Comments on: The New Academic Freedom

By: The Kansas School Board is right | Cosmic Variance

The Kansas School Board is right | Cosmic Variance — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:42:24 +0000

[...] But, amidst the bemoaning of this setback for Enlightenment values, we all had a little fun with the school board’s attempt to change the definition of science, as Risa has already pointed out. (See also John Rennie at the new Scientific American blog.) Seems that they have decided to open the door to explanations other than the purely natural — obviously, so that they can include religious (”supernatural”) explanations within a science curriculum. [...]

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:39:09 +0000

What else do you expect if you indoctrinate small children with religion? They will grow up to become religious people who will send their children to religious schools and be in favour of teaching ID.

The only solution is outlawing teaching children things that can be proven to be nonsense. Teachings about the Bible would be ok, but teaching children that it’s a fact that Jesus rose from the death should be illegal.

How can it be that religious school boards can demand that evolution be questioned in biology class, while religion cannot be questioned at all?

By: Ookami Snow

Ookami Snow — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 06:19:14 +0000

loonunit – I agree that science is “trendy”. But i think that also they ridicule and black ball to a high degree as well. Just look at string theory, it was laughed at for many many years and only recently has it become a trend.

It’s not to say that ID will ever catch on, a science based on; here is some stuff, and then there is that stuff that we can’t ever know, is not really gonna fly… but the problem i have is that people are sticking their fingers in their ears and not really listening to the other side of the argument.

By: Ali Baba

Ali Baba — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:54:18 +0000

Scientists redefine Kansas: dumbfucks. So there.

By: Steinn Sigurdsson

Steinn Sigurdsson — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:52:07 +0000

ApJ will never go for that; but it’d make a great Journal of Irreproducible Results paper…

By: John Farrell

John Farrell — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:08:34 +0000

If I remember correctly Peter, reports were that the ID movement has abandoned the Dover case and moved on, and now the district is in deep financial trouble, legal bills and the like. Maybe that is one reason for the election results.

I hope this is true. The brazen lying and dishonesty–not just of the Dover School Board yahoos, but the Discovery Institute is just breathtaking.

Anyway, here’s hoping Atty Rothschild is the guy the ACLU turns lose on Kansas. He just decimated Michael Behe on the stand, and as we know, Dembski and the other “expert” witnesses…er, “withdrew” at the last minute.

By: loonunit

loonunit — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:39:45 +0000

Ookomi — It has been pointed out to me that scientists are not, as a general rule, impressed by dogma. Some of them have a weak spot for “trendy,” it’s true, but most of them are very independent, very ambitious, and very anti-establishment. They are always searching for The Next Big Thing: for a chance to be a maverick, for a chance to think of something original, to write their names indelibly into the history books by proving that the mainstream of scientific thought has been getting it all wrong for the last several thousand years.

If there was something really substantive behind Intelligent Design, somebody would have picked up on it by now. Some Young Turk would be making their name right now by running Intelligent Design through a supercomputer… and then several other Young Turks would figure it out and start their own ID research… and then the “trendy” thing would kick in, and before you know it, it would be the half of the scientific community pitted against the other half — the young, vibrant ID community against the old, institutionalized evolutionists.

THAT hasn’t happened. We’re not seeing factions amongst the scientific community — instead we’re seeing 97% of the scientific community battling with religious leaders, elected officials, community spokespersons, and public opinion. Yeah, there’s a couple of maverick scientists endorsing ID — some scientists really do love to be mavericks — but there’s no Young Turk movement catching on. If anything, old and young, scientists everywhere are starting to circle the wagon, starting to realize that the process of Science itself is under attack, and THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO ARTICULATE THIS TO THE PUBLIC.

By: Moshe

Moshe — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:23:45 +0000

And about Kansas, I am curious why is it always Kansas, there are plenty of other states with more conservative politics. Is there some unique local alliances there that makes it easier for creationists to have an impact?

In any event, I think the school board vote was expected, the issue is likely to be decided in court…again…

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:16:31 +0000

Hi Peter. I’m still up, winding down after our Cafe Scientifique this evening. I am taking great solace in the Dover results. This rare outbreak of reason does help a little – you’re right.

Ookami – this is a long story that we and many other sites have been through at length. Evolution is a remarkably well-tested and succesful scientific theory. ID is none of these things. It is never bad to challenge a scientific theory – to the contrary, it is a great thing to do. People have tried in many ways to challenge evolution and so far it hasn’t failed any tests. This is what makes it a great theory. Do you have a new idea of how to test it?

No scientists treat evolution like law. We treat is like a remarkably well-tested and successful scientific theory.

By: Ookami Snow

Ookami Snow — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 05:10:00 +0000

Is it bad to challenge scientific theory? This may not be the correct answer to evolutions problems, but most people are treating evolution like law, and that is not really science.