ForumGarden

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... _evolution



TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.

Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.

The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.

"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.

The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.

State and national science groups boycotted last week's public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.

Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.

The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."

Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals.

One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as "a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." That's close to the current definition.

The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.

The Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards in 1999, but elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives recaptured the board's majority in 2004.

Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas.

"I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."

Evolution defenders scoff at the notion.

"In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."

By JOHN HANNA, Associated Press Writer

Refefining science OMG that made me laugh, don't we redefine science daily, it's an on going work in progress. OMG some folks have nothing better to do.

polycarp wrote: "In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."This may sound weird coming from a creationist like myself, but I have to agree with Lesher. Though I don’t believe in evolution, I prefer it to be taught in public schools. I believe that people of faith, if they want to shield their little ones from every challenge, ought to send them to their church school, at their own expense, where they can be in control of what’s being taught, and are paying the piper, since they call the tune. I am embarrassed by believers who expect the government to do for them what they fail to do at home. If a faithful parent sets a faithful example for their child in the home, the child will have a personal faith that can stand up to the pressures of the world.

There is a danger that we might raise a generation of believers whose judgment is warped because they expect the world to conform to their church.

This has been going on since I was a kid - a long long time ago. We were taught evolution and then counseled there were alternative theory not related to science class. We were asked to go home and ask our parents or pastors if we were curious about the alternative theory. I'm quite sure that science teacher would have been fired in today's school system for telling us.

It's embarrassing living so close to Kansas. If we followed the GodSquad we wouldn't have asked any questions, just nod that it's God's Work and that's it. We'd be living in the 17th Century right now if these superstitious fools had their way. Shall we roll up and toss science or the fundamentalists that so desperately want to turn this country into Iran? Religious folk should send their kids to religious schools or homeschool them. Will the fundamentalist churches pay for the religious training public school teachers will need in our new theocracy? Kansans are getting the ridicule they deserve for electing conservative zealots to run it's school board.

David813 wrote: It's embarrassing living so close to Kansas. If we followed the GodSquad we wouldn't have asked any questions, just nod that it's God's Work and that's it. We'd be living in the 17th Century right now if these superstitious fools had their way. Shall we roll up and toss science or the fundamentalists that so desperately want to turn this country into Iran? Religious folk should send their kids to religious schools or homeschool them. Will the fundamentalist churches pay for the religious training public school teachers will need in our new theocracy? Kansans are getting the ridicule they deserve for electing conservative zealots to run it's school board.
I like your argument that fundamentalist churches should pay for the training the teachers would (according to you) need. It supports the argument that home schoolers and church schoolers should get back some of the taxes they pay for public schools that don’t presently need that training. As it is, they pay to educate their children twice.

jackie wrote: I, like David813, am embarrassed to live so close to Kansas!



Jackie Wellman

www.hoppy.bravehost.com:yh_hugs Hallelujah I'm not the only one that feels this way!!! Move to Kansas Jackie & VOTE!!!

posted by jiperly

They aren't asking for the government to teach creationism- they are asking for the science class to admit they do not hold the one soild truth- and thats true. Evolution IS a theory, not fact. No theory should be dogmatically protected, because thats, ironically enough, in opposition of science itself- that observations should bring conclusions- not that the conclusions are always right.


Does that mean if the evolutionists concede their theory is just that-can't imagine any scientist not being prepared to agree to that-then the creationists will concede that their beliefs are just that and do not constitute any great truth and that other creation myths apart from the judeo christian one are just as valid and should also be taught?

posted by jiperly

The Separation of Church and state does not allow it to be taught- but certainly if the merit of evolution is so grand, then it should be open to critisim, as all theories should be.

No belief should ever be above questioning- otherwise the belief of evolution would not exist in the first place. Merely concluding that evolution could be wrong may open students to other forms of thought and tolerance, and may even lead to even greater theories. Gravity, Realitivity,Physics and Quantium Physics- they are all theories. If you are in science class, you should be taught the scientific theories- but it is in opposition to scientific beliefs that any one belief should be dogmatically followed- constant observation and re-interpreation will lead to a more intelligent society as a whole.

Yesterday 07:04 AM


Then why not teach religious education as a seperate subject in it's own right where all religon gets discussed? Religon is part of any social history anyway and can't be viewed in isolation anyway.

My understanf=ding is that given half a chance the religious right woiulkd stop the teachng of evolutionary theory altogether

I have yet to meet a scientist that thinks any scientific theory is cast in stone and not open to question, new discoveries are made all the time that change tyhe way the world is viewed.