"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.
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
Posted by Tbrumpti on February 5, 2004 02:55 PM | Permalink to CommentI'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.
Posted by PZ Myers on February 5, 2004 07:09 PM | Permalink to CommentHB 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).
Posted by C.M. Worth on February 5, 2004 10:47 PM | Permalink to Comment
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.
Posted by Jim Norton on February 5, 2004 09:10 AM | Permalink to Comment