An Ohio professor made a key point during a recent debate with an intelligent design proponent from Kansas that is missed by many during our state’s evolution squabbles. Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, noted that teachers can discuss the idea of intelligent design if they want to, just as history teachers can tell their students that some people think the Holocaust didn’t happen. But that’s different from putting those views into the testing standards for an entire state. The state shouldn’t mandate standards that the professionals in those fields overwhelmingly reject.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
30 Comments
Do you think the KS. BOE actually reads any of this stuff?
Do you think that the majority of the KS. BOE are even LITERATE? I have to wonder…
If they could get away with it, the state’s Science text book would be the Bible.
It really is amazing how threatened the evolutionsts feel by those who just want both sides discussed as theory.
There is really nobody saying that evolution should not be taught at all, they only want equal time….That is supposedly what liberals believe in ….diversity!
The true conservative christians who believe that evolution is such a crock that it should not be taught are content to send thier kids to private or home school where they can get a better education anyway
Diversity doesn’t mean teaching lies. It means presenting all valid viewpoints. IDC isn’t science and shouldn’t be taught as science.
As it happens, I know at least one person who sends her kids to Catholic school because she figures they’ll get a better science education there. She doesn’t want creationism (she’s a professional biologist), but she doesn’t trust the public schools to handle basic science.
Names available upon request.
Dr! Equal time? Then the flying spaghetti monster should get equal time also. What about incarnation theory, and Greek mythology theory?
It can go on and on and on. Soon the entire science class through the school year will be nothing but discussions on the different theories that explain the orgin of life.
dr,
In a science classroom, the only appropriate mode of explanation is efficient causation, which is observable and qualitatively measurable. Y happens because of X, which preceded it. Where science is concerned, there is no ‘other side’ that would count as an appropriate explanation. Period.
‘Intelligent Design,’ by contrast, posits final causation, which is purposive, qualitative, and not measurable. It states that Y happens for the sake of Z, which is not yet actual. ID’s will deny it, but this is the structure of their arugments.
Science has no duty to affirm alternatives that don’t share its methodology. And all attempts by ID’ers to construct efficient causal arguments come to nothing.
If ‘both sides’ are to be taught, the appropriate venue is in a history, sociology, philosophy, or political science class–not a science class. ID masquerades as science, but doesn’t play by the rules of inductive reasoning and the demand that all explanations obey efficient causation.
CF,”In a science classroom, the only appropriate mode of explanation is efficient causation, which is observable and qualitatively measurable. Y happens because of X, which preceded it.”
So origins, including the Big Bang, etc, is NOT science because it is NOT observable. Using that argument, any discussion of origins should be thrown out of the science classroom.
Kansassam,
No, because the conditions that brought about the Big Bang are observable in principle. Kant would call them ‘objects of possible experience,’ even if no one has actually experienced them. And, if they it possible that they can be observed, it is also possible that they can be measured. Science deals in all kinds of hypothetical entities. But each of these is an object of possible experience. Therefore, even when an entity can’t be directly observed, it can still function in an explanation.
God’s mind isn’t observable, in principle. It isn’t an object–it’s a mind; a divine Mind. Therefore, it can’t be the subject of quantiative measurement or calculation, and is off limits as an object for science.
Interesting then…. if the truth is that God created the universe… then “science” will NEVER lead us to the truth.
I guess science isn’t perfect is it?
Kansassam,
Science has never, doesn’t, and will never claim to find the truth. Science is a method of taking facts and putting them into a logical construction that approximates better and better the way the world behaves. Note there is no claim that the model(s) of the world and its behavior are correct – only that they approximate the observable and with each new factoid the models are modified to fit the observables even better.
God may exist..who knows. Unfortunately people like you seem to forget that the notion of God is an unproovable hypothesis. Unprovable hypotheses aren’t necessarily false – they may well be true, but the point is you can NEVER know, except through the implications of your assumptions.
Science has develoiped a methodology that has been proven out – look at cars, computers, the hydrogen bomb, cell phones. The unprovable hypotheses upon which it is based seem to be borne out by what comes of them.
On the other hand, theology, especially fundamentalist ones like yours lead to absurd conclusions that have been factually demolished. I’d suggest you read up on Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church.
Another example..if you claim that Herod had the male children of Judea killed in order to perhaps get Jesus in the roundup, then where is the substantiating evidence? No contemporary writer talks about such a fantastic event..no Roman documents do either (recall that Herod was a puppet of Rome). Further, archaeologists haven’t discovered any “extra” male child tombs to substantiate the event. So, you’re free to believe it, but your assumption is certainly based on a much weaker set of assumptions than mine is.
Brian,God cannot be seen unless he reveals himself. I hope for your sake that someday he chooses to reveal himself to you.There is a God, there are demons, and miracles happen. You cannot explain many things with a scientific approach.
What an arrogant prick you are Sam,
What you’re saying is that God has given you the truth and anyone who believes anything different is deluded. ROFLMFAO !!
The MAJORITY of christians believe science & Darwinism are just fine the way they are.The minority wants the rest of the world to revise history so that their rigid view of the world is not changed.Why can’t they be reasonably happy with theistic evolution?
Tracy,
That’s the amazing thing, isn’t it? Jesus even said anyone who preaches in His name even if it isn’t the “authorized” truth is fine with him (Lk 9:50 for example).
What most fundamentalists seem to forget is that Jesus puked at the idea of orthodoxy (right belief). he violated EVERY Jewish tradition and belief there was. Jesus was preaching about orthopraxy (right action)..what you do is far more important than what you believe..in fact what you do IS what you believe.
Bottom line is neither side can be proven so both should be taught.
Most christians are not afraid of the other side being shared. They are confident that God explains the unexplainable.
The athiests are terrified of what they know would be the obvious result of holding up truth next to mans attempt to fathom the unfathomable.
So the liberals run around demanding thier voice to be heard on everything under the sun, but seek to silence all things religous from that same conversation. Now thats what I call contridiction
dr,
That’s not it at all. Have a field day exploring God in school, but don’t try to pass it off as science.
I’m sure the likelihood that the average fundamentalist church allowing a scientist/atheist (they aren’t the same) into Sunday School every week to give an “alternative explanation” is about as unlikely thing as you could imagine..I might even qualify that as a miracle.
Boy. The fundamentalist arguments and rejoinders are a mobius strip, aren’t they?
I appreciate kansassam’s concession to the scientific ground when the argument cut against him. That shows some integrity, as does his earnest admission of the religious grounds underlying his own belief. And you’re right, kansassam: science will never lead us to the ‘truth’ as a monolithic, unchanging object. Science goes on improving its methods and models. Interestingly, Alfred North Whitehead argues that this is also the case with religion when it is at its best, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Such is not the case for dr’s attempt to then interpret the admittedly finite claims of science as opening the door to a shallow and childish ‘he said/she said’ kind of conceptual relativism. That’s very sloppy thinking, dr. And it’s an ad hominem argument against science (and liberals) to call us cowards for insisting on ground rules within a specific discourse. The fact that your untutored mind can’t or won’t grasp the rules of scientific discourse and reasoning is a knock against you, dr, not against science.
I am curious about something, dr: is your posting name taken from your initials, or is it your title? And if you are a ‘Dr,’ then a doctor in what field?
Yeah, what CF said !! :-))
Religion should be an inward search and a personal thing between God and man, not demanding people to see things your way.If I go to hell in someone else’s mind, then so be it.If in my own mind I’m at peace, then leave me alone to work out my own salvation, and I’ll do the same for you.Christ has much to say along these lines, IF you’re able understand what he’s preaching.
Brian..You call someone names that you know nothing about. Now, let me tell you, I was just telling you what Christ himself said… I take no credit. And I do truly hope that your eyes are opened, before it’s too late.
Sam,
I judge you by what you say. You said only you have the truth..that no matter what my condception of the divine was, it was wrong. Recall that Jesus said..”judge not lest you be judged”. This is not an admonition NOT to judge, it is a warning that you will be judged if you take it upon yourself to judge. In other words, be very careful that your judgements are correct because they will be used to judge you.
I can only judge you by the blinders you have put on your beliefs. You are apparently unwuilling to look at other perspectives and learn from them. So, you have “judged” us all to be wrong and you have judged yourself to be right. Don’t now whine and complain when your judgements are used against you.
I have a theory of my own, I believe that evangelical Christians should be ban from all public offices and have their voting right suspended.
Want to see my proof to support my theory? Just look at what they have done with the state BOE and the White house.
God is ashame of you for using his name to support YOUR own agenda.
I prefer the penal colony theory for how the earth became filled with humans.Earth was settled by prisoners from other systems, much like Australia.This would explain the inherent violence of the human population. Think about it.
Brian..I did not judge you.. God does not need my help. I can only tell you what scripture says.. if that makes you feel uneasy, maybe God is trying to tell you something. I can tell you that if you don’t haveJesus as your personal Lord and Savior.. the yes.. you have got it wrong! He is very clear on that.
Sam,
Indeed you did judge. You assumed that what you understand about scripture is the ONLY way it can be read or understood. And that is clearly mistaken. Did you know, for example, that people in the ancient world considered meeting people in dreams equivalent to really meeting them? Did you know that ancient Hebrew and koine were unpunctuated and lacked vowels, so that a phrase like GODISNOWHERE might be read in either of two ways? Did you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn’t know Jesus? All of these things should influence your reading of the bible. When Jesus appeared to the Apostles in the room after his dear=th, was this real or perhaps a dream? Ditto the meeting on the way to Emmaus. You, you pastor, and your church’s beliefs are not the arbiters of Biblical truth.
BrianIndeed I did not… sorry you misinterpreted.Oh.. an YOU are not the arbiter of Biblical truth either. Only God reveals truth. Someday the entire mystery will be solved.. when He decides.
Sam,
I’ll end it here. I’m not the one who has made any claims about the “truth” of christian dogma or scripture. You are the one who has said: 1) God MUSt reveal himself, 2) you hope he reveals himself to me as he has you, 3) that angels, demons, and blood atonement are real. All I’ve ever said is science should be science and religion should be religion, and religion should NOT function to slow scientific progress because it upsets the faithful or because it leads to a contradiction in the proposed theology.
Why is it that people are always getting bogged down with this discussion? We should spend our time and energy to eliminate the cause of the ‘problem’. That cause is government control of education.
Most everyone who has posted here just wants the “truth” to be taught. Yet once the government takes charge of what is taught then politics enters the picture. This episode is nothing more than politics in education.
I agree ProudMan, lets kill the fundamentalists! Kidding ;) What the main problem is with scientists about ID and other creation sciences is the way they do their science. The scientists says ‘Here are my facts’ and then ‘What conclusions can I draw from them.’ The creationist says ‘Here is my conclusion’ (god exists and created everything), and then ‘What facts can support it?’ The fundamentalists fundamentally do science wrong and THAT is why then will never get their views accepted by real scientist.