WTF?!?! OK now I just dont get this...

[Eric McTavish]

How the hell do you "redefine" SCIENCE?!?!?!?!
from here (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15267)


Kansas Board of Education considers redefining 'science'
By The Associated Press
05.16.05

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 it must have been created by a higher power.

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 wouldn'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."

[KissMeKate]

It's because the legislators in Kansas don't want to live in a constantly changing world of science. Nor do they want any child growing up in Kansas to live in such a world. They want to live in a world that has a specific age and by the rules set down in a book that, while it does have a certain amount of verified history, is a work of fiction. Although I am a spiritual person, as well as a scientist, I am very glad I did not grow up in a place that would skew my learning to the extent Kansas is proposing.

[Wolves Lady]

Kansas Board of Education considers redefining 'science'[/b]
By The Associated Press
05.16.05

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.
"

I think I am reading this a little differently - the new definition that Kansas seems to want is simply a simplistic statement of the scientific method - you systematically try to find answers to questions in a manner that can be duplicated and investigated by others. Why it is a bit simple, it works along with how I was taught in my science classes. It is also very unbiased towards any side of the argument.

It seems that by shutting from the classroom any theory that they deem "supernatural" - which is what the scientists quoted in the story wish to do - that they are more close minded then those who simply wish to allow room for other theories, including anything involving creation. Most of science as we accept it today was looked at as being fantasy or worse at some point in history - and science has changed so much, and so many "facts" have been disproven (as my HS Bio teacher said - "Facts" are very few in the world of science, and the word is highly misused - most of our facts are instead highly proven/duplicatable theories) that a "pure" scientist knowledgable in the facts from a century ago would have his world shattered if he was on the earth today.

Creation is not original to the bible (big shock) - most of the older religions (I suspect all), from the Egyptions on forward, have creation by higher powers in their myths, Intelligent Design simply recognizes that idea and fits it in with Evolution.

I spent a lot of time last year teaching my daughter to think outside of the box when it came to what we teach. This included exposing her to ideas and theories that I myself may not agree with, but would provide her with a base in which she could draw her own conclusions. I myself believe in evolution and intelligent design, and have long before it was "fashionable". My DD currently attends a Baptist school (which has its own challenges) that teaches science from a strict creationist point of view. It has been interesting to both of us to get into discussions about it, and I have been surprised by some of things she has come up with. I think public school children should have the same chance to discuss all ideas and theories safely - if they are Christians, Muslims or Jewish they are getting taught by their church the creationist theory anyway, so why not discuss it in school where both theories can be compared?

Sorry - I am rambling a bit - my coffee of the morning has not sunk in yet, and thinking this early always makes my brain hurt :D

[Kae]

Unfortunately, those who wish to teach the "intelligent design" theory and to alter the definition of science - only wish to do so in the slant towards their beliefs. They have the books fo rthat - but not any that include other theories. Should we include all theories of evolution? In many cases that is more of a theological comparison course than a science course. So we include mythology? The Greeks and the Norse and several groups in Africa - not to mention the Australian aborigines have some beautiful creation beliefs.
Kansas is not known for its ground-breaking moving to the future policies. In this they are creating classes that will only hinder and harm their children when they enter college and/or the global world.
If, as a state, they wish to teach the "intelligent design" theory or to give other definitions of science - create a class for just that as an elective. Continue to teach a curriculumn accepted by the world to ensure that teh future decision makers of America are on at least the same intellectual footing as the rest of the world.

Kae

PS - You must remember that until 9-11, the only religious clubs in most schools were Christian. Now you have Christian and a few Islamic. They still have extreme difficulty accepting any other religious based clubs because of public perception. We really don't need to increase that intolerance.

[aspen]

As a resident of Kansas, with a degree in Evolutionary Biology, I've been following the current School Board follies with great interest.

The "redefinition of science" has one goal-- to allow pure logic equal standing with experimentation and observation. One Intelligent Design proponent basically said that if Thomas Aquinas could "prove" God's existence (through philosophical logic), then it should be taught in science class. It probably wouldn't break their hearts to teach Pascal's Wager, either. :roll:

Teach them. Teach them well. Teach them in formal logic and philosophy classes, teach them in history and western civ classes, teach the Bible as literature, for all I care. Just not in a biology or general science course.

Aspen, who voted for the evolutionists in the last 3 elections, and you're welcome.

[Wolves Lady]

I don't feel that intelligent design embraces any particular creationist theory - it simply states that life on this planet is to well-ordered and precise (for lack of a better word) to be a result of random chance - that a blueprint or guide must be in place, and that a higher power is responsible. Science currently has no answers as to how life actually started on this planet - for all they know, we could have been the result of some alien race stopping by our planet to take their pet for a walk, and we are the result of the leftovers :D , that theory is a good as any. Not an appealing idea unless you read tabloids, but it offers as good an explanation as any they have as to how the "chemical soup" turned into life and why monkeys starting talking. If a school mandates that intelligent design was a result of the Christian gods intervention as outlined in the bible, then they are NOT teaching intelligent design - they are teaching a variance on Christian belief only, and THAT I disagree with unless the child is in a setting where it is endorsed or at least acknowledged by parents (such as my DDs school). But if they are teaching that "some" higher power set things in motion, then it teaches no particular mythos, fits with what the child may be taught at home, and dovetails with evolution. Why are you making assumptions that Kansas is trying to force Christianity down school childrens throats from a simple definition change? It sounds like its the Scientific community that is getting their knickers in a bind over this, not the religious groups - they have the kids on Sunday and at home to teach, why worry about school so much? And believe me, if a parent wants their children to learn creationist theory, that child will, regardless of what school teaches. Try teaching open-mindedness to a gifted child in homeschool environment and you'll understand what I mean - argh!

I honestly do not remember to much time being spent on either theory in school when I was growing up, but I do remember that both creation (a few religions views, but all shown as creation) and evolution (as defined by Darwin) were discussed as possiblities. Darwin was taught and "assumed" as the main theory, but the question was still left as to how the entire life on Earth thing got started in the first place, and my teachers response when asked was a simple "I don't know". I later found out that one of my favorite science teachers was a devout Christian, but I do not remember his teachings being anything but even handed, if not slanted more towards science then faith.

As for "altering" the science defintion - it sounds like they are only altering what the school system will use as a definition to be less close minded towards either side - and that it falls more in line with what other states currently have in place.

Still playing Devils advocate here..... :evil:

[Kae]

The reason we are assuming that it is Christian based movement - because it is in Kansas. The movement was started and is being promoted by Christian groups and no others.

Kae

[daBaroness]

OK - I live on the Missouri side - but I'm only six miles from Kansas and will probably be moving there sometime this year to be closer to the job I'm going to get. (How's that for speculative thinking?)

Anyway - Kansas has also been an enigma to me. Johnson County is one of the wealthiest, most well-educated counties per capita, in the country. It's really where everyone who's anyone in the Kansas City area lives - although there are pockets of Johnson County Wannabes on the Missouri side. One would think that such a well-educated, well-to-do enclave would be very forward thinking ... but this isn't necessarily the case.

One must understand Kansas - even more than Missouri or Oklahoma - is the buckle of the Bible belt. And the buckle runs the gamut from poor, hardscrabble dirt farmers to wealthy cattle barons and the oil rich - all from a common background and religious philosophy. Admittedly - one sees more blantent shows of zealous Christianity in the rural areas than in Kansas City. A series of signs along I-35 between Kansas City and Wichita speak very clearly of repentance and damnation - much like the old Berma Shave signs. But I'm actually surprised at the number of well-to-do, well-educated people who attend and subscribe to a very fundamentalist theology. Johnson County is VERY republican - not just because of the wealth factor, but also because of the trend towards the embracing of religious conservatism in the party.

And in fact, it seems political and religious conservatism are gaining the upperhand by uniting under the Republican party and gaining power. Personally - it terrifies me. In the last week I've heard of a church in South Carolina where members were kicked out because they didn't vote for George Bush as their pastor "commanded." And last night I heard a politican state that the separation of church and state as put forth in the constitution was indended to be a one-way law - prohibiting the government from mandating a state religion - but allowing citizens to do just that. WTF?!

This guy was actually suggesting that as citizens - if we have enough like-minded people, we can force the government to mandate a state religion and impose its practice on the entire population. Bye-bye Jews, Muslims, Pagans and Presbyterians. I wonder who the Secretary of Bible-thumping will be? I wonder which Christian denomination will out to be the state religion?

Color me scared! :oops:

[KissMeKate]

aspen can correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Kasas one of the states that was trying to ban textbooks that even mentioned evolution as a possible explanation for the world as we currently know it?

I don't mind if you teach different theories in school, or even if a private school decides to not teach a certain discipline. Parents can decide on their own if they want their children to go there. But to cut out sections of science or math or poetry or history of public schools because it doesn't agree with the values of the current legislators is a miscarriage of our governmental system.

I also disagree with teaching just what is on state and federal tests, or for allowing calculators into the math section of college prep exams. We seem to be teaching our kids less and less, while other countries are reporting that they are adding to classes and expectations.

[Kae]

"I also disagree with teaching just what is on state and federal tests, or for allowing calculators into the math section of college prep exams. We seem to be teaching our kids less and less, while other countries are reporting that they are adding to classes and expectations."

Huzzah to that!
Kae