A bill that would have required teachers to read a special disclaimer about evolution before teaching it “died on a 46-to-28 vote in the Republican-controlled House after being amended by the majority whip, Stephen H. Urquhart, a Mormon who said he thought God did not have an argument with science.”
Apparently the bill was neutered by Urquhart prior to the vote being cast, saying only that the state Board of Education “shall establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction.” My guess is that it was still sufficiently politically-charged that sanity ruled in the House. Seeing this bill die the ignominious death it should almost makes me want to thank your deity of choice!
My favorite quote from the article?
Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Discovery Institute, a research group based in Seattle that has promoted the ideas of intelligent design, called the vote “a loss for scientific education,” but said it was a purely local Utah matter.
The bill not passing was “a loss for scientific education”? That’s, uh… Wow. I think if I opened an encyclopedia to look up the word “spin”, Casey Luskin’s picture would be there.
As I see it
I’m glad to see that bill evolve into a more intelligent form. Faith and belief in God aside – right or wrong aside, the trouble with ID in science class is simply that it is not science.
ID should not be taught in science class any more than the details of Abraham Lincoln’s life should. It has as much place in a science class as an intelligent discussion about To Kill A Mockingbird.
I welcome the discussion of the origins of life with my children but I hope that when they take a science class in a public school that science is the only subject being taught.
What’s everybody here’s
What’s everybody here’s definition of science, out of curiosity?
Not perfect…
This isn’t perfect but here’s what I came up with in 30 seconds…
That which can be studied and tested empirically using the scientific method.
Invoking the supernatural in lieu of testing, experimentation and observation is not science. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. Invoking diety as explanation of the unknown or unexplained is, to me, selling ourselves short, scientifically speaking.
Definition of science
Science is a method of acquiring knowledge using empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, with the aim of discovering the truth.
Part of the controversy over Kansas’ recent redefinition of science has to do with the removal of the word “natural” from their definition, replaced with a massive redefinition of the term. From the state of Kansas’ FAQ entry on the topic: