Monday, November 14, 2005
Science Re-"Defined"
So, according to the New York Times those zany Kansans are at it again. Apparently in an ingenious attempt to circumvent criticism about potential changes to its biology standards which might allow for the teaching of intelligent design, the State Board of Education in Topeka has decided to redefine science itself.
Now before you start panicking about how the Kansans should all be shipped to Oz where magic works and the rational world is cast aside for a Technicolor fantasy, rest assured that the original definition remains mostly intact. Nonetheless, the changes are rather devious and will move a long way towards forwarding the ultimate agenda of opening the door for alternative theories of, among other things, evolution.
To understand the impact of the changes, consider this excerpt from the original definition of science:
"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
Now read the altered version:
[Science is] "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
At first glance, both definitions appear to promote systematic discussions of natural phenomena, complete with such tried and true aspects as hypothesizing, experimentation, and logical arguments. But notice the change in adjectives before "explanations"? There has been a subtle move from "natural" to "adequate."
In other words, if there is not an explanation to be found in nature...we might as well move towards other, adequate explanations, even if they are not natural. And once you introduce the supernatural into the system...well, all bets are off. I am astounded at the potential hypocrisy of an educational association allowing, with one swift and subtle adjustment of adjectives, all manner of "theories" (and I use the term loosely) into the science classroom that can not be proven or disproven via experimentation. This, as I told my students earlier in the year, is bad science...and I can only shudder at the potential ramifications.
Really, it's enough to make me wonder...what would the flying spaghetti monster do?
* Obviously, I've rescinded my little embargo against the Times, despite my continued ire at being denied access to my favorite columnists. (They're still on the Enemies List though...have no doubt of that!)
So, according to the New York Times those zany Kansans are at it again. Apparently in an ingenious attempt to circumvent criticism about potential changes to its biology standards which might allow for the teaching of intelligent design, the State Board of Education in Topeka has decided to redefine science itself.
Now before you start panicking about how the Kansans should all be shipped to Oz where magic works and the rational world is cast aside for a Technicolor fantasy, rest assured that the original definition remains mostly intact. Nonetheless, the changes are rather devious and will move a long way towards forwarding the ultimate agenda of opening the door for alternative theories of, among other things, evolution.
To understand the impact of the changes, consider this excerpt from the original definition of science:
"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
Now read the altered version:
[Science is] "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
At first glance, both definitions appear to promote systematic discussions of natural phenomena, complete with such tried and true aspects as hypothesizing, experimentation, and logical arguments. But notice the change in adjectives before "explanations"? There has been a subtle move from "natural" to "adequate."
In other words, if there is not an explanation to be found in nature...we might as well move towards other, adequate explanations, even if they are not natural. And once you introduce the supernatural into the system...well, all bets are off. I am astounded at the potential hypocrisy of an educational association allowing, with one swift and subtle adjustment of adjectives, all manner of "theories" (and I use the term loosely) into the science classroom that can not be proven or disproven via experimentation. This, as I told my students earlier in the year, is bad science...and I can only shudder at the potential ramifications.
Really, it's enough to make me wonder...what would the flying spaghetti monster do?
* Obviously, I've rescinded my little embargo against the Times, despite my continued ire at being denied access to my favorite columnists. (They're still on the Enemies List though...have no doubt of that!)
