Minnesota's Step for Truth in Science
Minnesota Science Standards Requires Learning Problems with Darwinism

"Minnesota has become the third state to require students to know about scientific evidence critical of Darwinian evolution in its newly adopted science standards. On May 15, the Minnesota legislature adopted new science standards that include a benchmark requiring students to be able to explain how new evidence can challenge existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution.

"The benchmark reads, 'The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including Š theory of evolution. Š' The benchmark is included in the 'History and Nature of Science,' strand of the science standards for grades 9-12." Minnesota Becomes Third State to Require Critical Analysis of Evolution

I know from first hand experience that this topic creates a real fuss among the anti-religion community. Yet, if science is really about reaching the truth, it is hard to see why it should be objectional that Minnesota would adopt standards that require students to know "how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models . . . ." If scientific inquiry were really open, wouldn't you think that the supporters of Darwinism would welcome the questions so that they could answer them? Instead, the approach is to supress the counter-arguments.

I think that the problem is that science has become more than a discipline in their eyes. The November/December 2003 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer, an anti-Christian rant rag, includes an article by Ann Druyan which I think is rather telling. Consider the following quote (highlighted in the magazine itself):

"It's not enough to have forty minutes of science in the daily school program, because science shouldn't be compartmentalized that way. Science is a way of looking at absolutely everything." Skeptical Inquirer, Nov.-Dec. 2003, p. 29.

With all due respect to Ms. Druyan, science is not a way of looking at everything. Science can give us a basis for understanding how nature operates, but it tells us little or nothing about many, many, many things. To give science as much credit as Ms. Druyan promotes it to the religion. Sorry, but it isn't that all-important.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

The Meaning of the Manger

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?