Posted on 11/28/2005 6:54:46 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
Intelligent design — already the planned subject of a controversial Kansas University seminar this spring — will make its way into a second KU classroom in the fall, this time labeled as a “pseudoscience.”
In addition to intelligent design, the class Archaeological Myths and Realities will cover such topics as UFOs, crop circles, extrasensory perception and the ancient pyramids.
John Hoopes, associate professor of anthropology, said the course focused on critical thinking and taught how to differentiate science and “pseudoscience.” Intelligent design belongs in the second category, he said, because it cannot be tested and proven false.
“I think this is very important for students to be articulate about — they need to be able to define and recognize pseudoscience,” Hoopes said.
News of the new class provided fresh fuel to conservatives already angered that KU planned to offer a religious studies class this spring on intelligent design as “mythology.”
“The two areas that KU is trying to box this issue into are completely inappropriate,” said Brian Sandefur, a mechanical engineer in Lawrence who has been a vocal proponent of intelligent design.
Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex to have evolved without a “designer,” presumably a god or other supernatural being. That concept is at the heart of Kansas’ new public school science standards — greatly ridiculed by the mainstream science community but lauded by religious conservatives — that critique the theory of evolution.
Hoopes said his class would be a version of another course, titled Fantastic Archaeology, which he helped develop as a graduate student at Harvard University.
The course will look at the myths people have created to explain mysterious occurrences, such as crop circles, which some speculate were caused by extraterrestrials.
The course will explore how myth can be created to negative effects, as in the case of the “myth of the moundbuilders.” In early American history, some people believed the earthen mounds found primarily in the area of the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys were the works of an ancient civilization destroyed by American Indians. The myth contributed to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which relocated American Indians east of the Mississippi to lands in the west, Hoopes said.
“It was that popular explanation that then became a cause for genocide,” Hoopes said.
That example shows the need to identify pseudoscience, he said.
“What I’m trying to do is deal with pseudoscience regardless of where it’s coming from,” he said.
But Sandefur said intelligent design was rooted in chemistry and molecular biology, not religion, and it should be discussed in science courses.
“The way KU is addressing it I think is completely inadequate,” he said.
Hoopes said he hoped his class stirs controversy. He said students liked to discuss topics that are current and relevant to their lives.
“Controversy makes people think,” he said. “The more controversy, the stronger the course is.”
Actually, Behe's contribution pretty much boils down to coming up with a definition for "irreducible complexity" that doesn't really apply to the natural world and then claiming that because the Theory of Evolution didn't jibe with his arbitrary and capricious definition, it was clearly the Theory of Evolution that is wrong.
Don't forget Behe's other contribution: Selling lots of books. His publisher loves him.
I admire the approach they have chosen; rather than "freezing out" ID (which then gives it's proponents more ammunition for their PR onslaught) they instead are shining a bright light of scrutiny on it, revealing its many flaws and deficiencies as it poses as "science."
The IDers are learning first hand the meaning of the adage: "Be careful what you wish for -- you might just get it!" They demanded ID be allowed into the curriculum, and now, by God, they are going to get it, good and hard!
I think more schools should follow suit; it would be like putting a stake through the heart of a vampire!
Great! That's my favorite theocracy!
Coyoteman What do philosophers know about either? You get a good archaeologist and you'll do just fine.
Actually, a good magician may be your best bet.
I think the distinction between science and pseudoscience has do with certain axioms that are best explored in philosophical mode not to mention explaining the making of logical arguments.
"What do philosophers know about either?"
OK What did Karl Popper know about either?
Irreducible complexity is a concept that is probably dominant in science rather than exceptional.
Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.
I have no personal disagreement with evolutionary biology as a study but I do reject the outrageous censorship of scientiests such as Behe. Students should be able to access the controversies of evolution rather than be dogmatically told that all questioners are practicing pseudo science.
You have chosen your side, I have my side! Let the "game" begin!
Science education will be destroyed if something that is not science is presented as science. If schoolchildren are incorrectly taught that ID is a scientific theory, it will directly contradict the whole concept of what science is. We are already falling behind other countries in the number of kids who are concentrating in math, science, engineering, etc. Corrupting the whole idea of what's science and what isn't won't help that at all.
ID "just ain't science"
In the same manner, one could teach numerology in math class, astrology in Astronomy class or Ancient Chinese dialects in English Class. However, astrology ain't astronomy, numerology ain't math, Ancient Chinese dialects ain't English, and ID ain't science.
It's that simple - nothing to do with fear, dogma or the entire civilized world collapsing.
WAAAY to much drama from the ID'ers.
Deal with it - it's religion or philosophy at best.
"Science education will be destroyed . . ."
It is this kind of ridiculous hyperbole that makes me very skeptical of the evolution community. Science is supposed to be about rigorous inquiry. Teaching competing theories of various scientists will improve science education.
Censorship will weaken science education. This thread also illustrates that the censorship is ideologically motivated. I have seen so many weird lectures on my campus integrating Buddhism and various other metaphysics into evolution, biology and other sciences. I see journals publishing articles on how UFOs dropped of life on planet Earth Billions of years ago.
In all these intances, the chicken littles do not run out and proclaim the sky is falling. Instead, they calmly appreciate the distinct viewpoint of the Dali Lama or whatever peculiar non-Christian guru is mixing science and religion.
Behe is not religious! But because his research could support Christians, we must take great alarm and protect the sacred domain of science which has always worked best when protected from inquiry?!
In the first place, what is that to you, assuming it were true? In the second place, to what "particular religious group" and to what "whole community" do you refer?
Cordially,
What in the heck are you talking about??? We're stil hoping you're TRYING to be funny......
Almost all science done today demonstrates that events that appear to be accidental have causes. Forensics medicine is a simple example.
I have no personal disagreement with evolutionary biology as a study but I do reject the outrageous censorship of scientiests such as Behe. Students should be able to access the controversies of evolution rather than be dogmatically told that all questioners are practicing pseudo science.
You forgot to mention a couple of examples of irreducible complexity throughout the ages that could only be attributed to the presence of a God. Let me help you out...
* Lightning
* Rain
* Fire
* Eclipses
* Earthquakes
* Disease
* Tidal Waves
* Volcanoes
* 'Shooting Stars'
I'm sure I missed a few, but hopefully this helps make your point that Goddidit has been with us throughout history.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
Cordially,
Guess you got tired of yelling at the dead turkey, so now you have to come here to beat your dead horse?
Actually I had a couple of courses way back in grad school which dealt directly with the controversies of evolution; I suspect this kind of course is taught all the time.
And no, there was no mention of CS (ID not having been dreamed up yet). The courses stuck to science.
See, this is where ID falls down immediately; because it tries to redefine stuff as science that isn't. Lots of things can be described as rigorous inquiry. Law uses rigorous inquiry. Philosophy uses rigorous inquiry. Science uses a particular type of rigorous inquiry though the use of testable hypotheses. If something, such as ID, is not based on testable hypotheses, then it's not science. It may still be worth teaching, but not as science. The recognition of this, that something may be worth teaching, but not as science, is what's going on in what's described in the posted article and is a great idea.
Teaching competing theories of various scientists will improve science education.
Once again, you corrupt the ideas of science to serve a non-scientific aim. Teaching ID has nothing to do with teaching a scientific theory. ID is not a theory. A theory is the result of a successfully tested hypothesis. ID has no ideas that have been successfully tested and is thus not a theory.
And as far as teaching ideas of competing scientists; Linus Pauling thought that Vitamin C would cure the common cold. He pushed it hard, but it didn't stand up to testing. Just because a scientist comes up with an idea doesn't mean that it should be taught as science.
Exactly right.
Since it's obvious you don't agree with me, and your response doesn't address my point, your response indicates that either you have a deficiency in your reading comprehension skills or you are a troll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.