Kansas, Where "Ignorant" is the New "Educated

Post Reply New Topic

scientists don't create their findings, they discover them.

and no science probably can't ever explain all things in life but it can do a way better job than religion because religion isn't about discovery but about imagination.

i still don't get what you mean by science being "the intuition"...?

I think he means institution

science FACT,
potassium nitrate + carbon + sulfur = something that goes flash and if contained = boom, prove that wrong! this has been tested every time someone goes hunting or shoots someone with a gun.
religion is something that can not be proven or disproven right or wrong because there is no way to prove or disprove something that does not exist, this fact in its self makes me think that religion is a fallacy because we can not study it as a fact except based on faith.
if science is found wrong it corrects its self, gods,- if found wrong, is only argued to be sacrilege.
to me thats crap, I am always for questioning reality and even the existence of gods and how they create and do things (if they had existed at all). screw faith by its self, give me FACTS that can be recreated by HUMANS.

Okay

Humans that are Scientists and are in Science make this a Institution as unimpartial like any-other Institution humans have created. These Scientists of Science think that they are superior to anybody else even though Science is a human invention itself. So these Scientists of Science should remember that this human invention is not superior to any-other human Institution.

Scientists of Science are full of fallacy because they are human.

not all scientists think they're superior. and so what if they do? that doesn't mean that science is a fallacy.

and science is NOT a human invention. the WORD science is a human invention. science itself is a human DISCOVERY, which means that it was there before humans, and humans FOUND IT.

I am not say all Scientists of Science think they're superior some do these one are a fallacy unto themselves.

Yes it is a human invention they may discover many things and invent many thing good and bad for humanity. Human are the ones that have made Science what it is in the end for good or bad. Science may have some knowledge it even has less understanding of that knowledge it has gained. But these few thinks Science is superior to all other types of knowledge. There are more types of knowledge that Science rejects since it is not Scientific. Just in General Human Knowledge Science does not really try to understand this type of Knowledge that Humans have understood how the earth has worked over the years. Science likes to reject such Knowledge as being superstitiousness of the past. This is not just religious in origin just general such knowledge.

People have been doing this broad stereotyping of people of religion for years. You see that allround in the media and print even the internet too.

I really don't hate Science or even Scientists. Science is a useful tool and yes Science has and good and bad in it just like Religion does. I am not asking for Perfection out of Science or even Religion because We Humans are Imperfect Ourselves. Though some do Worship Science abit to much and some do say Science is My Religion.

Science even as an Entity seems to me it is becoming Monstrosity just have to look at Businesses that use it for Good or even Bad. It to Bad even Politics plays in a role sometimes in limiting Science too. I see the Control that People place as being a Bad thing in Our Lives.

As I have said I do not Hate Science or Scientist. No form of Human Institutions will ever be able to explain everything in Our Human Lives even some Try too. With Science or even Religion.

I have been just Debating the Issues. I think We Humans need to compromise abit whatever a School Board is doing for there is No Absolutes in Life. People Attacking One another does not get Us anywhere as a Society of Humanity but that is what We as Humans have been doing all these Years. Maybe One Day We Will All Just Grow-Up Abit.

I have been reading Kansas School Board (pdf) and I have not found anything on Intelligent Design or even Creationism anywhere in the (pdf).

I will keep You updated.

I'm not really sure I understand the the intensity and ferocity of the debate between religion and science. To me, they aren't mutually exclusive in the least, and coexist quite peacefully. There are limits to human knowledge and possibly human comprehension, and so we have religion or other belief systems to fill in the empty space. Science gives us the hows, religion the whys. Each has a niche to fill. Creationism has its niche in a religious studies class and evolution has its niche in a science class.

Here is something to read VERY CAREFULLY of The Kansas School Board.

Rationale of the State Board for Adopting these Science Curriculum Standards.

We beleive in the best interest of the educating Kansas students that all students have a good working knowledge of science: particularly what defines good science, how science moves forward, what holds science back, and how to critically analyze conclusions that scientists make.

Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory. These curriculum standards reflect the Board's objective of: 1) to help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist on this topic, 2) to enhance critical thinking and the understanding of the scientific method by encouraging students to study different and opposing scientific evidence, and 3) to ensure that science education in our state is "secular, neutral, and non-ideological."

From the testimony and submissions we have received, we are aware that the study and discussion of the origin and the development of life may raise deep personal and philosophical questions for many people on both sides of the debate. But as interesting as these personal questions maybe, the personal questions are not covered by these curriculum standards nor are they the basis for the Boards actions in this area.

Evolution is accepted by many scientists but questioned by some. The Board has heard credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological evolutionary theory. All scientific theories should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. We therefore think it is important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates and for the Science Curriculum Standards to include information about them. In choosing this approach to science curriculum standards, we are encouraged by similar approach taken by other states, whose new science standards incorporate scientific criticisms into the science curriculum that describes the scientific case for the theory of evolution.

We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreement with the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. While the testimony presented at the science hearing included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.

Finally, we like to thank the Science Standards Committee for there commitment and dedication in their work towards the standards.

You see they are not teaching Intelligent Design in Kansas. They seem to Me trying to expand students minds more than trying teach one way over a nother way.