The Kansas State Board of Education is debating its science curriculum again. So what does that have to do with students here in Indiana?
At issue, of course, is whether or not to water down the evolution curriculum by including the so-called “theory” of intelligent design. Intelligent design is a euphemism for creationism.
It’s important for Hoosier students because Kansas represents a microcosm of what is happening across the nation to one degree or another. In nearly half the states, 24 of them, creationists are making another push to be included in science classrooms under its newest guise of intelligent design.
In Kansas, a committee of the State Board of Education held hearings on the merits of intelligent design. It heard testimony from several supporters of intelligent design, but no scientists who support evolution bothered to show up. They claimed the hearings were a sham and that the committee had already made up its mind.
All of the four committee members were conservative Christians, as is most of the current membership of the board itself.
Those who support including intelligent design concepts in the science curriculum say that the universe is far too complex to have evolved without help from an intelligent designer. Although some of them support the scientific theory of evolution to a point, they do not believe that humans evolved from simpler creatures.
But mainstream scientists say that intelligent design is nothing more than the same old creationist viewpoint with a different name. And even most creationists admit that creationism is not a true science. It is founded in faith.
That’s fine. Religious beliefs are not supposed to be backed by scientific evidence. That’s the definition of faith, to believe without proof. In a country that holds its freedom of religion dear, everyone has a right to believe in whatever religious dogma they choose.
The problem arises when some of the more conservative members of the religious crowd try to wedge their perspective into the school curriculum by calling it science.
Scientists boycotted the Kansas education debate not because they do not like to debate evolution. Scientists debate evolution, and other scientific theories, continually. There are many debates raging in the scientific community over the finer points of the theory.
But they generally refuse to debate whether or not evolution is the cornerstone theory of biology, cosmology, astronomy, and geophysics. That is a given. It is.
So to the scientific community, there is really nothing to debate. Evolution’s evidence is strong and unwavering. And every new discovery in the fields of genetics and biochemistry add further evidence to the theory.
Additionally, scientists do not debate a theory if there is no way to prove the theory false. In other words, it has to be falsifiable. Since intelligent design cannot be proved false, because to do so would be to disprove the existence of God, which is outside the realm of science, then intelligent design is not falsifiable and, hence, is not a scientific theory at all.
What, on the surface, seems to be a reasonable compromise to the evolution-in-education debate, that intelligent design be included along with evolution in biology textbooks so that students can make an informed choice, actually isn’t reasonable at all when you consider that intelligent design isn’t really science.
Science follows a method. That’s how science is supposed to work and that is what should be taught in science classrooms. There are other means of answering big questions, but those other ways are not science. They may be philosophy or religion, and the answers might be just as profound, but they are still not science.
And so it is with intelligent design. It seems reasonable as an answer to how we got here for those who choose not to believe the scientific answer. But the concept of intelligent design is not science because the answer to the question of how we got here was predetermined, not divined by experiment or by collecting evidence.
And so even in the unlikely event that the theory of evolution is eventually falsified, intelligent design still would not win by default. It would simply be back to the drawing board to find another scientific theory that would work better.
Simply put, if the answer comes before the evidence, it is philosophy or religion, and any study of it in public schools must be relegated to those types of classes. But if the evidence is gathered before the answer is clear, then it is science and it can be included in the science curriculum.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Beware of Phishermen
Gone phishing lately?
If so, you better not admit to it; it’s against the law.
Phishing is the latest method cyber-crooks are employing to part you from your money. Spam is still a huge problem. But phishing, which is actually a type of spam itself, goes a step further by trying to trick you into voluntarily making your bank account information available.
Recently, one of the nation’s largest electronic financial companies released the results of a survey that showed at least 43 percent of all Internet users have received a phishing contact, and five percent have actually given away their account information.
I get at least half a dozen phish e-mails every day. Most of them are trying to get into my eBay or Pay Pal accounts. Some are trying to get account information from banks that I don’t even have an account with.
Phishing attempts can be very cleverly disguised. First time recipients of such e-mails may be tempted to supply the information asked for.
For example, today I received an e-mail that looked like it was from Charter One Bank. It was very professional looking, complete with the bank’s official logo. It even had a copyright notice at the bottom.
The message stated that the bank’s technical service personnel were upgrading their software and they would like me to log into my account and verify my personal information. They even supplied a Web link that I could click on, which was a real Charter One Web site.
Clicking on the link, however, didn’t send me to an authentic Charter One page, but a page that looked for the world like it was one. Hovering my mouse cursor over the link revealed that it was actually taking me to an undisclosed IP address. Those unaccustomed to phishing scams may not have even noticed.
Once at the fake Web site, which again looked identical to the real thing, I was presented with an official form asking for my name, account number, Web password, etc.
Obviously, I didn’t actually fill out the form. Had I done so, the crooks would have had complete access to my bank account, assuming that I actually had an account at Charter One Bank.
It succeeds more often than you might think. Individuals are sometimes out thousands of dollars because they are not careful enough.
A recent Associated Press news story revealed how an Alabama woman was robbed of $6,000 because she was too busy to check the authenticity of an e-mail message she had received asking her to verify her bank account information.
So how can you tell what’s real? How can you catch the phish?
For one thing, legitimate companies never ask for your passwords in e-mail messages. But most phishing scams don’t either. They ask you to click on an authentic-looking Web address that takes you to a fake site.
But messages from real banks seldom ask you to click on a Web address. They ask you to log in to your online account, which is something you would know how to do if you were a banking customer of theirs..
If they provide a Web address and you’re unsure if it is real, don’t click on the link. Type it in manually. That way you know you’re at the banks actual site.
Most importantly, just realize that banks do not generally need to query you for your personal information again once you’ve signed up the first time. If they do, I would consider changing banks. Banks that lose your account information do not deserve your business.
If so, you better not admit to it; it’s against the law.
Phishing is the latest method cyber-crooks are employing to part you from your money. Spam is still a huge problem. But phishing, which is actually a type of spam itself, goes a step further by trying to trick you into voluntarily making your bank account information available.
Recently, one of the nation’s largest electronic financial companies released the results of a survey that showed at least 43 percent of all Internet users have received a phishing contact, and five percent have actually given away their account information.
I get at least half a dozen phish e-mails every day. Most of them are trying to get into my eBay or Pay Pal accounts. Some are trying to get account information from banks that I don’t even have an account with.
Phishing attempts can be very cleverly disguised. First time recipients of such e-mails may be tempted to supply the information asked for.
For example, today I received an e-mail that looked like it was from Charter One Bank. It was very professional looking, complete with the bank’s official logo. It even had a copyright notice at the bottom.
The message stated that the bank’s technical service personnel were upgrading their software and they would like me to log into my account and verify my personal information. They even supplied a Web link that I could click on, which was a real Charter One Web site.
Clicking on the link, however, didn’t send me to an authentic Charter One page, but a page that looked for the world like it was one. Hovering my mouse cursor over the link revealed that it was actually taking me to an undisclosed IP address. Those unaccustomed to phishing scams may not have even noticed.
Once at the fake Web site, which again looked identical to the real thing, I was presented with an official form asking for my name, account number, Web password, etc.
Obviously, I didn’t actually fill out the form. Had I done so, the crooks would have had complete access to my bank account, assuming that I actually had an account at Charter One Bank.
It succeeds more often than you might think. Individuals are sometimes out thousands of dollars because they are not careful enough.
A recent Associated Press news story revealed how an Alabama woman was robbed of $6,000 because she was too busy to check the authenticity of an e-mail message she had received asking her to verify her bank account information.
So how can you tell what’s real? How can you catch the phish?
For one thing, legitimate companies never ask for your passwords in e-mail messages. But most phishing scams don’t either. They ask you to click on an authentic-looking Web address that takes you to a fake site.
But messages from real banks seldom ask you to click on a Web address. They ask you to log in to your online account, which is something you would know how to do if you were a banking customer of theirs..
If they provide a Web address and you’re unsure if it is real, don’t click on the link. Type it in manually. That way you know you’re at the banks actual site.
Most importantly, just realize that banks do not generally need to query you for your personal information again once you’ve signed up the first time. If they do, I would consider changing banks. Banks that lose your account information do not deserve your business.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Make Speed Limits Flexible
It’s official. With the governor’s signature solidly on the line, Hoosier motorists can begin driving at a more reasonable 70 miles per hour on rural Interstate highways and other limited access highways this summer. The speed limits on other divided highways could be increased to 60 mph.
“The will of the legislature was clear,” Gov. Mitch Daniels said. Both the House and the Senate approved the increase in speed limits by comfortable margins.
While the speed limits on Interstates could go up on or near July 1, the speed limits on other highways will remain at 55 mph until state engineers determine which ones can handle the higher speeds. That could take several weeks or months.
In Johnson County, Interstate 65 will have its speed limit increased to 70 mph fairly quickly. And U.S. 31 could eventually see a higher speed limit along the rural stretch between Franklin and Edinburgh. Currently, the speed limit on rural state highways, divided or not, is 55 mph.
Of course, if you’ve ever driven on that stretch of highway, you know that if anyone were to actually travel at 55 mph, they would be considered a nuisance. Drivers typically cruise along at a good 10 mph faster than that. And that means that even if the speed is increased to 60 mph, it still won’t match what motorists are actually doing and what the road is capable of handling.
In 1971 I used to travel U.S. 31 almost daily as I commuted to Franklin College from my home in Edinburgh. The speed limit then was a reasonable 65 mph. When the federal government mandated a speed limit reduction to 55 mph in 1973, it felt as though I was creeping along. It still does when I go the speed limit.
I’ve always thought posted speed limits were rather arbitrary anyway. All states have legal speed limits, and most states have limits that are higher than even Indiana’s new one, at least on non-Interstate highways.
I guess they are necessary, but a new system might work even better. For example, most state police officers and sheriff’s deputies will allow up to 10, even 15 mph over the posted speed limit before issuing a citation. Officially, it is up to the individual officer’s discretion.
But that makes a speed “limit” a misnomer. If it’s a limit, by definition, it is not to be exceeded.
Instead of posting speed limit signs, why not post suggested speed signs with the current speed limits as the accepted suggestions. Motorists would be free to go faster if conditions permit.
Under this system, drivers could travel at 75 or 80 mph during times of good weather and light traffic. During high traffic times, or when the weather is bad, police officers could ticket drivers for reckless driving if they were going faster than the conditions warranted.
Most drivers have enough common sense to know how fast is safe. If you’re driving 70 miles per hour through a residential district of a divided highway during the time of day when kids are getting off school in the pouring rain, then you deserve a speeding ticket, even if the officially posted speed limit were 85.
Germany takes the no speed limit idea to the limit. On rural stretches of its world-famous Autobahn, motorists can go as fast as they wish. Drivers come to Germany from all over just for the privilege of driving fast. Of course, the Autobahn has a high fatality rate, too.
So I’m not advocating no speed limits at all, just more reasonable ones that change according to the conditions of the road. The flexible limits would more readily reflect what is actually happening and would remove the anxiety of drivers who fear they are doing something wrong when they find themselves going 75 mph on the open road.
But, for now at least, the new higher speed limits will do. At least it’s a step in the right direction.
“The will of the legislature was clear,” Gov. Mitch Daniels said. Both the House and the Senate approved the increase in speed limits by comfortable margins.
While the speed limits on Interstates could go up on or near July 1, the speed limits on other highways will remain at 55 mph until state engineers determine which ones can handle the higher speeds. That could take several weeks or months.
In Johnson County, Interstate 65 will have its speed limit increased to 70 mph fairly quickly. And U.S. 31 could eventually see a higher speed limit along the rural stretch between Franklin and Edinburgh. Currently, the speed limit on rural state highways, divided or not, is 55 mph.
Of course, if you’ve ever driven on that stretch of highway, you know that if anyone were to actually travel at 55 mph, they would be considered a nuisance. Drivers typically cruise along at a good 10 mph faster than that. And that means that even if the speed is increased to 60 mph, it still won’t match what motorists are actually doing and what the road is capable of handling.
In 1971 I used to travel U.S. 31 almost daily as I commuted to Franklin College from my home in Edinburgh. The speed limit then was a reasonable 65 mph. When the federal government mandated a speed limit reduction to 55 mph in 1973, it felt as though I was creeping along. It still does when I go the speed limit.
I’ve always thought posted speed limits were rather arbitrary anyway. All states have legal speed limits, and most states have limits that are higher than even Indiana’s new one, at least on non-Interstate highways.
I guess they are necessary, but a new system might work even better. For example, most state police officers and sheriff’s deputies will allow up to 10, even 15 mph over the posted speed limit before issuing a citation. Officially, it is up to the individual officer’s discretion.
But that makes a speed “limit” a misnomer. If it’s a limit, by definition, it is not to be exceeded.
Instead of posting speed limit signs, why not post suggested speed signs with the current speed limits as the accepted suggestions. Motorists would be free to go faster if conditions permit.
Under this system, drivers could travel at 75 or 80 mph during times of good weather and light traffic. During high traffic times, or when the weather is bad, police officers could ticket drivers for reckless driving if they were going faster than the conditions warranted.
Most drivers have enough common sense to know how fast is safe. If you’re driving 70 miles per hour through a residential district of a divided highway during the time of day when kids are getting off school in the pouring rain, then you deserve a speeding ticket, even if the officially posted speed limit were 85.
Germany takes the no speed limit idea to the limit. On rural stretches of its world-famous Autobahn, motorists can go as fast as they wish. Drivers come to Germany from all over just for the privilege of driving fast. Of course, the Autobahn has a high fatality rate, too.
So I’m not advocating no speed limits at all, just more reasonable ones that change according to the conditions of the road. The flexible limits would more readily reflect what is actually happening and would remove the anxiety of drivers who fear they are doing something wrong when they find themselves going 75 mph on the open road.
But, for now at least, the new higher speed limits will do. At least it’s a step in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)