Kansas State School Board At It Once Again

quote:

---

Except you're forgeting all those degrees handed out by places like Oral Roberts university. For every hard science degree earned in this country, who knows how many theology, divinity, philosophy, physical education, and communications degrees are issued.

---

And let's not forget the Patriot Universities and Rolling Stone back page ads. It would be an easy system to abuse. I think we can only agree with the quip "The problem with democracy is the voters".

quote:

---

This is not an anti-evolution bill. It's not getting rid of evolution; it's adding alternative theories. What exactly is wrong with introducing the other side of the debate?

---

Because the legitimacy of a scientific theory (eg ID) is determined by science not school boards or legistlative bodies. The very fact that ID proponents skip peer review by scientists and go straight to political bodies demonstrates how weak their supposedly scientific theory is. Science class should reflect what is being used by scientists and supported by positive evidence. Theories taught in science class should also be testable, something that ID is not.Simply, your "other theories" are not science and therefore should not be taught or even mentioned in science class. If proponents of ID think otherwise then they need to present their case to scientists, not schoolboards or state legistlators.

quote:

---

This has become an all too-common tactic to blame it on the Christian right. Not only does this commit the ad-hominem logical fallacy, but it generalizes the ID side to right-wing Christians only. Had you read this article, you would find the opinions to be much more diverse than right-wing Creationists vs. "true scientists."

---

This still doesn't get by the fact that ID proponents have skipped the usual path for theories being taught in science, which is acceptance by the scientific community before being included in school curriculums.Why aren't ID proponents lobbying the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health instead of school boards and state legistlators? Is it because they know what they are presenting is not science? I think so.

quote:

---

Also, many scientists are getting involved in these hearings, as well, so to say that science isn't being presented in this debate is just plain false.

---

The question is whether or not these scientists are actually presenting science. The criteria for a true scientific theory is not the letters after your name but whether or not the theory is testable through the scientific method. ID is not testable as it stands now.

quote:

---

Referring to the legal system seems to contradict what you said earlier. You criticize ID for being too "political," but at the same time you make a reference the decision of a political institution to support your case against ID. You can't have it both ways.

---

quote:

---

The criteria for creationism is strictly Bible-based and very specific, while the criterion for much ID is much broader in that it refers to just a designer.

---

It refers to an unevidenced designer whose existence must be taken on faith. At this point it makes little difference if the designer is biblically based or not.These hearings would not have happened if ID proponents and Creationists had lobbied scientific bodies instead of political bodies. None of these cases were started by scientists supporting evolution.

quote:

---

Intelligent design actually tends to have a more agnostic leaning

---

Doesn't matter, it is still a philosophy and not a science.