Posted on 05/09/2005 11:35:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
While Kansas State Board of Education members spent three days soaking up from critics of evolution about how the theory should be taught in public schools, many scientists refused to participate in the board's public hearings. But evolution's defenders were hardly silent last week, nor are they likely to be Thursday, when the hearings are set to conclude. They have offered public rebuttals after each day's testimony. Their tactics led the intelligent design advocates -- hoping to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution -- to accuse them of ducking the debate over the theory. But Kansas scientists who defend evolution said the hearings were rigged against the theory. They also said they don't see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses called by intelligent design advocates.
"They're in, they do their schtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points."
The scientists' boycott, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.
"I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," said board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."
Intelligent design advocates challenge evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create life, that all life on Earth had a common origin and that man and apes had a common ancestor. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex. The science groups' leaders said Morris and the other two members of the board subcommittee presiding at the hearings already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates. All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution. The entire board plans to consider changes this summer in standards that determine how students will be tested statewide in science.
Alan Leshner, AAAS chief executive officer, dismissed the hearings as "political theater."
"There is no cause for debate, so why are they having them?" he said. "They're trying to imply that evolution is a controversial concept in science, and that's absolutely not true."
Just what we need more unemployed pastors with
their doctorates in Intelligent Design.
:o)
Excellent points. Do you ever feel like you're swimming against the tide? I know I do.
Claiming that some "intellegence" created species at one time won't wash, because the fossil record refutes it.
Claiming that some "intellegence" created species over billions of years is irrational, because then that intellegence should still be here among us, and there is no evidence of this.
So what are you going to replace evolution with, once you've criticised it into oblivion?
What limits would you then put on what can call itself science, and what is too big for science? Mine are that it can be addressed with the scientific method, that you can't appeal to miraculous events. Just out of interest sake, I'd like to know yours. For example, philisophical pondering of morality and meaning? I understand you don't like the current definition of scientific material, but what limits yours?
Are you talking about biologists or climatologists?
You are absolutely right! Many of these things are beyond
the reach of "science".
My point is science and religion do have some things in common. People will look to "prove" what they already believe and discard what doesn't fit. And people will continue to argue about it as they have done throughout history.
You can study all the calculus you want in biology. Lots of processes end up as non-linear and delay differential equations... very difficult calculus.
Your confusing science with scientists. While scientists can be biased, angry, and political, their theories won't stand if they publish without the evidence. It's the group phenomenon of debate, experimentation and observation that weeds out the individual biases of scientists and teases out the gems.
No, I don't. You do. Your disgust with rationalism, materialism, whatever is unrelated to the preponderance of evidence for common descent, an old Earth, etc. Science has not been doing science wrong for the last 200 years. Get over it.
That would be the whole math department. You might want to give bio students a tour of the building. Or at least directions on how to get there.
I have a whole book of Sidney Harris cartoons. :-)
One of the ones that made me laugh loudest, was a guy was at a synthetic polymer plant exclaiming "AH HA" as he saw a sheep escaping. LMAO!
I'm sure the astrologers of the world celebrate that you're taking up their supernatural cause. I think I'm a Sagittarius. Wonder what my future holds today?
You do realize that once the "supernatural" is defined as "rational". Then anything goes. Any faith. Any crackpot whacko with Koolaid and a tent in the jungle is now "rational".
You do realize that Christians are a small minority on this planet, don't you? By making the argument that the supernatural is rational, you're giving more aid to other faiths, than to Christians, merely because of the demographics.
I've heard the screams from DU that Bush and conservatives are attempting to start a theocracy. I've paid them no mind until now. But maybe they're not so far off after all.
This is my whole problem this is taught in high schools, before anyone has any understanding of anything (oh and it's taught in Jr. High, too). Regardless of the scientific merit of evolution, it is taught as theology. Students must believe and swear fealty to the wise and knowledgeable biologists.
I still don't think that's what's going on, overall, despite the delusionally wishful thinking of the creationists. However, if it is, that bus can go over the cliff without me on it.
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.