science education

There are two regular tragedies in the Intelligent Design movement. The first tragedy is the student who airs his or her doubts about Darwin, and a faculty member then makes it their life mission to block that student from a degree, or, if they get a degree, prevent them from getting any further. This sometimes happens via a bad letter of recommendation or a notice in their file or sometimes even calling other programs to tell them not to include the student. The second tragedy is the student who plays it safe, presuming that some day in the future they will have the position, stature, or whatever to present their doubts about Darwin. Many people counsel this procedure – keep Read More ›

Yesterday, Dr Cornelius Hunter headlined (full story here) how a Washington, DC-based, bipartisan Governor- and Captains of Industry- led Next Generation Science Standards initiative is pushing for an evolutionary materialism-loaded programme of science standards. The standards are intended to be accepted and adopted “in whole, without alteration.” A clear warning sign in an age of ever so many agendas being pushed on us as “solutions” to real or imaginary crises A to Z. The warning flag is tripped for good reason. For, a s CH documents, the proposed standards include: Anatomical similarities and differences between various organisms living today, and between them and organisms in the fossil record, enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of Read More ›

In the course of the exchanges on Dr Matzke’s clip on what “science” says can and cannot be so regarding miracles, he has made an interesting comment, here at 15: . . . I still haven’t seen anyone present a good argument as to why we can’t just say that science is the study of the usual course of events . . . Of course, he — sadly, misleadingly — failed to inform us that this highlighted phrase was taken from my own remarks in the original post (and which were followed up in the thread): It goes without needing emphasis that those who experienced the sequence A –> B –> C . . .  here [–> A, the last Read More ›

The ongoing debates over methodological naturalism have pointed us back to Newton’s Rules for scientific reasoning. So, thanks to Paul Halshall of Fordham University’s Modern History Sourcebook, let us cite for reference: ___________________ >> Modern History Sourcebook: Isaac Newton: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy [Excerpts] [The Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy] RULE I We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say, that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain, when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. RULE II Therefore to the same natural effects we Read More ›

In the ongoing Methodological Naturalism thread, at no. 66, Dr Matzke is on record: massive observational evidence and the logic of our understanding of natural laws rules say that that miracle thing can’t happen. In short he holds that the laws of nature forbid miracles. (And recall, here, we are speaking about the late publicist for the US-based NCSE, for quite some years.) Oopsie. Double oopise. Triple oopsie. And cf. here, too. In a nutshell, Dr Matzke here seems to make a crude form of the error commonly attributed to Hume (and too often seen as a definitive dismissal of the miraculous). He also reveals that behind methodological naturalism, there may often lurk a prior (and perhaps implicit) commitment to Read More ›

Here’s a fantastic infographic that needs to be in every science classroom. I’ve seen similar ones, but this is by far the best: The Universe made possible by Number Sleuth Be sure to look at this in full screen mode. Whether you love or hate ID, you’ve got to admit that this is one beautiful universe! Link: www.numbersleuth.org/universe