So here's the latest on Kansas redefining science...

[Massive Quasars]

Cut-and-pasted (for reference purposes):

"Second, unobservability does not preclude testability: claims about unobservables are routinely tested in science indirectly against observable phenomena. That is, the existence of unobservable entities is established by testing the explanatory power that would result if a given hypothetical entity (i.e., an unobservable) were accepted as actual. This process usually involves some assessment of the established or theoretically plausible causal powers of a given unobservable entity. In any case, many scientific theories must be evaluated indirectly by comparing their explanatory power against competing hypotheses.

...

The prevalence of unobservables in such fields raises difficulties for defenders of descent who would use observability criteria to disqualify design. Darwinists have long defended the apparently unfalsifiable nature of their theoretical claims by reminding critics that many of the creative processes to which they refer occur at rates too slow to observe. Further, the core historical commitment of evolutionary theory—that present species are related by common ancestry—has an epistemological character that is very similar to many present design theories. The transitional life forms that ostensibly occupy the nodes on Darwin's branching tree of life are unobservable, just as the postulated past activity of a Designer is unobservable.69 Transitional life forms are theoretical postulations that make possible evolutionary accounts of present biological data. An unobservable designing agent is, similarly, postulated to explain features of life such as its information content and irreducible complexity. Darwinian transitional, neo-Darwinian mutational events, punctuationalism's "rapid branching" events, the past action of a designing agent—none of these are directly observable. With respect to direct observability, each of these theoretical entities is equivalent.

...

Indeed, Darwin insisted that direct modes of testing were wholly irrelevant to evaluating theories of origins. Nevertheless, he did believe that critical tests could be achieved via indirect means. As he stated elsewhere: "This hypothesis [common descent] must be tested . . . by trying to see whether it explains several large and independent classes of facts; such as the geological succession of organic beings, their distribution in past and present times, and their mutual affinities and homologies."71 For Darwin the unobservability of past events and processes did not mean that origins theories are untestable. Instead, such theories may be evaluated and tested indirectly by the assessment of their explanatory power with respect to a variety of relevant data or "classes of facts.

...

Recent evolutionary demarcationists have contradicted themselves in the same way. The quotation cited earlier from Gerald Skoog ("The claim that life is the result of a design created by an intelligent cause can not be tested and is not within the realm of science") was followed in the same paragraph by the statement "Observations of the natural world also make these dicta [concerning the theory of intelligent design] suspect."73 Yet clearly something cannot be both untestable in principle and subject to refutation by empirical observations.

The preceding considerations suggest that neither evolutionary descent with modification nor intelligent design is ultimately untestable. Instead, both theories seem testable indirectly, as Darwin explained of descent, by a comparison of their explanatory power with that of their competitors. As Philip Kitcher—no friend of creationism—has acknowledged, the presence of unobservable elements in theories, even ones involving an unobservable Designer, does not mean that such theories cannot be evaluated empirically. He writes, "Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobserved particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended."74

Thus an unexpected equivalence emerges when design and descent are evaluated against their ability to meet specific demarcation criteria. The demand that the theoretical entities necessary to origins theories must be directly observable if they are to be considered testable and scientific would, if applied universally and disinterestedly, require the exclusion not only of design but also of descent. Those who insist on the joint criteria of observability and testability, conceived in a positivistic sense, promulgate a definition of correct science that evolutionary theory manifestly cannot meet. If, however, a less severe standard of testability is allowed, the original reason for excluding design evaporates. Here an analysis of specific attempts to apply demarcation criteria against design actually demonstrates a methodological equivalence between design and descent."

[Hannibal]

I'll try to get to that paper tomorrow.

Here's a list of links that people may find helpful...relevant books, websites and shit:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/int ... esign.html

[mjrpes]

Jules - a philosphical quesiton. What do you think the intrinsic motivator is for those folks with PhD's in subjects like biology or biochemistry to support things like ID or creation science (for example the young earth variety)?

ID theory is motivated by the idea that God likes to have fun, too. When God created the game SimUniverse, it didn't make much sense for him to leave out all interaction. With SimUniverse running on his home computer (God doesn't have a work computer), God is allowed to right click on an animal and go to its properties window, where he can then do things like kill it instantly, zap it with a lightning bolt, or give it mutations. Of course, God could just leave the simulation running on auto-mutation, but then all the fun is lost. ID theory is all about coming up with a rational justificaion for the "mutate me" button in the propeties window of an organism in the game SimUniverse. That is all.

[random name]

Hey, that actually makes sense, I think you might be on to something there.

[Shmee]

"That is an area we are currently researching. Our best hypothesis right now is that the archangels had a period of time over which they corrupted the creation, which was intially without flaw."

:icon28:

Be afraid...

[Billy Bellend]

enforcers uphold the status quo already geez

[tnf]

Email I just got from the NSTA (National Science Teacher's Association)...



******************
Kansas City Evolution Hearing Ends; State Board to Recommend Changes to Science Standards

The hearing on the teaching of evolution in Kansas science classrooms ended last Thursday in “acrimony, tears, finger-pointing, and heated exchanges” reports Scott Rothschild of the Kansas City Journal World. The hearing, which was boycotted by mainstream science organizations, was “a gigantic waste of money and an insult to Kansas teachers,"
says Pedro Irigonegaray, the Topeka attorney hired to defend the teaching of evolution. Read more at http://www.ljworld.com/section/evolution/story/204530. This issue continues to garner nationwide media attention; NSTA Executive Director Gerald Wheeler was interviewed for an evolution report that ran on the May 15 (Sunday) ABC World News Tonight in most major markets. Watch for future NSTA Express issues for more on the developing story in Kansas.
*****************************

From the link:
Board's evolution hearings come to bitter conclusion

Conservative board members to prepare report

By Scott Rothschild, Journal-World

Friday, May 13, 2005

Topeka — Historic hearings on evolution that attracted international attention ended Thursday in acrimony, tears, finger-pointing and heated exchanges.


Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka attorney defending evolution, was at the center of the dispute when he refused to be cross-examined after delivering a two-hour verbal attack, blasting critics of evolution.

"This was a gigantic waste of money and an insult to Kansas teachers," Irigonegaray said of the hearings on science standards that will be used as a guide for instruction of science to Kansas public school students.

Thursday was reserved for Irigonegaray to present his closing arguments in favor of evolution.

Critics of evolution testified for three days last week, deriding evolution as an atheistic view that should be countered in science class.

State Board of Education members Steve Abrams, Kathy Martin and Connie Morris will put together a report next month that will recommend which standards to approve. The full state board could approve standards this summer.

Mainstream scientists boycotted the evolution hearings, but Irigonegaray was allowed to cross-examine the evolution critics. Reporters from dozens of media outlets from across the country, and some from other countries, observed the hearings.

But on Thursday when conservative State Board of Education members and attorney John Calvert, director of an intelligent design organization, sought to cross-examine Irigonegaray, he refused.



"I am not a witness," Irigonegaray said. "My personal views are irrelevant."

Education board chairman Abrams, of Arkansas City, called Irigonegaray's actions a "breach" of the ground rules for the hearings.

Board member Morris, of St. Francis, told Irigonegaray, "I believe your behavior here was abusive," she said, "I just want you to know I forgive you."

Board member Martin, of Clay Center, her eyes filling with tears, said, "This board has been accused of being close-minded. I guess we will leave that up to the public."

During a short break in the hearing, Irigonegaray went to shake Calvert's hand, but Calvert refused.

"I don't think he is playing by the rules," Calvert said.

But Irigonegaray said he was the attorney representing mainstream scientists -- not a witness -- and he never agreed to be cross-examined.

"He had three days," Irigonegaray said of Calvert. "I've chosen to take less than two hours."

It was an emotional end to hearings that pitted proponents of intelligent design -- an idea that science cannot explain certain complexities of life and that the world is evidence of a master planner -- against scientists who say that evolution is the foundation for science instruction.

The intelligent design proponents accused the mainstream scientists of propping up evolution as a religion, while the mainstream scientists accused their critics of trying to open up science classes to teaching about biblical creationism.

The battle started after a 25-member standards-writing committee provided two reports -- one was approved by 17 members of the committee and supported evolution; the other was supported by eight members and included criticism of evolution and tried to insert language that de-emphasized the importance of evolution.

A conservative majority on the state Board of Education voted to have hearings on the two reports. Calvert rounded up witnesses, all of whom criticized evolution and many of whom supported intelligent design.
****
Fuck - they all disagree on evolution, but they aren't even all ID theorists...you have young earther's, IDers, etc...idiots.
****

After three days and 23 witnesses, Irigonegaray took the podium, laying out a case against the evolution critics.

The hearings were a show for proponents of intelligent design and a waste of taxpayers' money, he said.

The three conservative board members overseeing the hearing had already decided they would choose the standards criticizing evolution, he said.

He said the science standards that criticized evolution included a religious bias that would open up the state to a legal challenge because it violated the separation of church and state. Morris replied that no such constitutional separation existed.

Irigonegaray read a letter written by Steve Case, a pro-evolution scientist from Kansas University, who was co-chairman of the science standards committee.

In that letter, Case accused Abrams of misleading the public about Abrams' intentions.

But Abrams and Calvert accused the mainstream scientists of using underhanded tactics to try to discredit their witnesses.

In closing remarks, Abrams said evolution teaching could persuade young students who hadn't developed abstract thought processes that a godless theory "could be viewed as the only way we came to be."

Of course, because there have never been any "Godly" evolutionary thinkers (C.S. Lewis...the Pope....hmmm...)


Shit.[/url]

[Massive Quasars]

Fuck.

[zeeko]

i don't really understand... does this mean they are going to teach creation theories from all the different cultures? if not i would definately expect there to be some sort of law suit by some native american student or something for descrimination...

[R00k]

That description of the 'hearings' scares the hell out of me.

[tnf]

i don't really understand... does this mean they are going to teach creation theories from all the different cultures? if not i would definately expect there to be some sort of law suit by some native american student or something for descrimination...

You've hit on a big issue there. Since we are going to let 'supernatural' explanations in there, how are they going to stop a teacher from teaching all sorts of mysticism? Why can they not include Native American creation stories?

They are all as scientifically valid as Intelligent Design, to be honest.

[R00k]

And why not go ahead and throw Greek and Egyptian mythology back in the mix with them? They seem to be just as tenable, and fit perfectly into the definition of 'Intelligent Design' don't they?

[R00k]

Science Funding Dips in US; Soars in China:
http://www.workingforchange.com/printit ... emid=19053

[ajerara]

pretty soon the earth is going to be flat again.

[Massive Quasars]

From Hannibal's link:

Commentary on Methodological Materialism: by Eugenie Scott
"If we are allowed to attribute causation to an omnipotent force, there is no point in looking for a natural explanation. And guess what: if you don't look, you're guaranteed not to find one! We have found that we get much farther in science by not relying upon supernatural explanations: for practical reasons, we restrict ourselves to methodological materialism."

I like this Scott fellow.

[Massive Quasars]

Some of this crap is spilling over into Physics. I'm a little disturbed.

[Pext]

this is beyond sad...

[Hannibal]

For those of you who are really interested in Intelligent Design, I picked up a book the other day that is fucking ace.

"Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives (a collection of essays, edited by MSU philosophy prof Robert Pennock)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

The collection contains representative articles from key thinkers on both sides of the issue. It's probably the most comprehensive introduction one could hope for and I highly recommend it.

[[xeno]Julios]

just incase u missed it hannibal:

http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewto ... fe72ae68d1