Evolution in Kansas

The NY Times reports about the Kansas school board questioning evolution:

The proposed changes to the state's science standards would edit everything from the introduction to notes advising teachers on specific benchmarks for individual grades. Perhaps the most significant shift would be in the very definition of science - instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

It is amazing that such a simple change in a definition would warrant such an attack by the NY Times and the evolutionist cabal. I think that the latter definition of science is a much better one.

The Wash. Post says:

Local and national science organizations are so disturbed by the proceedings that they are boycotting them, apart from advising Pedro Irigonegaray, a civil rights and defense lawyer recruited to defend the existing Kansas science standards. On the eve of the hearings, he predicted a "whitewash" but said he would fight it nonetheless.

Thursday's scene bore a resemblance to the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tenn., in which a high school science teacher was famously convicted of violating a state law forbidding the teaching of evolution. Despite the conviction, the nationally covered trial represented a triumph for the teaching of evolution.

Bruce Chapman, a former Reagan administration Census Bureau director, said, "This is the Scopes trial turned on its head."

It is just like the Scopes Trial in that the evolutionists also refused to stand up and defend their beliefs at that trial. In essence, Darrow had Scopes plead guilty rather than defend evolution on the merits.

Bob asks why I would side with creationists on an issue like this.

I am not going to side with so-called scientists who will not defend their beliefs. They are giving Science a bad name. The Kansas skeptics have a better definition of science. They are not wrong just because they goto church on Sunday. If the so-called scientists think that the new definition is wrong, then they should be able to explain why it is wrong. Instead they avoid the issue and conduct a character assassination.

Bob writes:

The issue is not what scientists believe. There is a political debate in Kansas over whether evolution and certain criticisms of evolution should be taught in public schools. There are no scientific arguments again evolution. Definitions of science are of interest to philosophers, lawyers, and politicians. What purpose would it server for scientists to participate in a kangaroo court proceeding like the Kansas State Department of Education hearing? A majority of Americans manage to go to church on Sunday, are not opposed to teaching evolution, and are too busy leading productive lives and spending time with their families to keep an eye on the creationists who have taken over the Kansas State Board of Education. I predict that the creationists will wither in the sunlight just as they did after their excursion in 1999 when they were thrown out of office by the voters of Kansas.

Bob also sent this Kansas opinion column complaining some of those testifying lacked scientific credential! If he really thinks that definitions of science are of interest to philosophers, lawyers, and politicians, then I guess that he should be happy that those are the ones who are debating the definitions in Kansas.