Archive for Monday, November 28, 2005

Science credentials

November 28, 2005


To the editor:

In regard to the class offered next semester at KU titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and Other Religious Mythologies," John Calvert, a lawyer, writes, "People will be misled and buy the lie. But the public is going to see what's going on. We're not all fools. Misinformation has a finite life." The lie has already been bought by the mere fact that intelligent design is even being discussed, because of the tactic of misrepresenting the works of others to "create" a controversy when there is none and that intelligent design is a science when it is not.

As to Calvert questioning the "science credentials" of the instructor of the religion class, we need only ask the same question about the six members of the Kansas Board of Education who changed the definition of science to allow supernatural explanations, which places intelligent design in the domain of religion.

Kenneth S. Schmitz,

professor of chemistry,

University of Missouri-Kansas City


Ragingbear 12 years, 3 months ago

Besides, we all know that the Earth is actually a giant meatball flung forth from the Great Flying Spagetti Monster.

All hail His noodly appendage!

DuQuesne 12 years, 3 months ago

Finally someone adequately credentialed to apprehend the difference between tautomerism and tautology. My own observation: People, individually and as a group, have little sustainable longitudinal memory; what is found to be true on Tuesday may need to be re-learned the following Saturday, and probably by subsequent generations. So yes, you have to keep at it and, no, it won't go away.

Reason McLucus 12 years, 3 months ago

The State of Kansas through its Board of Education has actually done something right for a change by stating that schools should teach empirical science instead of teaching that science is just another religion.

The old definition that science seeks what some call "natural" explanations implies science is a religion that has no special characteristics that would make the beliefs of the priests called "scientists" superior to other priests.

The new definition separates science from religion by defining science in terms of how it acquires, processes and verifies information. It is the ability to verify concepts through repeated experimentation and observation that makes empirical science different from other endeavors.

Science can determine whether physcial processes function consistently. It cannot conclusively determine the ultimate nature of reality or whether some higher order Intelligence might exist. Processes would appear to be occurring naturally so long as any intervention by such an Intelligence was consistent.

The behavior of the sun and earth's weather remain unpredictable which would allow some Intelligence ample opportunity to influence events on earth without being detected by scientists.

Spontaneous remission of otherwise untreatable fatal disorders happens. Do such remissions result from miracles or from some special characteristic of the individual's immune system that science cannot locate? (For example, of such a remission check the biography of former Kansas Attorney General Bob Stephen.) Unless the situation is reproducable science cannot provide a definite answer other than to note that scientists still don't know everything there is to know about the human body.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.