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."
Indeed, Scripture is Spiritual and must be discerned spiritually. Trying to read it like an ordinary book will, IMHO, lead to confusion instead of Truth.
Compare the less than 40 sentences which describe Creation in the first chapter to the libraries full of books on theology, philosophy, metaphysics, cosmology, mathematics, astrophysics, physics, chemistry, biology and so on. And yet we are spiritually refreshed by the simple, spiritual, Truth in the first phrase: In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
I also very strongly agree with you about inalienable rights. The United States is unique in attributing those rights as God given and thus not something the state can take away. It leads to the strong political stand, "governance by consent of the governed".
All kinds of violence and mischief have been wrought by nations which hold that the rights of the governed are granted and denied by the state.
No doubt many of the correspondents on these threads are also atheist and yet conservative in political philosophy. But atheists, too, reap the benefit of inalienable rights in this country!
IMHO, it would be a disaster for this country to become officially atheistic. It would make it way too easy for the state to take away our rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.
Whew... withering Evo-Slap.. I felt the concussion from here..
Debate(creative discourse) with these guys is like arguing with a democrat.. or communist.. Black logical holes.. Logic goes in and never reappears.. On the otherhand maybe the "logic" didn't really get in at all.. there is a logic filter.. which would expain a lot..
BULL. Here we go again. Read it and weep:
I've tried to be polite, but faced with such obstinance it is becoming difficult.
As you know - and are trying to get the easily led clueless to overlook - ALL quotes are "taken out of context".
Emphasis in original.
Let me say that this statement is utterly ridiculous. The purpose of citation is to preserve the context in which quotes occur. To suggest that all quotes are taken out of context is a recipe for twisting people's words to mean whatever you want.
I have put into words, as calmly as possible, where I think you have been in error with making these citations. I claim you have taken Charles Darwin out of context, as well as that of Australian biologist John S. Wilkins. I have made these claims without resorting to calling you a cultist or idolater. How am I rewarded for my effort?
Stomping around pointing your finger at everyone yelling "out-of-context quote" or "liar", "liar" when Darwin's "beliefs" are being accurately portrayed only makes you look foolish
Personally, I think yelling "BULL" and "Hahahaha" make you look foolish.
How can you claim to be accurately portraying these quotes when you provide neither a complete citation nor references to the original sources? Here is another example where you seem to be twisting people's words:
Still peddling your man-centered, blind-faith religion on Free Republic, I see. LOL
"...teaching evolution is .... a religious doctrine", said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers.
Mr. Carley ... expressed a desire that this reality continue to be kept secret from the students .. and futher reports that it is only Christians who are militant about this subject.
"Biology teachers are always a warm, fuzzy, and peaceful people, who never say unkind things about God, Jesus, or Christians", he said.
Emphasis in original post: #580 posted on 05/06/2005 8:12:29 AM CDT by Matchett-PI
For the edification of the readership, here the article from MSNBC that contains the actual Wayne Carley quote:
Many biology teachers, such as those in Pennsylvania who refused to read the school board’s statement on intelligent design to students, say the theory is not scientific.
“Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “There is no research to support it, and it is clearly religious in that it posits a higher being.” [Emphasis mine for comparison with the above -LC]
Carley conceded the battle against the teaching of intelligent design is a hard one to win because proponents approach the issue as one of faith rather than rationality.
“We can argue that it’s bad science, but people don’t want to hear that,” he said. “They are coming from a much more basic gut level.”
Your post implies that Wayne Carley says teaching evolution is a religious doctrine. However, the actual quote shown from MSNBC would seem to be totally the opposite meaning. This is not just taking a quote out of context, but fabricating a quote altogether. There is nothing about keeping anything secret from students and nothing about militant Christians. The part about biology teachers being "warm, fuzzy, and peaceful people" would seem to be a figment of the imagination.
So, in the interest of intellectual honesty, will you not retract your statements about Carley? It is possible you found these mis-quotes elsewhere on the internet and mistakenly believe them to be true.
If you do not retract these statements, what other conclusion can I draw except that you are spreading false quotes knowingly? I ask you again, is it any wonder people question your integrity?
|
Hmmm.. actually I bypassed your posts in the thread...
"You protest too much..", about communism in this one....
But I did go read post #534 that you linked too..
Third rate logic, too wordy, rambling and sophomoric warmed over mocking.. d;-)~
Sorry.. Thats allowed on FR but will be graded..(C-)
Next time, get creative, blah blah blah.. is simply not good enough..
and a curly(Howard) salute, and a poke in the eyes..
(exit stage RIGHT)...
Off Topic?
I found this very interesting, and somewhat related. It seems that the identification of "genes" is turning out to spotlight many 3 codon units that seem to do nothing at all. Some scientists are now claiming that cells (organisms?) code for traits "wholistically" and that Mendelian genetics is only a small part of the mechanism for passing characteristics from one generation to another.
That would sure turn the debate on its head, wouldn't it?
Just ran across the story in the Independent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1477776,00.html and wondered if any of the geneticists here had comments?
Hmmm.. actually I bypassed your posts in the thread... "You protest too much..", about communism in this one....
But I did go read post #534 that you linked too.. Third rate logic, too wordy, rambling and sophomoric warmed over mocking.. d;-)~ Sorry.. Thats allowed on FR but will be graded..(C-)
Next time, get creative, blah blah blah.. is simply not good enough.. and a curly(Howard) salute, and a poke in the eyes.. (exit stage RIGHT)...
Emphasis is mine. I did not mock him in my post. I was being serious. This leads me to believe you did not really read it. I don't think you really read his posts, either. Does it matter if he posts quotes that are falsified?
Where are the Moderate Creationists?
One would have hoped (falsely it seems) that more than one would be unhappy at continual mis-quoting, and easily exposed mendacity. Instead we find creationists just complementing and thanking those who post such lies.
This is one reason that I oppose teaching creationism or any of its aliases (ID, Harun Yahya, etc.), the proponents cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Why should they be believed in any other of their comments. I don't believe politicians when they blatantly lie; I think it's ok to hold posters here to at least that standard.
chronic_loser called Matchett-PI out on it. That's, well, one.
We're probably agreed that this is not a black mark against Christians. Creationists -- specifically the anti-science, anti-reason, "you got no evidence," "lemme get at your kids in science class" kind of creationist -- are a unique group.
It would be nice to see more.
Critics of conservatism do read this board and they're just as good at quote-mining as the creationists.
Just to be fair and nice, I will say that I do not assert wholesale randomness, even though I haven't seen convincing evidence to the contrary. I have discussed a couple kinds of non-randomness I would expect to find.
Secondly, I do not reject out of hand what I would call the anthropic principle, the idea that the universe is created in a way that guarantees or encourages life.
I don't know the mind of the creator, and I am not going to speculate on the purpose, motive or methods of the creator.
But most of the non-evolutionists on these threads reject natural selection entirely, reject common descent entirely, and reject randomness entirely, even though something close to randomness can be observed directly in mutations.
There are all kinds of wrong. Some months ago I was hit by an unusual usage of the term recessive. I was wrong in thinking the usage had never appeared in a juried publication.
And of course, I still think I was correct that the oddball usage was irrelevant to the ongoing discussion.
I have been wrong before and since. It's tough being corrected, but I will not be repeating the same mistakes, and if someone has the discourtesy to dredge them up, I will admit to them again.
What you think, matters as much to me, as what I think, matters to you.. maybe less..
The (current) Evos and Creationists are on different pages in different books about opposite themes on the same thing..
Any that enjoin that conversation (not with tongue in cheek)
(comparing apples and oranges)
really needs a prune enema..
Unless they've overlooked that fact that there are two monologues and not a real dialog at all... proving that they(the serious ones) themselves are not good at fact gathering.. Preachers are preachers on both sides.. when they pass the proverbial hat, I suggest you put a "YOU OWE ME" post in the hat.. that way you'll appear to have contributed.. Just a suggestion..
{snip... (sorry busy now)
to ALL; "PRUNES.?... PRUNES here....", prunes for the debate...
Give me an example of a question that can be settled by observation or experimentation that any scientist is not allowed to ask.
Here's Matchett-PI's somewhat downbeat statement on ID:
“The ID people recognize that it's getting harder and harder for them to pretend. Hahahaha”
Don’t believe me? It’s right here.
Of course, we all know how the game is played, so the original post has this formulation:
".....at least the ID people recognize that there are philosophical positions being argued. The evo crowd either doesn't see it, or doesn't want to see it." ~ chronic_loser
It's getting harder and harder for them to pretend they don't see it. Hahahaha
And don’t worry about criticism! As Matchett-PI has posted, ALL quotes are "taken out of context".
Who wants to be the first to “Matchett!”
If only we had Don Pardo to tell you what you've won ...
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.