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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 621-637 next last
To: narby

" Until a positive alternative for evolution is proposed, then evolution stands, criticism and all."

Well, maybe not in Kansas.


81 posted on 05/10/2005 6:52:22 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Are you saying China will have a biological/technological development advantage over the US because the students in Kansas will be taught the weaknesses with the theory of evolution?

What the Kansas board wants is to ensure that students in Kansas are hoodwinked and misled about the current preponderance of evidence in biology. The first lie is that there even is a secular movement within science called "Intelligent Design." There is a political movement called "Intelligent Design" pushed by creationists in school boards around the country.

You don't educate the next generation of scientists by lying to them about science.

82 posted on 05/10/2005 6:53:16 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Why not? Students are lied to in sex-ed classes, history classes, psychology classes. Why should science class be any different?
83 posted on 05/10/2005 6:54:32 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Well, maybe not in Kansas.

That may be true. And when it happens, that will be the beginning of the end of the "Red State" majority.

All that Hillary needs to do is pick up a few thousand votes in Ohio and she wins in '08.

I can easily imagine that many Republican voters, embarrassed at the ignorance of their party in rejecting science, will stay away from the polls that November.

Hillary wins.

84 posted on 05/10/2005 6:57:39 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

I am a scientitist, I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. I see no conflict. That being said, the people representing intelligent design in Kansas aren't scientists. They are creationists arguing in favor of ID. ID = creationism. QED. Moreover, the anti-evolution board members admit to not reading the majority report on the science standards, either. This is further proof that they are not interested in the science cirriculum, but in ultimately promoting a Christian fundamentalist program for all kids, not just those being raise in a fundamentalist Christian home.

The 'question evolution' concept is corrupted. Yes, there is plenty of dicussion, disagreement and quesioning of evolution in the scientific community. This is not critical of evolution itself, but of the details like specific mechanisms of natural selection, how the genetic code has changed, how specific species and lines of species came about, etc.,. It is not a critique of evolution itself. These are things that in order to understand, a good grounding in science and evolution is necessary. Most IDers and creationsists do not have the background to even begin to understand the nature of the work, let alone contribute scientific discussion on the topics.

ID'ers and creationists use these discussions as a wedge to say that scientists don't agree on evolution and extrapolate and spin it to say it is flawed. The questioning IDers purport is designed to confuse and obfuscate the boundaries of science and religion. It is designed to open a door to creationism proper. The Kansas board has to change the basic meaning of 'science' and 'theory' i order to do this. In the long term, Kansas will be hurt.

I also agree with you that science instruction in general is abysmal in the U.S.


85 posted on 05/10/2005 6:58:43 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: narby

"I can easily imagine that many Republican voters, embarrassed at the ignorance of their party in rejecting science, will stay away from the polls that November."

LOL - good one.


86 posted on 05/10/2005 6:58:46 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

bump


87 posted on 05/10/2005 6:58:58 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Come on now. Be honest - you don't believe there are any negatives in the entire theory of evolution? Of course not.

Hmmm.. "Negatives" is probably not the word I would have used. Yes there is much we don't understand. That is a given. But what we do understand fits the accepted theory. Indeed the theory can be revised (like all other theories) as new data is introduced. In fact, if contradictory data is discovered, it may toss the theory out altogether. Such is the way of science. The problem I see is that Genesis is not revised as new data comes to light. Instead of modifying the understanding of it to fit the new data, the new data is crammed into it no matter how hard it needs to be distorted.

But we are all just rehashing the same old arguments every day on here. You won't convince those who question evolution and we (those who question evolution) won't convince anyone else. So basically we are all just wasting our time. Luckily my boss is on vacation so I have nothing better to do at the moment.

This I disagree with. I learn every day from these threads. So do many others I suspect. :-)

88 posted on 05/10/2005 6:59:13 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

"Why should science class be any different?"


Or a religion class, if the Christians get their way. I imagine that would be a pack of lies as well.


89 posted on 05/10/2005 6:59:31 AM PDT by Blzbba (Let them hate us as long as they fear us - Caligula)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: doc30

I don't think science will ever convince the vast majority of Americans that we descended from apes or chimps or any other furry creature. That is where the problem is with evolution. Remove that - concentrate on natural selection and adaptation and we'll all be one big happy scientific family again. It won't happen.


90 posted on 05/10/2005 7:01:27 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

What "religion" are we talking about?


91 posted on 05/10/2005 7:05:06 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I don't think science will ever convince the vast majority of Americans...

If I recall correctly most already believe in evolution. If you take the religious evolutionists and athiest evolutionists... all of whom believe evolution is the process, you have a large majority. The only difference in their belief is that God creates and guides mutations, or mutations are random.

Besides that, science is not a democracy. You don't vote on what theory is correct, you create arguments, debate, experiment and observe.
92 posted on 05/10/2005 7:08:44 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 90 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

So, do you think you'll win by default?


93 posted on 05/10/2005 7:09:13 AM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Why should science class be any different?

"Science" has had the reputation for the last hundred years as being a bastion of logic. A collection of "truth finders". A culture willing to critically re-examine anything and throw it out if it was incorrect.

It is true that some "scientists" have whored themselves out to environmental and other agenda entities. That fact wasn't known to the general public, and the reputation of science has remained high, nevertheless.

But in this instance, science is being hijacked from outside. It's good reputation is being stolen to provide aid to a particular religious viewpoint. And it is being done in plain sight, with the whole world watching.

This is bad for science. It is bad for the conservative movement. And it is even bad for those Christians who have taken on science, because their children will now have their noses rubbed with fossils and information that they can pick up in their hands and told that "this proves your faith is false".

If only those Christian leaders had embraced science. If they had told their children that the remarkable similarity between Genesis, when interpreted correctly, actually helps reaffirm their faith. Then all this would be unnecessary.

94 posted on 05/10/2005 7:11:15 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

Most people to believe in evolution in some form or another. However, what the average citizen 'believes' is not what science is all about. People can deny human descent from another ancestral species, but that doesn't mean they are supported by science.


95 posted on 05/10/2005 7:12:08 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Nicely said. And IMHO, it does not contradict being a Christian.


96 posted on 05/10/2005 7:13:09 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
The first lie is that there even is a secular movement within science called "Intelligent Design.">>

You misunderstand the issue. It is not a debate on who can "line up" the most scientists or politicians or rabble in the steets to scream louder than the other side. It is a debate over whether there exists a reasonable case that a naturalistic progression from non living matter to living beings in their current state of complexity is the only rational hypothesis. My objection to this whole sorry pile of dreck is that "rational" now means "rationalism" and thus the realm of the supernatural has become defined as "irrational."
The evo crowd bellows over and over that "THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN SCIENCE CLASS" without considering that the assumption that this does not belong in science class is not justified scientifically, but is merely an expression of a prejudiced view of the nature of science.
97 posted on 05/10/2005 7:13:34 AM PDT by chronic_loser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Junior

I don't think of it as win or lose. I think of it as a continuing process. We should just all be willing to keep an open mind.


98 posted on 05/10/2005 7:13:35 AM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I don't think science will ever convince the vast majority of Americans that we descended from apes or chimps or any other furry creature.

You never did read that post from Ichumon (sp?) with the details of viral markers in various ape DNA, and how they trace directly to humans?

But you're probably right. Human ego being what it is, most Americans will never think they "descended from monkeys".

99 posted on 05/10/2005 7:15:38 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: crail

100 posted on 05/10/2005 7:18:11 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 621-637 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