![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenSince I was out on Tuesday, I've only just now gotten around to looking at the Science section of The New York Times for this week.
I found this article. Woe.
Kansas, that sink hole of my hopes for humanity, has now redefined science in order to make it more amenable to the inclusion of ID in classrooms. The old definition read as follows:
"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
The new definition 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."
While, on the surface, that might not seem to merit outrage (unless you happen to be sane and realize that redefining 'science' is a bad enough thing period), the language hides a multitude of ills. Take, for example, "logical argument." Yes, science definitely employs logical argument in order to hypothesize. However, to prove anything, you need evidence, reproduceable evidence, which is why, despite making a lot of sense and explaining near unto all biological phenomena, evolution is still a theory. It's not a theory in that "well, a couple of guys and I think" the way ID is, but it isn't possible to reproduce, on a planetary scale, the evolutional processes that got us to where we are today.
"Logical argument" is how ID got to be popular in the first place. The most common way ID-ers try to sell it is by analogy, syllogism, and other tricks of logical whimsy. "Have you ever heard of a building without a builder?" is a popular one. No, obviously, most of us have not the ability to recall a dwelling constructed all on its own (unless you count natural dwellings formed by erosion such as caves, and ooooh I bet the ID people hate when evos bring that up). They then use the ol' "ipso facto" clause, and bingo, you're roped into admitting that no construct such as the human body could ever have resulted from an accumulation of spontaneous mutations.
Nonetheless, Kansas has now opened the door, removed "natural explanations" from their definition of science and given denotative authority to intelligent design as science. I can't wait till Kansas is eventually evolutionarily stunted when the ret of humanity refuses to mate with people that stupid. It could be a fascinating case study.
I found this article. Woe.
Kansas, that sink hole of my hopes for humanity, has now redefined science in order to make it more amenable to the inclusion of ID in classrooms. The old definition read as follows:
"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."
The new definition 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."
While, on the surface, that might not seem to merit outrage (unless you happen to be sane and realize that redefining 'science' is a bad enough thing period), the language hides a multitude of ills. Take, for example, "logical argument." Yes, science definitely employs logical argument in order to hypothesize. However, to prove anything, you need evidence, reproduceable evidence, which is why, despite making a lot of sense and explaining near unto all biological phenomena, evolution is still a theory. It's not a theory in that "well, a couple of guys and I think" the way ID is, but it isn't possible to reproduce, on a planetary scale, the evolutional processes that got us to where we are today.
"Logical argument" is how ID got to be popular in the first place. The most common way ID-ers try to sell it is by analogy, syllogism, and other tricks of logical whimsy. "Have you ever heard of a building without a builder?" is a popular one. No, obviously, most of us have not the ability to recall a dwelling constructed all on its own (unless you count natural dwellings formed by erosion such as caves, and ooooh I bet the ID people hate when evos bring that up). They then use the ol' "ipso facto" clause, and bingo, you're roped into admitting that no construct such as the human body could ever have resulted from an accumulation of spontaneous mutations.
Nonetheless, Kansas has now opened the door, removed "natural explanations" from their definition of science and given denotative authority to intelligent design as science. I can't wait till Kansas is eventually evolutionarily stunted when the ret of humanity refuses to mate with people that stupid. It could be a fascinating case study.
