Is Kansas's Science Curriculum Opening Doors to Intelligent Design?

In summary, during a conversation about the teaching of evolution in Kansas, a quote from Dr. Steve E. Abrams, the anti-evolution chairman of the Kansas state school board, was brought up. He stated that the new science curriculum did not open the door to intelligent design or creationism and that any claim to the contrary was false. However, the original article had a misquote, stating that he said the standards must be based on something that is "unfalsifiable" when he actually said "falsifiable." This error was later corrected in the article, but the conversation continued, with some discussion on the role of falsifiability in theories.
  • #1
Rach3
I caught this gem in an article in today's New York Times - it was inconspicious and the writer didn't seem to notice it. It's a quote from Dr. Steve E. Abrams, the anti-evolution chairman of the Kansas state school board. See if you notice it. (You may need to read it twice!)

Steve Abrams said:
He said that the new science curriculum in no way opened the door to intelligent design or creationism and that any claim to the contrary “is an absolute falsehood.”

“We have explicitly stated that the standards must be based on scientific evidence,” Dr. Abrams said, “what is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and unfalsifiable.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/us/01evolution.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

edit: see rach's post below, the NY Times made an error, the original statement was "falsifiable".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If you really give up, highlight to read:
"Unfalsifiable"
 
  • #3
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #4
Does he even know what those words mean?
 
  • #5
I'm confused
 
  • #6
yomamma said:
I'm confused
For a theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable. If there's no way that a theory can be proven wrong, it is not a theory. He should have said 'falsifiable'.



eg. Since there's no way to prove God does not exist, God is not a theory.
 
  • #7
oh, okay...

:smile:
 
  • #8
See, even yomamma thinks it's funny! That means yomamma is smarter than the doctorate-holding chair of the Kansas school board. Was that a compliment? Barely... :-p
 
  • #9
\/\/007! I got a compliment
 
  • #10
yomamma said:
I'm confused

Figures...
 
  • #11
DaveC426913 said:
For a theory to be valid, it must be falsifiable. If there's no way that a theory can be proven wrong, it is not a theory. He should have said 'falsifiable'.



eg. Since there's no way to prove God does not exist, God is not a theory.

Popper is not the last word on the subject you know...
 
  • #12
DeadWolfe said:
Popper is not the last word on the subject you know...

Does anyone advocate unfalsifiability as a requirement for a proper theory? I thought not.
 
  • #13
I'm wondering if it's not the reporter that got it wrong - trying to correct what he thought was a slip of the tongue, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
  • #14
You've got to love how he's back tracking to try to save his butt.

I think we'll see all the pro ID people on the Kansas school board voted out. A lot of large companies that had planned to move to Kansas backed out citing the school board ruling would make it unlikely for them to lure any competant employees to move to Kansas. The ID lovers on the school board aren't popular here.
 
  • #15
what do you know

Corrections: For the Record
Published: August 3, 2006

...

A front-page article on Tuesday about the reemergence of the teaching of evolution as an issue in the primary election for the Kansas Board of Education misstated a word in a quotation from the board chairman, Dr. Steve E. Abrams, who defended the conservative majority’s science curriculum. He said, “We have explicitly stated that the standards must be based on scientific evidence, what is observable, measurable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable’’ — not unfalsifiable. (Go to Article)
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html

Gokul figured it out!

Apologies to Dr. Abrams. I didn't want him to be misquoted, no matter how much of a loon he is.
 
  • #16
Though I will say - shame on the NYT editors for not catching such an obvious error in time. Their job is to find errors before the readers starting posting about them on online forums. They should be very embarrased about this, and deservedly.
 
  • #17
(moderators - I can't edit my original post, if any of you would put in a brief disclaimer about the NYT's error it would be much appreciated.)
 
  • #18
Rach3 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html

Gokul figured it out!
I wrote Ralph Blumenthal and asked him whose error it was.

Got this reply yesterday:

happily, it was me...it was corrected today. thanks, ralph blumenthal
 
Last edited:
  • #19
DaveC426913 said:
eg. Since there's no way to prove God does not exist, God is not a theory.
Well, that's not what they think.
 

Related to Is Kansas's Science Curriculum Opening Doors to Intelligent Design?

1. How do experiments work in Kansas?

In Kansas, experiments typically follow the scientific method, which involves making observations, asking questions, forming a hypothesis, conducting experiments, and analyzing data to draw conclusions. Experiments in Kansas may also follow specific guidelines and regulations set by the state or federal government.

2. What types of experiments are commonly conducted in Kansas?

There is a wide range of experiments that can be conducted in Kansas, depending on the field of study. Some common types of experiments in Kansas include agricultural experiments on crops and livestock, environmental experiments on water and air quality, and medical experiments on diseases and treatments.

3. Who can conduct experiments in Kansas?

Anyone can conduct experiments in Kansas, as long as they follow proper safety protocols and have the necessary resources and permissions. This can include scientists, researchers, students, and even individuals conducting experiments in their own homes.

4. Are there any ethical considerations when conducting experiments in Kansas?

Yes, there are ethical considerations that must be taken into account when conducting experiments in Kansas. This includes obtaining informed consent from participants, ensuring the well-being of any animals involved, and following ethical guidelines set by governing bodies such as the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

5. How are the results of experiments in Kansas used?

The results of experiments in Kansas can be used in a variety of ways, depending on the purpose of the experiment. They may contribute to scientific knowledge and understanding, inform policy decisions, or lead to the development of new technologies or treatments. Results may also be shared through publications, presentations, or other forms of communication.

Similar threads

Quantum Workforce Elements, Toolbox for QIS Programs at Universities
    • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
849
TED Talks on Physics: Exploring the Universe and its Wonders
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top