> The article further states:
>
> Perhaps the most significant shift would be in the very definition of science - instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as a "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
>
> While I don't agree with the new trial, isn't that what science is?
The key change is the deletion of the phrase "natural explanations". ID advocates want to allow non-natural explanations. Actually, I would agree that such explanations cannot be excluded a priori; however, theological considerations suggest that non-natural explanations will be either bogus (astrology, erroneous antievolutionary claims, etc.) or else not amenable to scientific experimentation (e.g., Biblical miracles, which were situation-specific).
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Received on Fri May 6 16:53:08 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 06 2005 - 16:53:08 EDT