"Cthulhu didit"
Posted on 04/20/2005 3:31:42 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Religion and science clashed frequently Tuesday in a meeting to set ground rules for next month's hearings that could decide what Kansas students learn about the origins of life. [*sigh*]
At the end of the nearly two-hour meeting, it was decided that proponents of intelligent design -- an idea that the world was started by a supernatural power -- will provide testimony from May 5 through May 7.
And in a surprise move, it appears that supporters of evolution will present their side May 12 through May 14.
Scientists in Kansas and across the nation had previously said they would boycott the hearings on science standards because they felt that conservative [*sigh*] State Board of Education members were using the hearings to criticize evolution and introduce religion in science classes.
But on Tuesday, the majority of scientists serving on a committee that composed the pro-evolution science standards for Kansas students indicated they were ready to challenge the conservatives. [ARRRRGGGHHH!!]
Attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, representing the majority on the science standards committee, blasted the hearings process, criticized the use of taxpayer funds to bring in anti-evolution witnesses, and said he would probably call some witnesses of his own.
"We would object to the use of a single penny to conduct what we believe is a political process as opposed to a legitimate issue regarding science," he said.
The three State Board of Education members on a subcommittee overseeing the hearings -- Steve Abrams, Kathy Martin and Connie Morris -- have agreed to allow John Calvert, a proponent of intelligent design, to spend up to $5,000 to bring in witnesses. The board members offered to allow Irigonegaray the same amount for witnesses' expenses, but he said he would not spend any state money on his side. Another $5,000 will be spent for a court reporter to transcribe what could turn into six days of hearings.
Calvert defended the expenses. "This is one of the most important issues facing education in the entire country," he said.
A combative Irigonegaray argued with Calvert and board members, who were part of a teleconference call, over several procedural issues for the hearings.
While Calvert's list of 24 witnesses is already public, Irigonegaray said he may use May 12-14 to present the pro-evolution side, but he would not reveal whom he may call as witnesses.
This angered Morris and Martin. Morris said Irigonegaray should cooperate so that board members could have a "definite agenda that we could be working on and praying over."
Irigonegaray said he couldn't be compelled to produce a witness list "so that a prayer service could occur."
Earlier, Harry McDonald, president of Kansas Citizens for Science, said he would continue to ask scientists to boycott the hearings because he didn't want to give any credibility to intelligent design.
But, he said, the group would provide scientists to speak with the media to critique the testimony of Calvert's witnesses.
After Irigonegaray indicated he may use three days of hearings to support the majority report of the science standards committee, McDonald said he wouldn't stand in his way.
"If Pedro gets scientists to agree to come, that would be their prerogative," he said.
Following the hearings, the subcommittee will make a recommendation on science standards to the full 10-member education board.
Hearing schedule
• Hearings on Kansas science standards will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. from May 5 through May 7, and possibly from May 12 through 14 at Memorial Hall, 120 S.W. 10th St., Topeka.
• The first set of days will be reserved for witnesses summoned by John Calvert, a proponent of intelligent design.
• The second set of days will be reserved for witnesses brought in by attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, who is representing the scientists who composed the pro-evolution science standards. He would not commit to needing those days, but he was directed by the State Board of Education subcommittee overseeing the hearings to commit by May 2 on whether he will need those days.
• The auditorium in Memorial Hall seats 180 people.
|
But on Tuesday, the majority of scientists serving on a committee that composed the pro-evolution science standards for Kansas students indicated they were ready to challenge the conservatives. [ARRRRGGGHHH!!]I understand your frustration. That the looney-tunes who keep coming up with flying-saucer-like theories of anti-evolution get to call themselves "conservatives" is very annoying.
The true "conservatives" in biology are the Darwinists, who are sticking with a theory that has stood the test of time. A long test over a long period of time.
A lot of people would be a lot happier if they realized the question of evolution is not the same as the question of creation. Evolution DOES NOT preclude creation. Everyone should repeat this three times before they start debating this issue.
Creationism is a recent invention. Much more recent than Darwin.
Intelligent design is much more recent than creationism.
These recent inventions are radical attempts to cast doubt on a fully-proven, fully-accepted, century-and-a-half old respectable, working, testable scientific theory.
In what sense are these untrained, unscientific, ideology-driven radical zealots --- inventing brand new theories out of whole cloth --- to be considered "conservative"?
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Hillary's supporters are secretly behind the recent push for creationism in the schools. They'll do anything to discredit conservatism. Although I'd expect Hillary to support this stuff if she had to, my fear is that she doesn't need to spend a dime. The creationism (and ID) movement is a pure gift to her from the anti-science Luddites. The really sad part is that some conservatives get bamboozled by this stuff and mis-identify it with their religion.
So, is this like a one-per-century thing in Kansas?
Dorothy doesn't like there anymore, but the Stokes "Monkey Trial" will be replayed at least once every century!?
Oh really? I think these ideas have been around a while.
read later
Thanks for the ping!
I beg to differ. William Paley published Natural Theology in 1802. It contains every argument now being used by the ID movement. It was, in fact, the inspiration for darwin's work. Virtually everything in Darwin's Origin is a direct response to Paley.
I can see some advantages to the "long day" approach to creation, particularly if you implement this interpretation on the day of rest.
Uhmm ... Not quite.
Every culture has a "creation" myth."
Creation science" is a innovation to counter evolutionary science after the US Supreme court struck down the Arkansas statute that prohibited teaching evolution. (Epperson vs. Arkansas 1968).
Intelligent design is much more recent than creationism.
Long before Darwin, philosophers such as John Ray and William Paley made the argument that the complexity, function, and adaptations of living things required a designer. And that designer was God.
The modern ID movement is an attempt to end run around another USSC decision that struck down Louisiana's "Creationism Act" (Edwards vs Aguillard 1987). Louisiana's law had forbid the teaching of the theory of evolution unless accompanied by teaching the theory of "creation science."
By calling ID a "science" and calls to "teach both theories", the neo-creationists hope to get a "Creationism Act" that'll pass constitutional muster by not specifying the designer ...
(JohnDoe didit)
They're pretty much hosed any way they turn. First of all, the ID movement has a paper trail that documents the fact that they are promoting religion. This paper trail has been adjudicated and is a primary reason Louisiana was struck down. It's pretty hard to disown.
Second, if they succeed, every fringe group and non-Christian religion in the world will sue to have their mythology treated as science.
While Calvert's list of 24 witnesses is already public, Irigonegaray said he may use May 12-14 to present the pro-evolution side, but he would not reveal whom he may call as witnesses. This angered Morris and Martin. Morris said Irigonegaray should cooperate so that board members could have a "definite agenda that we could be working on and praying over."
WTF????
Since when is it a proper function for a government entity (this state board) to "pray over" an agenda?
Note that this is different than a brief ceremonial invocation such as is said at the opening of a Congressional session; this is about the substance of the committee's work.
If a member of the committee wishes to seek "divine guidance" on an issue, it is their right as individuals to do so on their own time, but I'm having trouble understanding how this can be appropriate for the committee to "pray over." What's next; anointing witnesses with Holy water before they testify? A quick wine 'n' wafer snack before the committee votes?
Put this in perspective; how would the public feel if committee members fired up a prayer wheel and chanted Bhuddist Incantations while parading a picture of the Dalai Lama, or more interestingly, what if they all faced Mecca before voting?
Beware, as H.L. Mencken admonished; "The people usually deserve the government they get, and the ought to get it good and hard." So be it for Kansans; I feel sorry for those of them who aren't nuts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1387237/posts?page=18#18
is, of course, intended as a platform from which you can now tee-off on the subject of how damaging this all is to the conservative movement, that it is a PR disaster, because all conservatives will now be painted with the same brush by the Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media.....
he-he!
regards,
"Cthulhu didit"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.