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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiments Work
AI Thread Summary
A recent discussion highlighted a quote from Dr. Steve E. Abrams, chairman of the Kansas state school board, regarding the new science curriculum. He stated that it does not endorse intelligent design or creationism, claiming that any contrary assertions are “an absolute falsehood.” However, a misquote in the New York Times initially stated that the curriculum must be based on what is “observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, and unfalsifiable,” when it should have been “falsifiable.” This sparked debate about the validity of theories, emphasizing that for a theory to be credible, it must be falsifiable. Participants expressed confusion over the terminology used and criticized the New York Times for the error, with some suggesting that the board's stance on intelligent design could lead to political repercussions in Kansas, including potential changes in board membership due to public backlash. The discussion also touched on the responsibilities of journalists to accurately report statements and the implications of such errors on public perception.
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
If you really give up, highlight to read:
"Unfalsifiable"
 
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
Does he even know what those words mean?
 
I'm confused
 
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.
 
oh, okay...

:smile:
 
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
 
\/\/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.
 

Similar threads

W. Jason Morgan, First Plate Tectonist, Dies at 87
Replies
1
Views
1K
News Is the University of Kansas Taking a Stand Against Intelligent Design?
Replies
2
Views
2K
What are Joe's interests and goals as a new member and citizen scientist?
Replies
2
Views
981
Quantum Workforce Elements, Toolbox for QIS Programs at Universities
Replies
1
Views
2K
What Are the Most Inspiring TED Talks on Physics and the Universe?
Replies
1
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top