"Conservative board members said they wanted to make sure that schools teach sound science, arguing that evolution is a flawed theory that cannot be proven."
--"In Kansas, key decision on teaching evolution" Associated Press, August 12, 1999.
If the new fad of "sound science" takes hold in Washington, I bet we'll see creationists taking it up again as well, challenging the government funding of "unsound" research into evolution. Stay tuned.
More like this
Following Pope Benedict's late August seminar on evolution, the consensus view from Science magazine and intelligent design watchdogs appeared to be that the Vatican was not yet ready to endorse ID, but rather was likely to come out in support of a theological view of evolution.
Yet, the Pope,…
Sunday's New York Times had a fascinating article about the growth of local citizens groups to fight the ever-increasing challenges to evolution in public schools. I found this of particular interest because I co-founded one of those groups, Michigan Citizens for Science, 3 years ago. We are…
Over the past year, I've done well over two dozen talks, with Matthew Nisbet, about science communication. And now we're taking it to the next level.
Next week at CalTech, we're unveiling a two-part affair: Our lecture (entitled "Speaking Science 2.0") followed by an all day "Speaking Science" boot…
Tom Ritter has a dream. It's a grand dream.
Tom Ritter dreams of a day when people recognize that he's more than just a cranky high school teacher, and they realize that all the scientists in the world have been completely wrong, while Truth lives in the sweaty cranium of a harumphing gomer in…
Actually "sound science" and "junk science" have been used for ome time, but they have become more popular recently. "Sound science" is thrown out like other phrases like "traditional family values" or "reproductive rights" to derail whatever the speaker does not like.
For the very newest anti-evolutionist term with a similar sound and implication, see House Bill 911 introduced in the Missouri General Assembly. The bill defines "standard science", along with such terms as "biological intelligent design", "analogous naturalistic process", "extrapolated radiometric data", and "destiny". Text of the bill: www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/biltxt/intro/HB0911I.HTM
I've looked at HB911 -- it seems to be more of a throwback, with a very antiquated creationist mindset. It's so old and moldy it might seem new.
HB 911 struck me as seriously antediluvian, too. It is also, so far as I've been able to determine, almost completely unknown among Missouri voters. I've sent the link to the text of the bill to several secondary science teachers I know, and they hadn't heard about it.
Because there's a deep division between Missouri's largely rural "out-state" and St. L & K.C., it's hard for me to judge what would happen if, say, this kind of thing were to come up for a plebiscite of some sort (not that it will).