Skip to comments.Evolution Opponent Is in Line for Schools Post
Posted on 05/23/2007 8:19:05 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
The National Association of State Boards of Education will elect officers in July, and for one office, president-elect, there is only one candidate: a member of the Kansas school board who supported its efforts against the teaching of evolution.
Scientists who have been active in the nations evolution debate say they want to thwart his candidacy, but it is not clear that they can.
The candidate is Kenneth R. Willard, a Kansas Republican who voted with the conservative majority in 2005 when the school board changed the states science standards to allow inclusion of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. Voters later replaced that majority, but Mr. Willard, an insurance executive from Hutchinson, retained his seat. If he becomes president-elect of the national group, he will take office in January 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
they have- being uninformed about the evidences doesn’t mean the evidence doesn’t exist. Plenty of ID science to be found- go ye yonder and bathe in the light.
References? Research programs? Theories that can be falsified? Anything besides "evolutionary biology isn't complete, therefore it must all be wrong"?
Cake? Cake! What a great idea!!!
[Anything besides “evolutionary biology isn’t complete, therefore it must all be wrong”?]
Who says that? Noone I know of- The statement is “Evolutionary biology is biologically impossible and here’s why!”
[References? Research programs? Theories that can be falsified?]
Why by golly you’re in luck- plenty of that will turn up with even just a cursory look on the net. Design is absolutely falsifiable, problem is, design rears it’s overwhelming head in too many places, as does irreducible complexity. Happy hunting.
I guess you missed this part of the article
The candidate is Kenneth R. Willard, a Kansas Republican who voted with the conservative majority in 2005 when the school board changed the states science standards to allow inclusion of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. Voters later replaced that majority
Looks like the mythology over science crowd are the losers
Translation: "No, I don't have any, so I'll point them at Google."
oh I’ve got plenty- but I’ll refrain from listing them- I enjoy the ‘you didn’t give links so they don’t exist’ accusations. That second link by the way has more science than you can shake a stick at- but I’m sure you’ll get all tripped up over the fact that he mentions God a few times- but I assure you, focusing in on a few statements like a laser won’t undo the fact that his science is sound! Of course, you’ll no doubt join along with the critics fearful of his science and engage in the time honored tradition of ignoring the science and attacking the character.
post 25: [Looks like the mythology over science crowd are the losers]
Nope- the mythology won hands down. Biological impossibilities? Pfffff, who needs to learn about those in a ‘science’ (and I use the term VERY loosly) class? Better for a biased judge and panel to deny the teaching of science that points out htese facts- Better for an agenda driven judge to stick fingers in ears, sing ‘la la la ID contains no science’ than for the judge to actually concider the fact that his precious religion has some SERIOUS scientific problems that needs addressing. Don’t like the coutner evidences? Then by golly just make childish ad hominem attacks on the opposition and deny them the right to teach SCIENCE in it’s entirety. Better to take the imature stance that Dawkins takes and state “if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
Yeehaw, now there’s a purely scientific statement right htere brother!
Happy Birthday to betty boop! Thank you, cornelis!
if you fear it outlaw it, that way you never have to be held to higher standards that higher learning requires! Well done Kansas Judge- no need for students to be exposed to learned objections to the religion of evolution!
no need for students to be exposed to learned objections to the religion of evolution!
Sure there is, but here's the catch, 1st you must actually come up with one.
And no claiming, "I can't or won't see how xxxx could evolve therefore it must be Jesus" doesn't cut it.
I thought space aliens did it. I know I’ve seen someone here recently quoting Francis Crick.
[And no claiming, “I can’t or won’t see how xxxx could evolve therefore it must be Jesus” doesn’t cut it.]
Who’s saying that? Wow- you’re batting a thousand in the credibility department- Noone I know of says that- not even close We state “Evolution has serious SCIENTIFIC problems and tada- here they are-”
[Sure there is, but here’s the catch, 1st you must actually come up with one.]
Mission accomplished- so what’s your problem? I mean, other than a blind bias and a genralized non supported denial and accusations based on unlerned agenda driven dogmatism?
Lie? I get the Kan\sas issue mixed yp with hte Dover trial/sham and I’m lying? Lol- Ok. And NO- one of hte reasons they lost was flat out bias and fear of science proper!!! But butter it however you like- your side always does!
And how’sa your rebuttles to the SCIENCE I linked to going? Too busy making gneralized silly accusations about ID to take the time to eductate yourself on the issue?
In my experience, the truth is never, ever good enough for leftists. In fact, I’m convinced that if a leftist has a choice between the truth and a lie — and the outcome will be the same in either case — he’ll always lie just to stay in practice.
And thank you also for the splendid book you sent me to celebrate my birthday Uncertainty, by David Lindley (2007). Im only on Chapter 3; but already theres some amazingly good stuff that sheds much light on the issues implicit in this thread. Heres a small sample:
Uncertainty was hardly new to science in 1927 [the year in which Werner Heisenberg inaugurated that term]. Experimental results always have a little slack in them. Theoretical predictions are only as good as the assumptions behind them. In the endless back-and-forth between experiment and theory, its uncertainty that tells the scientist how to proceed. Experiments probe ever finer details. Theories undergo adjustment and revision. When scientists have resolved one level of disagreement, they move down to the next. Uncertainty, discrepancy, and inconsistency are the stock-in-trade of any lively scientific discipline.To put it another way, there is a vast chasm between theory and what is experimentally possible. The experiments will always necessarily be inexact; what we draw from them can only be, at best, approximate, indeterminate, uncertain.
So Heisenberg didnt introduce uncertainty into science. What he changed, and profoundly so, was its very nature and meaning. It had always seemed a vanquishable foe. Starting with Copernicus and Galileo, with Kepler and Newton, modern science evolved through the application of logical reasoning to verifiable facts and data. Theories, couched in the rigorous language of mathematics, were meant to be analytical and precise. They offered a system, a structure, a thorough accounting that would replace mystery and happenstance with reason and cause. In the scientific universe, nothing happens except that something makes it happen. There is no spontaneity, no whimsy. The phenomena of nature might be inordinately complicated, but at bottom science must reveal order and predictability. Facts are facts, laws are laws. There can be no exceptions .
For a century or two, the dream seemed realizable. If scientists of one generation, building on the work of the last, could see that they had yet to achieve their ideal, they could equally believe that those who came after them would finish the job. The power of reason implied the ineluctability of progress. Science would become more grandiose, more encompassing in scope, yet at the same time more detailed, more scrupulous. Nature was knowable and if it was knowable then one day, necessarily, it would be known.
This classical vision, springing from the physical sciences, became in the nineteenth century the dominant model for science of all kinds. Geologists, biologists, even the first generation of psychologists, pictured the natural world in its entirety as an intricate but inerrant machine. All sciences aspired to the ideal that physics offered. The trick was to define your science in terms of observations and phenomena that led themselves to precise description reducible to numbers, that is and then to find the mathematical laws that tied those numbers into an inescapable system.
No doubt the task was hard. If ever scientists were daunted by their ambitions, it was because of the sheer complexity of the machine they were trying to tease apart. Perhaps the laws of nature would be too vast for their brains to fathom. Perhaps scientists would find they could write down the laws of nature only to discover they lacked the analytical and calculational firepower to work out the consequences. If the project of absolute scientific comprehension were to falter, it would be because the human mind wasnt up to the task, not because nature itself was intractable.
And thats why Heisenbergs argument proved so unsettling. It targeted an unsuspected weakness in the edifice of science in the substructure, so to speak, a part of the foundation that had gone unexamined because it had seemed so self-evidently secure.
Heisenberg took no issue with the perfectibility of the laws of nature. Instead, it was in the very facts of nature that he found strange and alarming difficulties. His uncertainty principle concerned the most elementary act of science: How do we acquire knowledge about the world, the kind of knowledge that we can subject to scientific scrutiny? How, in the particular example Heisenberg took, do we know where some object is and how fast it is moving? It was a question that would have baffled Heisenbergs predecessors. At any time, a moving object has some speed and position. There are ways of measuring or observing these things. The better the observation, the more accurate the result. What else is there to say?
Plenty more, Heisenberg discovered. His conclusion, so revolutionary and esoteric, has been expressed in words that have become almost commonplace. You can measure the speed of a particle, or you can measure its position, but you cant measure both. Or: the more precisely you find out the position, the less well you can know its speed. Or, more indirectly and less obviously: the act of observing changes the thing observed.
The bottom line seems to be that facts are not the simple, hard things they were supposed to be. In the classical picture of the natural world as a great machine, it had been taken for granted that all the working parts of the machinery could be defined with limitless precision and that all their interconnections could be exactly understood . This had seemed both fundamental and essential. To have a hope of comprehending the universe, you had first to assume that you could find out, piece by piece, what all the components of the universe were and what they were doing. Heisenberg was saying that you couldnt always find out what you wanted to know, that your ability to describe the natural world was circumscribed. If you couldnt describe it as you wished, how could you hope to reason out its laws?
What was lost, then, was not the underlying ideal of a deterministic physical world but the Laplacian hope for perfectibility in the scientific accounting of that world. The universe unfolds imperturbably according to its inner design. Scientists could legitimately hope to understand that design fully. What they could no longer attain was complete knowledge of how that design was realized. They could know the blueprint, but not the shape and color of every brick .
It takes a certain humility to understand the import of this new situation.
I highly recommend this book to any Freeper who wants a lucid, well-written account of the revolutionary developments in physics from the late nineteenth century forward, showcasing Einstein, Heisenberg, and Bohrs revolutionary contributions throughout: Its a superb history of the science of this fascinating period.
Anyhoot, its a marvelous book, dear Alamo-Girl, and I thank you so much for it! Im so looking forward to continuing my reading.
But I am not making a "religiously-based attack," Coyoteman! Though a layman, I have the greatest respect for, and the keenest interest in, science and its progress -- especially physics. Please stop bashing the strawman and talk to me....
"CCCaaaaaaaaakkkkkkke!!!!!!! UUUUUUUUUUuuuummmmmmmmmmm...." [Homer Simpson intonation here....]
Coffee too??? LOL!!!! Make mine French roast!... :^)
You’re invited too, my dearest sister in Christ! LOLOL!!! We’ll chat up Lindley! Plus I have some bizarre ideas about Lanza.... :^)