0
   

Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

 
 
Eorl
 
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:31 pm
CNN:"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

Shocked


ummm....

Shocked ....

ummm....what can one say except.... Shocked
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 8,080 • Replies: 211
No top replies

 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2005 11:38 pm
It's the school board, fer goodness sake. You expect logic?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 12:05 am
It's CNN, fer goodness sake. You expect objectivity?
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 12:24 am
Fox News objective enough for you?.......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174957,00.html


"In addition, the board rewrote the standards' definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena".............


This is going to raise such a laugh on British TV. It will keep the comedy chat shows going for a while.

Thank you for all the new material, America.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 12:27 am
Yes, I'm sure glad I'm an Australian right now. Americans you have my sympathy.
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 07:20 am
Canada's starting to look better and better.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 07:42 am
So what is the new definition?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 07:45 am
waitaminit, the entire slate of Intelligent Design school board candidates has been defeated in Dover Pa.
So were not all in Kansas anymore.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:05 am
boomerang wrote:
So what is the new definition?


In the many reports that I have read, I have not found one that would quote the supposedly offending definition.

I have seen lots of different characterizations of it, but apparently very few journalists think that it's worthwhile to actually publish what it is that is actually being discussed.

How's this for a definition of science:

"Science 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."

If school boards were to adopt a definition such as this, can it in any way be considered biased either for or against evolution, or for or against creation/ID?
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:18 am
real life wrote:

"Science 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."

If school boards were to adopt a definition such as this, can it in any way be considered biased either for or against evolution, or for or against creation/ID?


If that's the new definition then I have no qualms with it. To be honest though, I sort of thought that was the original definition.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:25 am
Doesn't ID imply that the world is not natural? At least they're consistent in their follies.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 08:28 am
I have a qualm with it. Two qualms, actually.

"Logical argument" belongs to the realm of philosophy. It is nothing more than an opinion.

"A more adequate explaination" is not really good enough.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:18 am
Quote:
Member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat, said "This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174957,00.html


Too true. I'm laughing right now.

You know what I like about BBC News, though? It contains links to other news similar articles from other people.

Like the Chicago Tribune:
Chicago Tribune - Darwin not alone in Kansas anymore
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:38 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Quote:
Member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat, said "This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that." Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174957,00.html


Too true. I'm laughing right now.


Keep laughing! We'll just add you to the Axis of Evil list!!!

And, after consulting several maps to figure out where England is, we'll send an army over there and seize your illegal stockpiles of Oasis CD's and Earl Grey!
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:42 am
Baltimore Sun - ID Ok'ed in classroom

Lost Angeles Times - Panel Favours Evolution Doubters

They all say the same thing. The board changed the definition of science in order to get ID approved. Isn't that just admitting that ID wasn't science in the first place?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:55 am
RL
Quote:
logical argument,
. Only if evidence based. We can have a logical argument about the existence of an afterlife, but it would in no way be science.
The standard argument about science is much briefer and, by being so, it is more comprehensive because no loopholes are intended.
0 Replies
 
jstark
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 09:57 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
They all say the same thing. The board changed the definition of science in order to get ID approved. Isn't that just admitting that ID wasn't science in the first place?


Yes, but next on their agenda is the redefinition of logic, so stay tuned.

-J
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 10:23 am
farmerman wrote:
RL
Quote:
logical argument,
. Only if evidence based. We can have a logical argument about the existence of an afterlife, but it would in no way be science.
The standard argument about science is much briefer and, by being so, it is more comprehensive because no loopholes are intended.
If we start with the same premises we should reach the same conclusion, right?

So our contention should be over what we accept as premises.

Or am I wrong again?
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 06:02 pm
Does this now mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be included in the curriculum?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Nov, 2005 06:15 pm
Lord Ellpus wrote:
Does this now mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be included in the curriculum?

Now you're just being silly Elipsis, the flying spaghetti monster isn't real science, I assumed you knew that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/04/2021 at 01:46:53