Remember how I said "Intelligent Design is not science"?

[trinityvixen]

Since 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.

Comments

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

This entire intelligent design thing makes me sick. Like, literally. Every time I see a new article about it, my stomach twists in knots of anxiety and unhappiness. Because apparently a huge chunk of our country are ignorant, poorly educated, superstitious, and stubborn. And these people can vote.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think I am familiar with this feeling of which you speak. I was talking with a friend of the lady whose memorial service I went to, and I told her I believed in God and that he made the world but that I thought of the creation myth as a poetical license for actual evolution. She said that was nice of me, but she didn't buy God at all and believed instead in the natural cycling of resources--the Circle of Life, to paraphrase The Lion King.

This is an older, English lady who's lived in the US for years now (decades, we're talking). If she's so enlightened despite being from an age where, let's face it, people were more conservative, what does that say about the arseholes who are being so priggy about evolution now???

[osmodion.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you'll be happy to know what happened in Dover, PA, in the election after the school board put intelligent design in classrooms. In short, all members up for re-election were all given the boot. One didn't even get a single vote in one precint; he's demanding a recount.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/09/dover_school_board_booted/

In other news, the University of California and California State made the wise decision to not certify a high school biology course that is based on creationism, as well as Christian English and history classes. Shockingly, they're being sued by the Christian private school. I'm sure you can guess what the school is arguing.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12804451.htm

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

I gotta say, my gut reaction to this one is that it isn't as bad a change as it seems. "Systematic method of continuing investigation" in a lot of ways rules out ID, since it amounts to giving up and waving your hands in the air at the problem. ID involves no hypothesis testing, measurement, or experimentation. If they'd included the word "natural" they'd have a really pretty good definition of science on their hands -- certainly a more specific one than the earlier definition...

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

To be fair, due to Times Select I haven't had the chance to read the source article. I bet that the interpretation I give above -- from the perspective of someone who, y'know, actually knows what science is and does, unlike the Kansas school board -- is not the spin that the authors of that definition would have one give it.