"Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed," said Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary school teacher who is presiding over the hearings. "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them…. We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science."The hearings in Topeka, scheduled to last several days, are focusing on two proposals. The first recommends that students continue to be taught the theory of evolution because it is key to understanding biology. The other proposes that Kansas alter the definition of science, not limiting it to theories based on natural explanations.
« Spot the Common Denominator #3 | Main | Cain't have no damferners playin' Halo. Maht larn sump'm. »
May 07, 2005
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Glencora Borradaile on SIGARCH CARES
- Anonymous Coward on #metoo (Guest Post)
- Whatsinaname on #metoo (Guest Post)
- Atri Rudra on #metoo (Guest Post)
- Jeff Erickson on #metoo (Guest Post)
- Anonymous woman on #metoo (Guest Post)
- David Roberts on #metoo (Guest Post)
- RyanDoughertyAZ on Eight brass monkeys from the ancient, sacred, holy crypts of Egypt
- x on Three talks at SOCG
- GASARCH on SOCG votes to leave ACM
My problem with this whole debate is that Creationism supporters are trying to redefine the overarching definition of science. Science is a discipline, and like other disciplines such as mathematics, philosophy, and history, science is governed by certain categorial criteria. Science is defined by the development of theories based on testable hypotheses. At no point is a science deemed the Truth; scientific theory is based on where the data, the outcome of testing our hypotheses, are currently pointing. Thus, the theory of evolution is saying based on the knowledge that we have to date, this theory is the most plausible explanation for X, Y, and Z. At any point in time, the theory may change, and, as we accrue knowledge, scientific theories will be formed and discarded freely. Creationism doesn't fit into science because it doesn't meet these criteria. Just as I wouldn't say that demonic possession may account for schizophrenic symptomology, I can't say "God" created the earth. That doesn't mean that I don't believe God created the earth, I just don't consider faith to be science. If at some point we gain the technology to test Creationism, it would then fit the criteria for scientific theory. I don't understand why it is so important to place Creationism in a science classroom when there are other disciplines already encompassing Creationism. I don't ask that evolution be placed in a philosophy or religious studies classroom. That would be asinine.
Posted by: SFTR | May 09, 2005 at 07:22 AM
Maybe there should be an assertion that the theory of evolution by natural selection should be included in Bible school curricula.
Posted by: Daniel | May 18, 2005 at 10:26 PM