Quake3World

This is their "old", 2001 definition:

Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.

This is their "new", just approved definition:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation,
logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

Catch the subtle difference?

Cited from: http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.html

They spelled continuing wrong?

Deathshroud wrote:They spelled continuing wrong?

Yes, and that one typo made headlines on CNN.

one persons logic is another persons poo

Even the more nuanced definition still places ID-based explanations out behind the barn on a cold rainy night chuggin' horse cock.

Here they are...

http://www.ksde.org/commiss/bdaddr.html

that's just some of the gang.

mjrpes wrote:

Deathshroud wrote:They spelled continuing wrong?

Yes, and that one typo made headlines on CNN.

Lol, really? Wow, is it really that important?

Deathshroud wrote:

mjrpes wrote:

Deathshroud wrote:They spelled continuing wrong?

Yes, and that one typo made headlines on CNN.

Lol, really? Wow, is it really that important?

Yes. And yes.

Hannibal wrote:Even the more nuanced definition still places ID-based explanations out behind the barn on a cold rainy night chuggin' horse cock.

Yes, but science is no longer specifically limited to "seeking natural explanations".

mjrpes wrote: Yes, but science is no longer specifically limited to "seeking natural explanations".

In philosophy, we call this "GAY SPECIAL PLEADING". Doubly retarded since in this instance what they added actually makes their 'case' even more dubious. This is what happens when bachelor's level education grads try to talk above their pay grade.

Sent this to one of the board members who called evolution dogma...

*****************
As a biologist, I am happy to see that you can dismiss the entire body of evolutionary biology - the central unifying theory in the study of the life sciences, a theory that has more EVIDENCE supporting it than gravity(if you understand the mutual exclusivity of relativity and quantum) - as 'dogma that's being taught in a classroom.' What is taking place in your state, with your help, is nothing more than a return to the same ideals that had the Church going after folks who challenged the geocentric model of the universe. It's pathetic and ridiculous. Search through some peer-reviewed scientific literature (if you know where to find it) for some ID theory or young Earth creationism articles...you won't find them. And the bottom line is that this is NOT the result of some dogmatic belief by atheist scientists to push the notion of God out of nature. If the science was there, it would be supported. It isn't. And save for a small minority of religious scientists - who place their own DOGMATIC FAITH (yes, faith) ahead of the real nature of science - there aren't any scientists who adhere to something as utterly ridiculous as ID.

If we want to know why our young people are lagging behind other nations in science and technology, we need look no further than ignorant decision makers such as yourself, whose weak mental acumen precludes their ability to understand the fundamental processes that govern nature.

I really feel for the high school students graduating in Kansas who apply for competetive science programs in colleges like MIT.

Don't be so dogmatic man.

Well put tnf

What's left to be said on this subject....

tnf wrote:Don't be so dogmatic man.

I find this whole universe to be way too dogmatic. Why the hell is it, that when I toss a ball in the air, it ALWAYS comes down? Every time, without fail. This universe needs to stop forcing its laws down our backs without our permission. We should have the right to determine whether gravity exists or not; the universe shouldn't have the only say.

Same goes for evolution. If the universe is going to be so dogmatic in its evidential claims of our evolutionary origin, we need to speak up and let our voice be heard. We should have the right to determine whether evolution exist or not. And it all starts by saying NO, I will NOT accept your so-called evolutionary theory, universe.

i'm more of a catmatic person, myself

Sigh, here's the link to the whole thing. Makes me sad, really

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08 ... index.html

The only way to prove ID is to not prove it.

Deathshroud wrote:They spelled continuing wrong?

The first was quoted by TNF and the second by me,
that explain it all.

pete wrote:

Deathshroud wrote:They spelled continuing wrong?

The first was quoted by TNF and the second by me,
that explain it all.

What did I quote? And what did you say that explains anything here?

This is such a shame it's pathetic. I'm afraid kansas scientists will be overlooked by the rest of the scientific community if they start adopting those ideas. There is a well-rooted scientific mentality that cannot be overlooked by political crap, and such definition changes will not change the scientific approach to understanding our world. Heck, by that definition, one could say that the cure to AIDS is to just pray to the Virgin Mary. After all, divine intervention IS a "logical" and "theoretical" approach to "more adequate (to some people) explanations" of natural phenomina.

Such crap will be laughed upon by the scientific community. I just spent about 1.5hours in a study group with a few professors and graduate students where they scrutinized the use of specific graph types to adequately present the data in a journal article. The detail of such scrutiny shows that the slightest hint of "intelligent design" in science will not be overlooked. I am not worried about these ideas affecting science. To me they're just political bullshit to appease naive religious folk who are too stubborn and lazy to educate themselves in the sciences and develop a logically, empirically testable train of thought.

The first time I looked at the thread, I thought it said, "Science as defined by Kracus."

Anyway, the thing I'm most worried about is the public response to this. Most people don't have a slight grasp about how science works, so I fear other ID advocates will see this as a step forward and start pushing it in other communities, and the ignorami will just eat it up. Like Canis said, I don't think basic sciences will be set back by this because the scientific community won't accept something without analyzing it to death (usually). And the rest of the population will go on being completely unaware of what scientists are doing.

What does worry me are the areas where science spills over to the public sector: drug development, medicine, and epidemiology. These are where scientific developments start to be scrutinized by people like George Bush, for example, and that's not a good thing.

In the long run, of course, it will weaken science education, but the less-cynical part of me still has to believe that those kids who really are interested in pursuing scientific careers are able to tell good theory from bad. I hope...

I think it will only serve to confuse those who are getting into science. Those who are going other directions wont care, and this "law" therefore wont affect scientific progress. However, for those interested in science, there will be many hurdles of confusion thrown into their educational paths by introducing such non-empirically testable ideas into science. Like church-and-state, I believe church-and-science should also be separate. What one "believes" has nothing to do with the conclusions derived through empirical testing.

Perhaps, but those who will be making decisions about where science goes and how experiments are setup will be PhDs and such. No student will survive long in grad school if they don't have a strong grasp on evolution.

However, I did just think about the non-science kids who will be future policy makers. Some of the kids coming out of Kansas may go on to sit on school boards themselves or might become -- may the intelligent designer help us all -- the next GWBs. That suddenly frightens me. In a way, that WILL have an effect on science. :shudder: