… Wait – don’t answer that.
Comments
2 responses to “Creationism wins in Kansas.”
Julien.
Observable natural phenomenon is partial reality due to limitations imposed by the knowledge aquiring senses. The mind and intellect are limited tools of perception and cannot be completely relied apon. What is left is you, the one using these tools to somehow get the whole picture.
Humbling when you think about it huh? 🙂
The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It would be unscientific to treat it as anything other than that. Intelligent Design vary somewhat from culture to culture, but the constant, that the origin of all energies is endowed with intelligence is also somewhat supported by logic. This statement of principle might help illustrate the point (it’s been a while since my studies on the subject):
Everything that is within and without our sense perception, past the present and future is called The Complete Whole. By definition The Complete Whole cannot be devoid of personality — it would not be complete. As such that personality must be both finite and infinite. It must also be absolute.
Note by Julien: The author of this comment wanted it retracted. I decided to ignore him (sorry), and instead just anonymize the comment to protect his identity. -Julien
I think we’re saying the same thing.
I like you’re perspective on things, and I don’t dispute it. My objections with this whole situation do not lie with your beliefs. Beliefs are innate.
My objections are that a group of people are trying to pass on these beliefs as science. It is not science, though that does not mean it is not true. Science is a philosophy surrounding proofs and evidence. What you believe in could be true – my aim is not to dispute that. But if you want to call it “science”, you need to back up such beliefs with the said evidence and proofs.
What these people are doing is undermining science, because they are trying to pass beliefs without an underlying basis of testable hypotheses and repeatable observations.
Again: you are free to believe what you will. I will never debate it. I will never counter it. But it cannot be called “science”, as again it lacks those essential components that make up what Science is.