Skip to comments.Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public
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."
That depends on what the definition of equals equals.
The Alliance party in Canada was a grass roots conservative party that became the major challenge to the Liberal establisment.
Back in 2000 they elected Stockwell Day as leader.
The problem with this choice was it alienated most of the Canadians who wanted a change and had hither to supported the Alliance as a viable conservative group. There was great hope that the Liberal's would finally be unseated..
However the Alliance elected Stockwell Day...those who were not social conservatives or 'retro-christian/ creationists' believed in my view correctly that he was more theocrat than conservative and simply opted to not vote or to vote the known parties...
The Liberals were returned with a majority.
thats the long and short of it....
Then explain the situation in Kansas.
We hear this nonsense all the time. "Gee, the Republicans are gonna lose voters unless they move to the left on [abortion, evolution, gay issues, school prayer, guns....just fill in the blank]."
The republican party has already moved to the left on all fiscal issues. How many spending bills has Bush vetoed?
The GOP is now a fiscal liberal/social conservative party. Fiscal liberal meaning spending money on every program in sight - social conservative meaning "morality police" and establishing a theocracy.
Without the war on terror, I doubt the GOP would get more than 45% of the national vote.
Stockwell Dat lead the Alliance (a conservative, federal party based in the western provinces). The Liberal party used his Christianity against him by basically scare mongering Canadians into thinking he was going to evangelize Canada to his form of Christianity. It worked. Canadians reject mixing religion with politics and it is a strike against anyoine running on the 'morals' platform there.
As for fossils, how many scientists have actually personally examined and tested them? Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe. Fossilization doesn't always occur, which I'm sure you know. So science (evolution) is actually passed on to others by very few who have actual evidence that they have examined and studied. A lot of what science purports to "know" isn't readily verifiable by others.
Not in pure mathematics. It is not the same as an experimental science. Axiom, definition, theorem -- if it's proven, it's right. No muss, no fuss.
You don't know what you are talking about. Much of "pure" mathematics has not been assailed by formal systems of proof, and some never can be, provably. You opinions about biology are as uninformed as your opinions about formal mathematics.
Let me see if I get it...
Biology is a "soft" science because it's not, well math.
And until biology actually *becomes* math, it is only something to sneer at.
Did I miss anything?
#####The GOP is now a fiscal liberal/social conservative party. Fiscal liberal meaning spending money on every program in sight - social conservative meaning "morality police" and establishing a theocracy.#####
I agree with you on the fiscal liberalism. But the theocracy charge is utter nonsense. Was America a theocracy from 1776 through about 1973? Listening to a lot of people, you'd think so. Social conservatives simply want an America like A) the Founding Father intended and B) like it was until activist social liberal judges changed it.
#####Without the war on terror, I doubt the GOP would get more than 45% of the national vote.#####
Then why is the GOP performing so well in states where the so-called "theo-cons" run the party (the south and heartland) while it's stagnant in areas where socially liberal Republicans hold sway? Lose the "theo-cons" and the GOP will perform nationally at about the level they perform in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Well I am not disagreeing with you at all.
Basically what I was trying to say is that is that while you correctly point out some creationist/religionists are patent liars the others are not really aware that they are lying.
When you are lied to about something by someone you have faith in has told you....when you pass that lie on as truth do you recognize it?
They have been lied to so much and so often by those they have faith in...they simply do not know fact from fiction
honesty from dishonesty.
Or sumpin like that .. :o)
Global warming or more accurately, global climate change is not a scare but a reality.
It is the cause of the climate change that has been politicized.
Infinitely more than the number of creationists.
Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe.
Ah, then you think it's a fraud?
Fossilization doesn't always occur, which I'm sure you know.
Yes. Thus the inevitability of gaps.
So science (evolution) is actually passed on to others by very few who have actual evidence that they have examined and studied.
So? Do you think they're lying?
A lot of what science purports to "know" isn't readily verifiable by others.
It's all verifiable, to anyone who wants to expend the effort. But for creationists, it's so much easier to do nothing, and thus to know nothing.
And also what best to do about it....
My opinion of the science is that there is strong confirming evidence that global warming is under way (for whatever reason). However non-attempts to deal with it like Kyoto, which seems solely to be a kind of developed world self-flagellation with no discernable benefit to anyone have rightly been rejected by the administration.
That's rich. You badly need to visit the backroom of a university museum before you shove your foot any further into your mouth.
I keep wondering why, if science has such a bad reputation, ID wants ot piggyback on the reputation of science.
If there is a better way of finding truth than through the methods established by science.
The textbook thing is interesting. My son took advanced biology in a public school from a teacher who hated all textbooks and who wrote his own. He must have been competent because all his students passed the AP exam with 4s and 5s.
The "thinking passion equals logic" idea is also quite prevalent in politics and the media.
You seem very defensive on the subject. I was just pointing out that a lot of science requires faith of what others have taught us. But so does most other subjects as well. History, for example. By definition it has to be passed on but a lot of people question others' take on it. I assume science could be the same. And truthfully, if you ask most Americans if they have been following the Kansas situation, I doubt there would be many who have. And what does the federal "No Child Left Behind" Act say about teaching evolution?
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.