Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » LETTER OF THE DAY
  • LETTER OF THE DAY

    Filed at 1:26 pm under by dcobranchi

    From my old home-town paper. This one I’m going to have to pick apart line-by-line.

    Teach both intelligent design and evolution

    Why not teach creationism?

    The Discovery Institute is going to have to revoke his union card. After all, ID is NOT creationism. *snort*

    I do not understand why a decision to teach students both sides of a scientific argument should cause so much uproar. This decision should not be made for the masses by an empowered few.

    When did science become subject to a popular vote? Science always has and always will be defined by the scientists who are actually pushing the frontiers back. What the “masses” feel is right is completely irrelevant. If those masses want to teach ID or creationism in the schools, fine (assuming they can get that by the courts). Just don’t call it science.

    If intelligent design truly does not hold any water on a biological level, then let that be decided by students when they are presented with a fair view of both evolution and intelligent design.

    Even better, we’ll let a bunch of juveniles define science. That should prove interesting.

    Evolutionists should have no reason to worry that their theory might be disproved, if they are sure that what they have theorized is accurate.

    This has nothing to do with scientists worrying about what IDers can prove. It is all about what is proper to teach as science. Theology isn’t science. Philosophy isn’t science. And what the masses might want isn’t science.

    When did science shift from using data to generate theories, to molding data to fit theories?

    This is too funny, since this is exactly the way ID works. The IDers have taken their theology and then molded a pseudo-scientific framework to fit.

    It is no longer science when one decides to close the mind to any other ideas besides those which one believes to be true.

    Another apt description of creationist thinking.

    Randy Reed, Newark

    Well, at least he got his name and town correct.

    5 Responses to “LETTER OF THE DAY”


    Comment by
    Ron
    September 5th, 2005
    at 9:53 pm

    In the following, I’m not trying to defend ID (or suggest it ought to be in public schools)…

    “Science always has and always will be defined by the scientists who are actually pushing the frontiers back. What the “masses” feel is right is completely irrelevant.”

    The same could be said about education by an educrat.

    Setting aside the respect I have for highly specialized individuals (that I know) in various fields, I feel that leaving the definition of the field solely to those who are highly trained in the field is dangerous.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    September 5th, 2005
    at 10:04 pm

    What’s the alternative?


    Comment by
    Ron
    September 6th, 2005
    at 7:44 pm

    What do you think of following the open source model? I realize it would have to be in areas that didn’t require the expensive facilities like the particle accelerator. But, it could be started on ‘practical science’ (i.e. science we could all use)


    Comment by
    Daryl
    September 6th, 2005
    at 8:21 pm

    The problem with that model is that in order to have any kind of impact, any independent research will eventually have to be published. Now, if we completely scrap the peer review system and publish everything on the web, that could theoretically work. But then the signal/noise ratio would rapidly approach zero. In time (probably very little time) researchers would be forced to re-create the peer review system. And scientists would once again be the definers of science.


    Comment by
    Ron
    September 6th, 2005
    at 10:32 pm

    That had all crossed my mind as well. One of the inherent problems is that there is alot of money involved. The reason open source works is the number of people who are contributing. Lots of things get contributed and subsequently dropped (because no one uses it). If science were as attractive as computers and had the range of contributors that open source does, then it likely would. But, I suspect that IAATM would rule.

    The challenge, of course, would be to convince people it would be in their best interest to pursue it. Because it would be, just the same as homeschooling is.