Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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....

....

ummm....what can one say except.... Shocked

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 10,198 • Replies: 211

No top replies

It's the school board, fer goodness sake. You expect logic?

0 Replies

It's CNN, fer goodness sake. You expect objectivity?

0 Replies

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

Yes, I'm sure glad I'm an Australian right now. Americans you have my sympathy.

0 Replies

Canada's starting to look better and better.

0 Replies

So what is the new definition?

0 Replies

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

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

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

Doesn't ID imply that the world is not natural? At least they're consistent in their follies.

0 Replies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does this now mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster can be included in the curriculum?

0 Replies

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

Kansas School Board Redefines Stupidity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know