Alex, I will take that to mean you are in tacit agreement with me, as far as the "educators" laying-off the social indoctrination facet of the ed-system.

How then, do we define science? Feel free to correct me, but science deals with empirical observation, with perhaps some degree of inference drawn from the data.

Given this premise, then what does this say about that little picto-gram every grade-schooler is presented with. The one that shows the animal-ape-human sequence.

Is this scientific, in light of the fact there is no information producing mechanism to support it?

Or is this indoctrination masquerading as science?

Or, if they are concerned with scientific methodology, why can't instructors teach what doesn't work with Neo-Darwinian theory?

In the Kansas controversy, one of the problems had to do with this wording, taken from the revised standards the school board put forth.

"Natural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation but does not add new information to the genetic code."

This is a scientifically valid statement. Evidently, the other side of the controversy had something besides science in mind, as grounds for dissent.

Are they guarding science, or the philosophy behind it?

Brian

• Invalid statement (about depleting genetic information) - alexander - May 15, 2001 - 17:40 UTC
  • just don't say it adds - isaiaha41 - May 16, 2001 - 14:15 UTC
    • Of course, this is information producing. - alexander - May 16, 2001 - 20:46 UTC
      • not so fast... - isaiaha41 - May 18, 2001 - 19:39 UTC
        • Growth produces information - yanniru - May 21, 2001 - 12:03 UTC
          • the meaningful definition - isaiaha41 - May 22, 2001 - 03:29 UTC
            • You need a new word - yanniru - May 22, 2001 - 11:45 UTC
              • Random change IS new information. Enviroment decides how useful. - alexander - May 22, 2001 - 15:54 UTC
              • Big Bang - isaiaha41 - May 28, 2001 - 22:06 UTC
                • Triangulation and the speed of light - yanniru - May 29, 2001 - 12:10 UTC
                  • Parallax measurements are simple. - alexander - May 30, 2001 - 22:54 UTC
                    • thank you both - isaiaha41 - June 2, 2001 - 11:37 UTC
                      • It is not a premise - yanniru - June 2, 2001 - 12:46 UTC