Friday, May 06, 2005


Kansas has become a real battleground state on the issue of teaching the origins of life. Evolutionists--and apparently the New York Times headline writer--see this as 'diluting' what has become the sacred creation myth of the secular:
The hearings by the Kansas State Board of Education- one part science lesson, one part political theater - were set off by proposed changes to Kansas's science standards intended to bring a more critical approach to the teaching of Darwinism. The sessions provided perhaps the highest-profile stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which asserts that life is so intricately complex that an architect must be behind it. Critics argue that intelligent design has no basis in science and is another iteration of creationism.

That's right, evolutionists are actually boycotting the hearings, which is the intellectual equivalent of taking your ball and going home. Why are they doing this? Because they're actually being asked as scientists to argue why this one particular theory should be the only view that is presented to our children, why no dissent from any quarter should be brooked.

Scientists, and the press, act as if this is somehow making science class into an in-depth study of Genesis 1-2. But what school boards are considering is not quite so shocking:
If the state board adopts the new standards, as expected, Kansas will join Ohio, which took a similar step in 2002, in requiring that students be taught that there is controversy about evolution. Legislators in Alabama and Georgia have introduced bills this season to allow teachers to challenge Darwin in class....

While the proposed new standards for Kansas do not specifically mention intelligent design, critics contend that the proposed changes will open the door not just for those teachings, but to creationism, which generally holds to the Genesis account of creation.

It's an odd 'science' that will not endure investigation, criticism and scrutiny, but that is exactly what the evolutionist wants. A science class would be a poor one indeed that did not present the theory of evolution to its students. But that same science ought to be a search for truth. Closing the door to debate is the sure way to see that never happens.

UPDATE: Scrappleface finds the Darwinist herd seems to be thinning.


Chuck Anziulewicz said...

If I was a concerned scientist in Kansas, I would boycott the hearings as well. As a scientist, it would not be my prerogative to debate the existance of God.

Mitch said...

Do the words "the proposed new standards for Kansas do not specifically mention intelligent design" mean anything to you?Please read through Alan's entry again--I think you missed the whole point of it.

Stephen M. St. Onge said...

      The problem with all this is the intellectual slipperiness, even dishonesty, of proponents of evolution.

      The term "evolution" is never rigourously defined, so that you know what is being talked about.  Instead, "evolution" is applied to a broad range of phenomena, from the selective breeding of pet wolves that probably resulted in dogs, to the alleged transformation of dinosaurs into birds, to (sometimes) the origins of life.

      Similarly, the question of what "science" is, and what it can do is not made explicit.  Some scientists claim that science came only deal with things that happen as a result of natural laws, and that science consists of testable theories that explain events in terms of natural law.  Fair enough, but that leaves hanging the question: "Is there anything that has happened or is currently happening in the universe that is not solely explainable by natural law?"  The answer of these scientists is "No, no, EVERYTHING that ever has happpened or will happen is explainable solely as a result of natural law."  This theory can't be tested.

      It would be nice if scientists would admit there are large and important questions science can't answer.  Don't hold your breath waiting.

Orac said...

Oh, please. Give me a break. Scientists admit all the time that there are large and important questions that remain unanswered. If there weren't then it wouldn't be much fun doing science.

jimvj said...

It has been said a million times, but it never seems to register with dogmatic minds:

Saying that God, or an ID, or an extraterrestial race did it IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION !

These kinds of claims do not lead to a better understanding of the phenomena under study; they have zero predictive value; and they are a defeatist kind of thinking - basically requiring scientists to shrug and say "Well, I can't explain that, so I guess God/ID/ET did it!"

The God/ID "explanations" are worse in that they are thinly (if at all) disguised attempts to impose one group's theocratic worldview on the rest of society.

Shame on all those who would impose these cowardly and deceitful thinking modes on our children.

Mitch said...

Is it not true that anything that is not observable cannot be considered scientific? All that anyone will ever have to explain the origin of the universe are untestable theories which will ultimately rely on a person's faith to prop them up. By definition, the entire debate is unscientific, jimvj.