[Fishteacher73]

In Kansas they are attempting to get evolution down graded and have teachers talk about "alternate theories". One odd thing in this hearing was that the pro-evolutionist decided to not put scientists on the stand in defense of evolution. I am torn on this move because it at first does not seem to be a wise move, yet I can understand the idea that they did not want to put the theory of evolution on trial. What you think??

Here's a link to the NY Times story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/ed...rssnyt&emc=rss

[C1ay]

The only thing that bothers me about any of these cases is the desire to discuss non-scientific theories in science class. I really don't see why they can't just argue to have discussions on supernatural or religious beliefs in philosophy classes. Why do the religious want religion in science class when there's no sound scientific evidence to support it?

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

In Kansas they are attempting to get evolution down graded and have teachers talk about "alternate theories". One odd thing in this hearing was that the pro-evolutionist decided to not put scientists on the stand in defense of evolution. I am torn on this move because it at first does not seem to be a wise move, yet I can understand the idea that they did not want to put the theory of evolution on trial. What you think??

It's pretty sad that folks would have to keep scientists out of a scientific trial, but I understand why they did it, I suppose. The real issue SHOULD be whether the alternate theories are scientific, hence the witnesses should be geared towards the scientific validity of either POV.

This is doubly annoying as a believer and a scientist, because not only does it make believers look bad, it's just bad science. But we all know that....

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by bumab

It's pretty sad that folks would have to keep scientists out of a scientific trial, but I understand why they did it, I suppose. The real issue SHOULD be whether the alternate theories are scientific, hence the witnesses should be geared towards the scientific validity of either POV.

I gathered the point of keeping the science folks out--which was the choice of the people on the Evolution side--was to argue that creationism/ID *was religious* as opposed to being *not scientific*, which is a completely different angle of attack, and to me has some merit, as it got some of the suposedly ID people on the state school board to admit to their motives in public. It might well backfire, but there probably will be blowback if it goes through again...

Cheers,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Why do the religious want religion in science class when there's no sound scientific evidence to support it?

In case it is not obvious, the core issue is not evolution, it is Naturalism. Those of you who contend that sicence should be "value neutral" cannot contend that it is legitimate to assert specific causality to the origin of the universe when the origin is unknown. Asserting non-theististic causality is naturalism, and that is unsubstantiated by science. The case in Kansas was exclusively related to school board(s) allowing teaching of ID as an alternative thesis. Nothing about instruction in evolution would change.

I understand discomfort with asserting rights to teach Creationism. This ain't that.

[Stargazer]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

In Kansas they are attempting to get evolution down graded and have teachers talk about "alternate theories". One odd thing in this hearing was that the pro-evolutionist decided to not put scientists on the stand in defense of evolution. I am torn on this move because it at first does not seem to be a wise move, yet I can understand the idea that they did not want to put the theory of evolution on trial. What you think??

Here's a link to the NY Times story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/ed...rssnyt&emc=rss

Exactly what alternate theories? The ID theory? It would be laughable if only it existed in the first place. ID is not science, it's not a theory or even a hypothesis.

I am beginning to wonder if USA is tired of being in a leading position in science, the way they're allowing antiscience and pseudoscience and religion to attack science education.

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

In Kansas they are attempting to get evolution down graded and have teachers talk about "alternate theories". One odd thing in this hearing was that the pro-evolutionist decided to not put scientists on the stand in defense of evolution. I am torn on this move because it at first does not seem to be a wise move, yet I can understand the idea that they did not want to put the theory of evolution on trial. What you think??

Here's a link to the NY Times story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/ed...rssnyt&emc=rss

I think the purpose is to not teach evolution at all. ID can be covered in one sentence, so it takes no study and it won't be on the tests students are being prepped for under the current regime. Biological sciences will be and probably for the most part, still are taught in much the same way as when I was in school, Just a lot of memorizing boring details.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Stargazer

..ID is not science, it's not a theory or even a hypothesis...

(emphasis added) It's not a hypothesis???? This type of biased mischaracterization is why Kansans open a public forum on the topic. You can complain all you like about the weak support for the hypothesis (as I do), but to suggest it is not "even a hypothesis" is ludicrous, and directly at odds with the scientific method.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

..ID can be covered in one sentence, so it takes no study...

This is the intriguing part. I don't think that ID is one sentence, but it is certainly a much smaller discussion than the content in natural selection, comparative anatomy, biochemistry and paleontology. It is intriquing that the "scientific" community is so up in arms about including maybe 5% of the allotted teaching time to a contrarian hypothesis that is not at odds with the existing data, just existing philosophy.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

In case it is not obvious, the core issue is not evolution, it is Naturalism. Those of you who contend that sicence should be "value neutral" cannot contend that it is legitimate to assert specific causality to the origin of the universe when the origin is unknown. Asserting non-theististic causality is naturalism, and that is unsubstantiated by science. The case in Kansas was exclusively related to school board(s) allowing teaching of ID as an alternative thesis. Nothing about instruction in evolution would change.

I understand discomfort with asserting rights to teach Creationism. This ain't that.

Where does evolution assert a beginning? IMO there is no evidence to support any theory on the origin of the universe and evolution is about what happened after. ID simply says life is so complex it must have been designed that way. That is not a valid scientific theory in and of itself. Discuss it in philosophy class but not science class.