Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public
AP ^ | 5/9/05 | John Hanna

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: crevolist; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 601-637 next last
To: mlc9852
What are you people so afraid of?

Good question. I will be glad to discuss it at some length if you care to.

First of all I will concede that zealots on both sides tend to make extreme statements. There are militant atheists in the evolution side, and there are creationists who use this fact to tar all evolutionists as Marxists, Nazis, atheists, etc.

Second I will acknowledge that there are well educated people who doubt evolution for various reasons. Some doubt the fact of common descent, and some accept common descent but deny that natural selection is sufficient to explain anything more than small adaptations.

Here is what I'm afraid of: the attempt by those outside the mainstream of science to change what science is and what science does.

Evolution is just the latest of a long procession of bogeymen that have been attacked in the name of religion. At the time Vesuvius erupted and destroyed Pompeii, such events were considered to be caused by the wrath of God, or gods as the case may be. The same for earthquakes, disease, storms, etc. It has only been in recent centuries that many people have come to believe these are natural phenomena. I would hesitate to say that even now a majority of people believe all disasters are natural phenomena.

Science has a history going back several centuries of fighting against the assumption that ordinary events require supernatural explanations.

Somewhere around 1700, Christianity adopted the idea that the order in nature was a sign of God's design. Science then became the study of God's design. This worked well until geology and paleontology began unearthing evidence of an earth much older and complex than what was described in Genesis.

First there were fossil remains of creatures never seen. The idea took hold that these bones were the remains of a God directed evolution. It was noticed that fossils associated with lower strata were smaller and less complex than those in higher strata. It was decided that these represented earlier creations, before God created man. The word evolution was first attached to this directed sequence of creation. the term applied to this idea was Natural Theology, the title of a famous book by the Rev. Paley, published in 1802. In this book, Paley outlined the complete argument for intelligent design, including many of the terms, such as irreducible complexity.

There really wasn't much of a philosophical difference between science an religion until science began to explain life as a natural process. It is true that some religious people have always objected to an earth much older than thousands of years, but most people consider the age of the earth a matter of biblical interpretation rather than an article of faith.

As long as science restricted itself to admiring the intricate structure of the cosmos, or the mathematical workings of inorganic chemistry, things were cool. But when biologists rejected vitalism, the notion that life involved something other than chemistry, things began to heat up.

I believe there are areas that cannot easily be reconciled. For one thing, science is the way of acquiring knowledge about the world. It has, in its very core, the assumption that worldly things obey regular laws that can be analyzed and discovered. Science does not distinguish between organic and inorganic. It does not hold any beliefs, even its own, as sacred. If the testimony of witnesses contradicts what can be established by instruments, the witnesses are discarded.

You ask what I am afraid of. I am afraid that the early faith in the essential compatibility of religion and science is being abandoned because science cannot support the opinions and interpretations of some believers. The problem is not with science, which has the same assumptions it had in 1802, a belief in the orderly workings of nature. The problem is with people who do not accept where belief in order leads. they wish to go back to a time when all things were products of a whimsical God, and divine intervention was an everyday occurrence. they wish to make intervention the primary assumption.

But science, makes the opposite assumption.

201 posted on 05/10/2005 9:14:48 AM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: donh
Careful. I think AmishDude was mugged by a roaming pack of ravenous biologists. There's a lot of anger, and seeing as your post only included two digits, you're really opening yourself up to attack. ;)

Just kidding around AmishDude!!! 8485743823847.3984
202 posted on 05/10/2005 9:15:15 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser

You make a very good point, but you need to take it a step further. Science, as a whole, does work around the politics and personal egos of the scientists in question. A simple example is to look at the scientific peer reviewed journals. There are a lot of heated, but politely written, exchanges. Over time adn across disciplines, such attitudes are diluted. One generation of scientists leads to another that have different opinions. If Rutherford were still around, nuclear power may not have been acheived because he was a prominent, politically connected scietist who firmly believed that the nucleus of an atom was fixed - it could never be split. Younger scientists took up the challenge and proved otherwise and we have nuclear energy and weapons as a result.


203 posted on 05/10/2005 9:15:25 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Trendy pseudo-scientific ad hoc garbage. They're desperately trying to mathematically model biological phenomena, most often with little success.

Gosh another area where you demonstrate abject ignorance. Somehow that does not surprise me.

It means biology is a soft science that should not be taken seriously. If you don't understand mathematics than whatever you understand is only at the level of theology anyway.

Thanks for demonstrating that you have shit for brains as well as a maladjusted personality.

204 posted on 05/10/2005 9:15:53 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Actually, I don't care what theories they wish to include. Again, high school students are taught very little of evolution. And no one is suggesting that colleges change their curriculum in science or anything else. And we saw what happened when the city in Texas discussed having an ELECTIVE religion class. Seems there's just a big fear of religion these days. Considering our religious heritage, I find it strange.
205 posted on 05/10/2005 9:16:52 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
It makes one feel soooo ecumenical.
206 posted on 05/10/2005 9:17:16 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Oddly, so few creationists hold this standard to any other scientific theory, even though the same caveat that it cannot be "proved beyond any doubt" applies to all of them.

Evolution is only the start - even some non-religous people don't like it because it hurts their pride. They don't want to be told that they are related to apes.

If evolution falls, paleontology will be next. The concept of animals existing before humans contradicts the bible.

Next will be geology - the world can't really be 6 billion years old.

Next will be astronomy - those stars can't really be that far away because the universe isn't that old.

And on it goes...

207 posted on 05/10/2005 9:17:53 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
mk9852: Until scientists come up with something they all agree on regarding species, what difference does it make?

Balrog666: Until believers come up with something they all agree on regarding religion, what difference does it make?

mk9852:It doesn't make any difference. That is my point. And truth is truth. What we do with truth is up to us.

!?! You believe Catholic=Baptist=Unitarian=Judiasm (Orthodox=Conservative=Reform)=Islam=Taoism=Hinduism=Shintoism=Sikhism=Jainism=Zoroastrianism=Scientology?

208 posted on 05/10/2005 9:18:08 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: donh
Biological mathematics is very well established, heavy into discrete disciplines, linear algebra and calculus, and has an enviable, well-established predictive track record.

It's ad hoc, it's not serious mathematics.

Are you under the impression that pure math hasn't got it's byways and alleys where we deal with failures, natural limits of analysis, and groping around in the dark, unaided by provably formal demonstrations?

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.

209 posted on 05/10/2005 9:18:44 AM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Very well put, AD. As usual." -- Howlin; "ROFL!" -- Dan from Michigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: crail

Exactly...

IMO the conservative movement has been hijacked by theocrats. I think to some degree that has been corrected here in Canada.

When I see posts suggesting that 'no conservative would support evolution' or 'a real christian has to be conservative' etc...
I have to wonder. :o(


210 posted on 05/10/2005 9:19:07 AM PDT by Tungenchek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Next will be astronomy - those stars can't really be that far away because the universe isn't that old.

Astronomy or physics, take your pick. Variable speed of light, and variable speed of nuclear decay would do the trick too.
211 posted on 05/10/2005 9:19:37 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Tungenchek
I am not sure that ALL the creationists are being blatantly dishonest. I suspect some are simply not capable of critical thought, and are accustomed to thinking passion equals logic etc.

Possibly true. The "thinking passion equals logic" idea is also quite prevalent in politics and the media.

212 posted on 05/10/2005 9:19:59 AM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Tungenchek
I am not sure that ALL the creationists are being blatantly dishonest. I suspect some are simply not capable of critical thought, and are accustomed to thinking passion equals logic etc.

The problem is that there are a good number of creationists who are patently dishonest to the point of outright lying (such as out-of-context or even fabricated quotes) and then lying further when the original lie is exposed that it creates the impression that creationism itself is founded in dishonesty. What's worse, they are rarely called to task by their fellow creationists, and many of their fellow creationists will go out of their way to defend their comrades who are being "attacked" with shameless "name-calling" because apparently it's wrong for us to call someone a liar when they tell lies. Even if the real liars are in the minority, they're still present in a significant enough proportion (as opposed to the liars who might appear on any other contentious discussion here on FR) that it creates such an impression.
213 posted on 05/10/2005 9:20:15 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Do you really believe that without the conservatice evangelical Christian vote that George Bush would now be our president?

Do you really believe that without any group of voters that Bush would be now be president? Every group is trying to lay claim to "putting Bush over the top". Hispanics, security moms, south park republicans, etc.

Evanglicals have been shown to have voted in the same numbers as in previous elections.

214 posted on 05/10/2005 9:20:48 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Thoro
The blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of some of the creationists has been embarassing. Having faith is fine. Criticizing a theory is more than welcome in the scientific community; it's actually a staple of the scientific process. There's just one little catch; you had better know what it is that you are talking about in order to have your contribution taken seriously.

Very well put. It is very similar to the celebrities who spout off about politics. Like the "shut up and sing."

215 posted on 05/10/2005 9:20:50 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Wow. I've never read a post that so well-defines irony.


216 posted on 05/10/2005 9:21:25 AM PDT by AmishDude (Join the AmishDude fan club: "Very well put, AD. As usual." -- Howlin; "ROFL!" -- Dan from Michigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
I keep hearing this [the fossil record refutes ID], but I can't buy it. It's no trouble at all to simply say "the designer made it that way for reasons we don't understand."

I should have begun that post by saying: "To the rational mind, one which does not believe that the fossil record is a gigantic hoax, perpetrated by a long-running conspiracy of thousands of scientists over several generations, or that it exists but was fabricated by the gods to perplex us and test our faith ..."

217 posted on 05/10/2005 9:22:24 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I would think any true Christian would not be afraid that science would discover something contrary to God. I welcome investigations into why things are and how they work. To me it just proves God knows way more than we do. For those Christians who are afraid, I would say they need to pray for faith. On the other hand, I believe some scientists (atheists) enjoy trying to prove God was not responsible for anything in the universe and that we are all here by random chance. Humans are spiritual beings and to deny that is to deny their humanity. Both religion and science should work at seeking truth, wherever it takes them.


218 posted on 05/10/2005 9:23:14 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Cancer kills people...believing that the world was created does not kill.

Unless you are Geordono Bruno, or a member of any of several early heretical faiths and the the believers are the Catholic Church.

219 posted on 05/10/2005 9:24:39 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Kinda like scientists with the global warming scare?


220 posted on 05/10/2005 9:26:16 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

That depends on what the definition of equals equals.


221 posted on 05/10/2005 9:27:07 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

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....


222 posted on 05/10/2005 9:27:35 AM PDT by Tungenchek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
The idea that traditional conservatives are trying to impose a "theocracy" is nonsense.

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.

223 posted on 05/10/2005 9:27:41 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
I am not that familiar with Canadian politics. Could you elaborate?

We used to have two conservative parties. Progressive conservative, which were what is now called paleo-con on FR. Fiscally conservative, but no real firm stand on social issues. The other went by various names, but was the religious group. The PCs were down and out. Stockwell Day was the leader of the religious conservatives. We also have two left wing parties, center left, and way out in left field. A conservative effort from what was essentially one party, the other was down and out remember, could defeat them. But the center left party managed to put the religious nutjob label on Stockwell, mostly Stockwell's fault. They lost. Now we are about to go at it again with a corrupt center left government, a single united right wing party that would probably be called center-left by an American, and still a way out in left field party. If the center left party paints the new leader as a creationist religious nut, a la the old Stockwell party, the people who planned to vote for the way out in left field party will vote for the center left corrupt party to prevent the right wing religious nut party from gaining power. You know, this is kind of depressing! Anyways, the new conservative leader is being very careful to avoid the creationist/too religious label.
224 posted on 05/10/2005 9:27:56 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

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.


225 posted on 05/10/2005 9:29:15 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

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.


226 posted on 05/10/2005 9:30:49 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Are you under the impression that pure math hasn't got it's byways and alleys where we deal with failures, natural limits of analysis, and groping around in the dark, unaided by provably formal demonstrations?

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.

227 posted on 05/10/2005 9:31:21 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Canadians reject mixing religion with politics

Very true. We Canadians refuse to let our religious leaders become corrupted by our politics.
228 posted on 05/10/2005 9:31:36 AM PDT by crail (Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

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?


229 posted on 05/10/2005 9:33:21 AM PDT by daysailor (Sorry, I'm new here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

#####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.


230 posted on 05/10/2005 9:33:33 AM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

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)


231 posted on 05/10/2005 9:34:09 AM PDT by Tungenchek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Kinda like scientists with the global warming scare?

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.

232 posted on 05/10/2005 9:34:44 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
As for fossils, how many scientists have actually personally examined and tested them?

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.

233 posted on 05/10/2005 9:36:59 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
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.

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.

234 posted on 05/10/2005 9:37:16 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
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.

That's rich. You badly need to visit the backroom of a university museum before you shove your foot any further into your mouth.

235 posted on 05/10/2005 9:38:35 AM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: narby
I said science "had the reputation" of logic. Not that the reputation was strictly true.

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.

236 posted on 05/10/2005 9:39:04 AM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

The "thinking passion equals logic" idea is also quite prevalent in politics and the media.



You got that right.

When ever I hear a politican say "I know in my heart" etc

I stratch my head... :o)


237 posted on 05/10/2005 9:40:11 AM PDT by Tungenchek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: donh
May as well provide a link or two, which no creationist will bother with:
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record. What the fossil record is all about.
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Cuffey. Great collection of information.
238 posted on 05/10/2005 9:40:12 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

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?


239 posted on 05/10/2005 9:40:37 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Well, there was Matchett-PI fabricating a portion of a quote to make it appear as though Wayne Carley likened teaching evolution to teaching religion, when actually he said that teaching Intelligent Design is teaching religion.. When this falsehood was exposed, he made no apologies, and in fact REPEATED the lie by saying "How embarrassing is it for you blind-faith Darwinists to have the executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, no less, admitting that to teach evolution is to teach a religion?".

Then there was hosepipe, earlier in the same discussion. The issue of fossil fakes came up, and hosepipe asserted -- without evidence -- that "nearly all" fossil fakes were found by "non-evo" scientists. In fact, he actually reiterated this point later on in the same topic. Of course, when pressed for evidence, he balked and told me to research his claim for him. In other words, he made it up and was lying. When someone else finally joined in badgering him to actually support a claim with evidence, he outright denied making the claim in the first place. Nevermind that I was able to point to TWO posts of his where he made the claim, he insisted that he'd never actually made a claim that he'd made TWICE. Yet another example of a creationist liar who refused to back down even after his lies were exposed.

And, finally, my personal favourite recent example involves nmh. Earlier this year philosopher Antony Flew announced that he was no longer an atheist. Even still, he said that he did not accept the Judeo-Christian God, and -- the article specifically stated this -- "He accepts Darwinian evolution" (note that the original article is only excerpted on FR, and the link is to a dead page now, but the full article was available for some time, and the original text is archived on multiple places, including here).

Known creationist and liar nmh popped in to say " Those poor atheists. Another one abandons their godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution."

Kind of odd given that the article specifically stated that Flew accepts evolution. I corrected his mistake and nmh responded by telling me to " Read the article. He rejects it."

So I re-read the article, see the "He accepts Darwinian evolution" line, and quote the relevant section in my reply. Nmh's response is nothing more than a snide comment wherein he tells me to read the article once more even though absolutely nothing in the article supported his completely false claim.

But the story doesn't end there. Nmh has proven himself a shamless, brazen liar, and I'm not shy about bringing that up when he tries to discuss issues in the future -- after all, he's demonstrated that he's willing to lie to "prove" a point, so why should anything that he says be trusted? So in response to my bringing up of the story of nmh claiming -- falsely -- that Antony Flew rejected evolution, after saying in direct response to an article about Flew that he had "rejected" the "godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution", nmh denied ever having heard of Flew and said that he'd never posted anything about the man, even though I could directly link to nmh's posts on the matter.

So there you have it. Three creationists wrapped up in their own lies. Their lies exposed, they retreat into a larger web of lies rather than admit a single mistake.
240 posted on 05/10/2005 9:41:38 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: donh

Hmmm - let's see. How many fossils of a T-rex do you think lurk in the back of the Ft. Lauderdale Museum of Science?


241 posted on 05/10/2005 9:41:56 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Tungenchek
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.

The problem is that with many of the dishonest ones here, their lies are easily exposed. See my previous post on the matter.

I've on occasion seen one creationist admonish another for such blatant dishonesty, but it is a rare thing to witness.
242 posted on 05/10/2005 9:43:03 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

"Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe"

I found no fewer than two dozen in one day at the beach last year.

In your opinion, how many fossils has science led us to believe exist? How much are they exaggerating?

There are literally *tons* of fossils out there. Try a search on ebay. You can buy a piece of an extinct animal for your very own.


243 posted on 05/10/2005 9:44:31 AM PDT by daysailor (Sorry, I'm new here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
You seem very defensive on the subject.

Not defensive at all. Revolted by ignorance would be far more accurate.

I was just pointing out that a lot of science requires faith of what others have taught us.

No. That's a misuse of the term "faith." Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or logical argument. Science is the opposite. Any scientific proposition can be tested. Which is quite unlike creationism and ID, I should add.

244 posted on 05/10/2005 9:45:19 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
I just believe in a Platonic society and I have figured out who the philosopher-kings are.

The philosopher kings apparently have really bad teeth, and die, like Jim Henson, from rejecting medicine.

245 posted on 05/10/2005 9:47:04 AM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I've on occasion seen one creationist admonish another for such blatant dishonesty, but it is a rare thing to witness




Wonders never cease .... :o)


246 posted on 05/10/2005 9:47:39 AM PDT by Tungenchek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: chronic_loser

Wow, I'm really impressed. Someone who has read Alfred North Whitehead. Wish more would.


247 posted on 05/10/2005 9:48:34 AM PDT by WVNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Okay - you have repeated pointed out that all creationists are liars (which is why I prefer not to respond to you) but from what I've read of Anthony Flew's change of heart, he believes in God only because he doesn't believe evolution can fully explain the natural world. Is that your understanding or do you know something else about Mr. Flew's spiritual discovery?
248 posted on 05/10/2005 9:49:21 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
This is not an argument against God. It's an argument about silly applications of mathematics.

Anything can be proven to be impossibly improbable. It takes a bit of psychosis to try this on something that has already happened.

249 posted on 05/10/2005 9:49:59 AM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: daysailor

"I found no fewer than two dozen in one day at the beach last year."

Week-old KFC bones don't count.


250 posted on 05/10/2005 9:50:26 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 601-637 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson