Sunday, January 30, 2005
Ominous
From an article by Diane Carrol in today's Kansas City Star:
Design supporters contend that the current definition of science supports beliefs such as atheism, which they call a “nontheistic” religion. Harris and Calvert want the definition changed to provide equal time for a “theistic” point of view. A theistic view might lead one to believe in a creator, they say, but does not identify any particular god.
“When you can detect design in a living system, the implications of that are very, very significant,” Calvert said. “If you conclude the system is designed, it shows life has an inherent purpose.”
Joseph Heppert, director of the University of Kansas Center for Science Education, said he saw a worrisome subtext in the proposed changes.
Design supporters imply that science as practiced today is somehow inherently negative, Heppert said. They seem to suggest that science has hurt moral values and is antagonistic to religion.
Heppert said he could only guess at their ultimate goals. However, he said, since they were arguing that science was a dogma that was anti-religious, they could put that idea forward in a court of law as a way to defend intelligent design.
“Whether that will be the case, I don't know,” he said. “But it is certainly ominous.”
This article is basically a history the battle over evolution in Kansas and of the Intelligent Design movement in Kansas with profiles of its leaders and their influence in other states such as Ohio.
Read it here (free subscription required): http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/10768962.htm
Design supporters contend that the current definition of science supports beliefs such as atheism, which they call a “nontheistic” religion. Harris and Calvert want the definition changed to provide equal time for a “theistic” point of view. A theistic view might lead one to believe in a creator, they say, but does not identify any particular god.
“When you can detect design in a living system, the implications of that are very, very significant,” Calvert said. “If you conclude the system is designed, it shows life has an inherent purpose.”
Joseph Heppert, director of the University of Kansas Center for Science Education, said he saw a worrisome subtext in the proposed changes.
Design supporters imply that science as practiced today is somehow inherently negative, Heppert said. They seem to suggest that science has hurt moral values and is antagonistic to religion.
Heppert said he could only guess at their ultimate goals. However, he said, since they were arguing that science was a dogma that was anti-religious, they could put that idea forward in a court of law as a way to defend intelligent design.
“Whether that will be the case, I don't know,” he said. “But it is certainly ominous.”
This article is basically a history the battle over evolution in Kansas and of the Intelligent Design movement in Kansas with profiles of its leaders and their influence in other states such as Ohio.
Read it here (free subscription required): http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/10768962.htm
