Note a couple creationist tricks: Robert Tyler of Advocates for Faith and Freedom says "whereas the (sic) UC wants courses to be taught from the perspective that there is no god." Science in no way denies the existence of God; it simply studies what is part of the natural world. God, by definition, is supernatural and thus not part of that world, and therefore outside the purview of science. Many scientists, especially in the United States are atheists. But not all are: Ken Miller, author of one of the most popular high school biology textbooks and a professor at Brown University, is a practicing Roman Catholic and has even been publicly criticized by PZ Myers (author of the immensely popular Pharyngula blog -- one that you should be reading; there's a link off to the right) because of his stance. Science, most correctly stated, does not deny the existence of God any more than it supports it. When scientists conclude that there is no god, they are applying the naturalistic methodology of science to an overall worldview (I do agree with their position, for what it's worth).
A student says that since they're exposed to more theories -- "from intelligent design to evolution" then they must be getting a better, more rounded education. What she ignores is that ID does not follow the rules of science to make its conclusions -- a point (a self goal) made by Michael Behe of Lehigh University and the Discovery (sic) Institute during the Dover trial when he admitted that the rules of science followed by ID would allow astrology to be a science. One of the most important lessons in any field is understanding how that field works. Exposure to ID and creationism -- in a textbook that says that if science and the "Word of God" should conflict, the "Word of God" is the definitive source (apparently even if it's been mistranslated).
A pastor for the school fears that we are moving toward a secular world and that they won't be able to give their kids a Christian education. He is wrong and misses the point: while we may be moving toward a more secular world (I certainly hope so) he and other Christians have the right to
CNN? Only a week behind the times -- in a case that started three years ago. Way to go!
2 comments:
a point (a self goal) made by Michael Behe of Lehigh University and the Discovery (sic) Institute during the Dover trial when he admitted that the rules of science followed by ID would allow astrology to be a science.
What, as if he thought it should be taught in the classroom?
Can't you guys a least try to get a little creative and come up with a new canard instead of parroting this one over and over as if no one had ever heard it before and there were no internet to enable one to easily check its accuracy?
the actual transcript of what Behe said
frdiamond wrote, "Can't you guys a least try to get a little creative and come up with a new canard instead of parroting this one over and over as if no one had ever heard it before and there were no internet to enable one to easily check its accuracy?"
Which part of the following question have I misinterpreted or misrepresented?
"Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct"
Behe may not have supported teaching astrology, but he supported the teaching of ID -- and by the same rules astrology is just as scientific as ID is.
Post a Comment