It's not Science Stupid

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/west_bend_wisconsin_aspiring_t.php

It’s nice to take a break from the torture that is reading up on Rush Limbaugh. I’ve now found myself going through PZ Myers’ blog. Here he is discussing David Weigand, a candidate for the board of education the West Bend School district. One of the two statements made by Weigand that Myers stands out as displaying a strong ignorance towards how science works.

“If evolution is taught in school, students should be taught the truth about it and the scientific data surrounding it. Ideas that were once championed by evolutionists are no longer valid, much like the false science behind man-made global warming. Students deserve the truth.”

Now I’m not exactly sure what these supposedly invalid ideas are and Myers doesn’t make mention of them either. I’m going to assume that it means that previous claims regarding evolution have been refuted to be replaced by more solid evidence showing evolution to be a fact, that’s how science works. It’s all about constantly testing the theory to get rid of the old ideas that don’t get it right and bring in the ones that do. It’s a common tactic for intelligent designers to say that Darwin was wrong on such and such. Ignoring the fact that those ideas may have already been proven wrong by scientists only to bring in evidence that does a better job of pointing in favour towards evolution. I suppose I should address the other statement made by Weigand, Myers does address it to though he doesn’t point out the entertaining irony of the statement,

“Origin studies, (whether Creation or evolution) and the idea of "millions of years" does not belong in the science classroom because these are not testable, repeatable or observable; they are philosophical and accepted by faith.”

The irony here is rich. “Not testable, repeatable or observable” that’s exactly what scientists say about god. The creationists, sorry, intelligent designers, are demanding that god is worked into the scientific theory of evolution. They miss the point that god cannot be tested scientifically because it is not “testable, repeatable or observable.” Evolution and the development of the planet works fine without including god, Myers points out the massive amounts of evidence that already exists. If the creationists, sorry I just can’t refer to them as intelligent designers anymore, want to teach their alternative theory in the class room then it first needs to be approved by peer reviewed academic processes and become widely accepted by the scientific community. By all means, teach creationism, in a class on religious studies, but keep it out of the science class.