Evolution opponents suffer setback

Error

It really doesn't matter if evos can use politics to maintain a little longer their monopoly on what is presented to public school children because the very fact they have to use politics to maintain that monopoly discredits their position with the public.

Uhhhh....Rand? Who votes in school board elections? Isn't it the public?

a mistake....please ignore postEdited by randman, : No reason given.

He he... Nice one. Apparently "the public" is "people who agree with randman" in the context of that post.Overall, this does give me SOME hope that when people actually get off their ass to vote that they can affect positive change. As long as THEY are actually voting rather that some Diebold smartcard.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

It isn't clear that a majority of the public in Kansas feels primarily one way or the other. As the article notes, an anti-evolution majority was elected in 1998, a pro-evolution majority in 2000, an anti-evolution majority in 2004, and now a pro-evolution majority again in 2006. This tells us that the public is sufficiently divided on the issue that whoever is out of power and most motivated wins the next election. In other words, the public has the power to effect both positive *and* negative change.But Randman is right about politics. Regardless of who is to blame for politicizing the issue, boards of education should not be making decisions about what is legitimate science. Science has a definition, and whatever fits that definition belongs in science class. That creationism and ID do not fit that definition is why the Discovery Institute is trying to redefine science away from methodological naturalism.--Percy

But percy, science already has moved past methodological naturalism in terms of defining what is material. QM has demonstrated that what is physical or material first consists of something not physical or material from a classical paradigm.

Yes, we already know you're convinced of this. The problem for you is that very few scientists are convinced of this.--Percy

We may get off-topic and so won't elaborate in detail, but I showed clearly where plenty of physicists do, in fact, agree with my assessment here of what quantum physics shows, and really I was just parroting them. From what I can tell, the stuff I have posted about QM is, in fact, the mainstream opinion on the matter.Of course, as physicists, they are not generally trying to apply their paradigm to biology.

Yes, we already know you believe you demonstrated this. If it were actually true that scientists have become convinced by QM to move beyond methodological naturalism, then the Discovery Institute would have no need to make weaning science away from methodological naturalism one of its goals. That this is one of the primary goals of their wedge document makes clear that the Discovery Institute believes that what you think has already happened has not actually happened yet in their view.--Percy

Yes that is an important issue to realize above and beyond the issue that the political opinion is NOT entrenched on either side. The problem then becomes about who IS actually supposed to define standards for science education if not the school board. The problem being that "Science" is not a monolithing institution that can effect that policy. After that you have a lot of quabbaling over what does and does not fit the definition of science which is where the battle grounds over the EvC issue have shifted.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Tom Toles for August 04, 2006 - GoComics

Masterpiece!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion