[quote]Gregus wrote:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence… Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
Perfectly reasonable to me.[/quote]
I am mostly in agreement with this. I haven’t read the book (still in print?), so I don’t know that it is a good recommendation, but this is akin to what I was taught in H.S. The rough quote I remember from my classes was that; ‘The principles of the theory of evolution are a fact on a microscale, and based on that, its potential to explain the macroscale is paramount. There are other theories and beliefs, but they do not extend directly from the evidence as covered in biology. This being a [natural] science class, I will only teach [observable] chemistry, physics, and biology and we will only cover evolution as the explanation for the variety of species. Your are free to explore and believe other theories. I cannot, will not, and probably should not teach you anything else.’-I inserted the [words].
I remember this because it was the first time that I can remember science as being subjective. The Pennsylvania Academic Standard is a far cry from what the KSBoE is espousing:
“In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection – how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.”
This, to me, represents a more, “in depth” coverage of ID. And in my estimation, in order to accurately convey ID to a H.S. biology class and how it precipitates from evolution would require explanations far outside the scope of a H.S. class. Gaussian distributions, Fourier Transformations, Euler’s Method, and other components of Number and Information Theory are all used and understood (as understood as they currently are) in “design detection”. Any one of these is far beyond what a H.S. student has learned and is arguably in capable of being taught in that classroom. I understand that the KSoBE may be using “design detection” to validate the existence of ID rather than why it should be put into a classroom, but that’s part of my point. Evolution largely comes from looking at fossil A (observable biology) and learning how old it is (observable chemistry and physics) and comparing to fossil B and learning how old it is. So, I am not misunderstood, I don’t necessarily believe Occam’s Razor either.
My brother gave me this analogy that I love; In a H.S. science class, the rules and sidelines are clearly defined, and while macroevolution is making the catch on the sidelines, it’s feet are clearly in bound. ID on the other hand, is at best (depending on your particular ID theory) standing on the sidelines holding the ball in bounds.
As for the more advanced fields I mentioned, they are taught in schools (universities and colleges), aren’t necessarily sciences and are open to religious beliefs:
science
-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
-Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
-Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
-Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
-An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
-Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
From Wikipedia.org:
“If one considers science to be strictly about the physical world, then [the whole of] mathematics itself is not a science. That is, mathematical knowledge exists separate from the physical world.”-Once again, I inserted [words], obviously 1+1 can be observed.
And some rather indicative beliefs of some great mathematicians:
“The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God.” Euclid
“God does arithmetic” Carl Friedrich Gauss
“For since the fabric of the universe is most perfect and the work of a most wise Creator, nothing at all takes place in the universe in which some rule of maximum or minimum does not appear.”
Leonhard Euler
"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God (though you may be hard pressed to find a mathematician that modest)."Leon M. Lederman
“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” Sir Isaac Newton (makes me think of the football analogy).
Personally, I find myself more aligning myself with Shannon:
“I visualize a time when we will be to robots what dogs are to humans, and I’m rooting for the machines.”