Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE G-SCHOOLS

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE G-SCHOOLS

Filed at 4:28 pm under by dcobranchi

You won’t believe who needs it.

Because the scientific community is a monolith, impenetrable and often hostile to new theories, intelligent design proponents have to turn to the public schools to recruit support, a witness said Monday.

…[D]uring cross-examination, [Fuller] said intelligent design — the idea that the complexity of life requires a designer — is “too young” to have developed rigorous testable formulas and sits on the fringe of science.

He suggested that perhaps scientists should have an “affirmative action” plan to help emerging ideas compete against the “dominant paradigms” of mainstream science.

Fuller is a defense expert witness. The other two defense witnesses were equally inept. ID is going down, big time.

8 Responses to “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE G-SCHOOLS”


Comment by
Sam
October 25th, 2005
at 9:57 pm

Yes – and inquisitiveness will have been replaced by inquisition. You go Daryl.


Comment by
Daryl
October 25th, 2005
at 10:08 pm

Oh? Name one question that ID seeks to answer. One experiment it proposes. I won’t hold my breath waiting.

The only ones who lack inquisitiveness here are the IDers who, when faced with something they don’t understand, shrug and say the Big G must have done it. We don’t know how or when or why. But we’re pretty sure he (or the space aliens) might possibly have done something somewhere sometime.


Comment by
Annette
October 25th, 2005
at 10:57 pm

I think what really matters is the ability to challenge evolution and its particulars on a scientific level. I’m not optimistic that any good will come from this to do that in public schools and colleges.
Possible Trend #1: If a person criticizes the science of evolution, he/she is banded as an ID’er and free speech and scientific facts will be shut down on the basis of the person’s label NOT on the MERITS of the information.
Possible Trend #2: High school credits derived from Christian publishers materials will be screened out and rejected by colleges.
Possible Trend #3: Teaching evolution “facts” will not be sufficient for compliance with state standards. At least an appearance of subscribing to evolution (not just teaching required “facts”) will be a requirement or outcome looked for.


Comment by
Daryl
October 26th, 2005
at 4:37 am

A few questions for the YEC/ID side– Even assuming that there is some controversy (which there isn’t) among scientists about evolution, why should that necessarily point to a mandate that ID be taught? Evolution is mainstream scinece. Ninth grade biology is an intro level course. The kids need to be exposed to a huge range of material. There’s barely enough time to briefly scrape the surface. And yet IDers want to sidetrack (hijack) the curriculum to teach the (non-existent) controversy. Why? It’s surely not about the science. Many documents and much testimony produced by the plaintiffs prove that it’s all about religion. Science isn’t religion. It’s a way of observing the physical world and making decisions/predictions about how it works. The metaphysical just ain’t even on the horizon. The g-schools are secular (and, no, secular humanism is NOT a religion and, no, the SCOTUS has NEVER held that it is). Why do the YEC/IDers want to screw around with the very definition of science? Is your faith so weak? Is your God so puny that you need to have it reinforced in the public schools under force of law? Pitiful.

Teach YEC at home. Teach ID in the churches. Who cares? Just leave the definition of what is and what isn’t science to the scientists. Your so-called experts are making you look like a bunch of ignorant yahoos.


Comment by
Annette
October 26th, 2005
at 7:53 am

Daryl,
If that was directed at all to this YEC, I’m not interested in creationism or ID being taught in the public schools. However, the writing is on the wall and even challenging the specifics of science behind earth and biology science for example, will get someone labeled as “religious”. Things are not wrapped up here in neat little packages for even evolutionists. Don’t you remember any thing I told you about Harlan Bretz?


Comment by
Daryl
October 26th, 2005
at 11:32 am

Aimed at noone in particular. Scientists in general have no problem with religious folks. Indeed, many scientists are devout believers. Here’s the problem with ID–

The IDers (particularly the DI and its minions) are attempting to bypass any kind of peer review and game the system by redefining (in a courtroom and in the schools) the very definition of science.

If Behe wants to waste his time pursuing (thought) experiments that will allegedly prove ID, have at it. Just don’t try and teach it to the next generation of scholars. ID is not ready for prime time. IMO it never will be.

Who knows? I could be wrong. Maybe ID will be real science some day. But not today.


Comment by
Annette
October 26th, 2005
at 1:14 pm

Daryl,
Imo, if the right to scientifically criticize the science behind evolution is protected, then that’s what is really important to freedom. That’s all I care about. Peer review by one group of controlling scientists is a problem as it censors the out of box thinking that I think is necessary in science. I don’t see the original definition of science being changed by creationists.


Comment by
Daryl
October 26th, 2005
at 2:08 pm

Read the transcript of Behe’s testimony. He admitted under oath that ID seeks to change the definition of science.

And peer review is the only thing that allows science to work. Otherwise the signal/noise goes to zero.

A single “crank” can eventually change the path of science. He just shouldn’t try to do it through the courts (and schools).