Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A pro-evolution group has organized what appears to be a successful boycott of Kansas hearings on intelligent design.
Alexa Posny, a deputy commissioner with the state department of education, told the Kansas City Star that only one person has agreed to testify on the pro-evolution side for the hearings scheduled for May.
"We have contacted scientists from all over the world," Posny said. "There isn't anywhere else we can go."
Harry McDonald, head of Kansas Citizens for Science, charged that the hearings, called by a conservative majority on the state board of education, have a pre-ordained outcome.He said that testifying would only make intelligent design appear legitimate.
"Intelligent design is not going to get its forum, at least not one in which they can say that scientists participated," he said.
Backers of intelligent design, the claim that a supreme being guided evolution, say it is a theory with scientific backing. Opponents believe it is an attempt to smuggle religion into public education.
|
In related news, Nasa does not budget funds for Astrology and Dow Chemical does not hire Alchemists.
They're past the Pointe of Know Return.
...while the lie of evolution continues to become illegitimate.
Because of the tactics they so often employ, there should be no public debate with creationists.
At least this way the evo's can't lie and deceive their way from goo to zoo!
Actually, this makes it seem that the scientists are afraid to debate, that they have something to hide. Yes, there are wacko creationists out there and yes, there are dogmatic evolutionists out there.
Might I add that Dr. Steve Case, Chair of the Kansas science standards writing committee was asked by the Board of Education to review the procedures and questions for the hearings. His report is posted below. The stunningly intellectual reply of the creationist chairman of the Board to objections was: "Bull malarkey." Ahem..
Procedural Review by Dr. Steve Case
Dr. Posny, I have reviewed the questions and procedures as requested by the Board Subcommittee. Unfortunately, I do not find any changes that address my primary concern. The credibility of these hearings, real and perceived by the public is still in question.
Let me illustrate what I mean by beginning with the questions. The questions show a clear point of view with a strong bias. The perception of the science and science education communities, and also by the public, is that the Board Subcommittee has preconceived answers to these questions. For example, it is very clear that the expected answer to Question One, is contained in Question Three.
At our initial meeting, one reason I felt that we needed to spell out the specific questions was once the issues were defined it would be clear that there is a very large body of literature available on all these questions, perhaps most notably the "National Science Education Standards", the "Benchmarks for Science Literacy" and "Science of all Americans" all of which were written for the general public and are easily assessable. These documents clearly answer Questions One through Six. The issues of the minority report brought up in the questions have been specifically addressed by twelve peer reviews, written by highly qualified scientists. To date no response to the reviews has been made by anyone listed on the minority report.
Specific comments on the questions follow;
1) Discuss your understanding of the definition of science, particularly with reference to the majority and minority definitions.
The notion that there are only two positions on the committee is an incorrect assumption. The only question I have heard emerge in this area is about science being limited to natural (matter and energy) explanations. Is this limit how science progresses accurate or does (or can) science include supernatural explanations?
2) Discuss your understanding of a hypothesis and theory, particularly with regard to evolution and how an individual hypothesis and theory is used and supported and what happens when competing hypotheses and theories are at odds.
This is clearly explained in the National Science Education Standards, the current Kansas Education Standards, the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and in "Science of all Americans".
3) Discuss the idea that the best scientific inquiry is performed in the fashion of empirical science, that is, observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable?
Question one asks about a definition of science, then question three suggests a very specific definition of science and an incorrect definition at that? It would seem that question three is the assumed answer to question one. Again the National Standards clearly state what they mean by scientific inquiry.
"Students at all grade levels and in every domain of science should have the opportunity to use scientific inquiry and develop the ability to think and act in ways associated with inquiry, including asking questions, planning and conducting investigations, using appropriate tools and techniques to gather data, thinking critically and logically about relationships between evidence and explanations, constructing and analyzing alternative explanations, and communicating scientific arguments." (NRC, 1996, p. 105)
4) Discuss the scientific evidence concerning the idea that natural selection and/or mutations produce speciation.
There has been 150 years of work in this area across virtually all taxon of life. There are literally 100,000s of research reports that address speciation. The best general information and explanations are in the NRC document "Evolution and the Nature of Science" and also in National Science Education Standards, the current Kansas Education Standards, the Benchmarks for Science Literacy and in "Science of all Americans".
5) Discuss the scientific evidence concerning the idea that there is a common biological ancestor.
The best general information is in the NRC document Evolution and the Nature of Science.
6) Discuss the scientific evidence concerning the idea of what can falsify the Theory of Biological Evolution, particularly how radiometric dating and the fossil record interacts with the idea of falsification.
Falsification is a statistical (Popper) concept that has little to do with scientific theory. Falsification can be applied to hypothesis testing however uncertainty, as a philosophical concept, is best discussed in reference to theory.
7) Discuss the idea that students (after moving from concrete thinking and being able to think in the abstract) should be able to explain, in scientific terms, the philosophy of science and various theories of science, as well as various scientific criticisms.
This is probably best addressed by development physiologists. I would think that the level of abstraction that an individual is capable of highly idiosyncratic and is best assessed by the teacher, in a learner centered environment. I do not think we can approach standards for all students with broad sweeps of development. For example there is a great deal of research that Piaget's developmental stages to not match up to chronological ages. Many, if not most college freshman would fall into concrete sequential. Howard Gardner's work is much more appropriate to education then some sort of linear development of abstraction reflected in Piaget. That being said, I think that logic and philosophy can be introduced in elementary schools - however the level of sophistication necessary to understand the arguments around the nature of science probably require a much higher level of education and reasoning then found in your average high school student.
8) US education, particularly with regard to mathematics and science, has been criticized for being a mile wide and an inch deep and thus not promoting critical thinking and/or problem solving skills. With regard to Science Education, is this a valid concern? Discuss the idea of how teachers need to or need not address this situation.
This is clearly a well identified issue in education however it is a gross generalization. The question should be more specifically ask what should be eliminated and what should be taught in greater depth. In the 2001 Standards there was a decrease emphasis on process and an increase in content - at the Board's request.
As to the framework for this process that is suggested:
As mentioned above, I do not find any changes that address my primary concern - the credibility of these hearings. There have not been any changes that alter the real or perceived perception that this is a rigged hearing. The potential damage for the State of Kansas that can result from hearings is significant. The issue that I am struggling with is that I do not have a good suggestion for you as to how you can make these hearings credible. The following questions remain for me,
Who are the arbitrators/judges of this information and a related question what will their judgment result in?
A very common comment I have heard is "Why does the State Board Science Subcommittee think they are qualified to take this on, aren't they an education policy board"? The focus of the hearings should be the education standards and what is appropriate for inclusion in the standards, not on the science. The science community has a high bar of credibility for scientific information. This kind of forum has nothing in common with the way the science community advances scientific understanding. As we have heard, over and over again in the public hearings, the science community feels the Intelligent Design creationists/ antievolutionist are trying to do an end run around the bar of scientific credibility and insert religious propaganda into the science classroom. This agenda is creating a high level of distrust by the science community about the body sitting in judgment of such a forum.
When the government policy makers have questions of the science community and need expert opinion to inform policy, they turn to the National Academies. This was in fact the reason that the National Academies was established. In Kansas, the State Board turns to its expert panels, people who are specifically chosen for their expert background, so that they can make judgments of technical issues and advise the Board on the policy implications.
What is the credibility of the witnesses?
This procedure does not address my concern about the qualifications of contributors to this process. I see a potential mismatch between experts and the subjects they are addressing. For example, scientists should not speak to education policy and imply that we should give them greater credibly in education because of their science credentials. The procedural suggestions seem to suggest that anyone who agrees with me is qualified to answer your questions. This is not how we advance understanding and would just reinforce/support existing ideas.
Does a Nobel Laureate in the field of interest who has spent a lifetime in study of these issues of science have the same credibility as someone who did an internet search?* Dr. Harris is quite right; I do have concerns about the credibility of people he might suggest and how they might match up to the scientists. For example, Dr. Jonathan Wells is a frequent source for comments at the public hearings and his views are clearly reflected in the minority report. Dr. Wells has no academic credibility, has done no work in biology beyond a rather weak doctoral program, has very questionable motivation for pursing his education in biology, and, because of a felony conviction, would not be qualified to be a science teacher in Kansas. My question still remains, what is the standard for credible contributors to this process.
What is the time commitment you are asking for?
As I see it the time commitment you are asking for is enormous. Given that reviewers have already contributed work specific to the minority report and there is a large body of existing literature that address the questions, these communities have indicated to me that they see no benefit for further time investment. The more qualified the person, the busier and more engaged in their work they are. Based on their comments I find it highly unlikely that you would find anyone from the science or science education community that would agree to participate. I am relatively certain that the reviewers would be unwilling to continue to generate more information until Dr. Harris or someone listed on the minority report responds to their pervious work. Both Dr. Harris and Mr. Calvert indicated they had responses at the Board Subcommittee meeting on February 23, 2005 but no response has been. An additional concern from several individuals is that they feel that these hearings want to use their credibility and credentials to bring apparent credibility to these hearings. This makes them very uncomfortable.
On a personal note, I thought I had been excused from this exercise in deference to my role as committee chair? The committee is continuing our work and we will have Draft Two of our recommendations to you later this month. At the last writing committee meeting, it was indicated that the issues of the minority report would be decided at a higher level. My concerns about the Boards hearing being divisive to the committee are coming true. If the effort here is to include me as the commentator, then I must respectfully decline. I do not have the time to take on another task. I have at least six research papers (work done but not written up) in the queue. As I am a researcher and this is my work which I cannot neglect to take on this additional work.
I also have to admit I also feel a bit used. As Ms. Morris pointed out, I am a smart guy. I learned a long time ago that it is not wise to jump through other people's hoops just because they hold them out for me. I have worked for many years to build my credibility and I am unwilling to spend it to prop up these hearings. I feel that I need to stay clearly focused on the Standards process, in which I agreed to participate, and produce our best recommendations for the Board, through the established process.
Steven B. Case Ph.D.
Center for Science Education
Center for Research on Learning
1122 West Campus Road #702A
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66045-3101
http://home.everestkc.net/scase001/
785-864-4471
"I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living." (Dewey, 1897)
* Underline added by AntiGuv for emphasis.
No matter whether scientists debate or not, I doubt anyone's mind will be changed. Evolution vs. creationism is a stalemate.
Perhaps inIntelligent design could be discussed in a mythology class? (snicker
Everyone knows that the only way for science to proceed is for all scientists to embrace absolutely one position dogmatically before there is any evidence to back it up, then ridicule, mock, and ostracize anyone who even suggests that there might be so much as a flaw in it.
(I defy anyone to study the history of Darwinism and show it is otherwise.)
Seems to me to be the same tactics that RAT's use when confronted with overwhelming opposition - run away, whine and refuse to play. I don't think this is a winner tactic for evolutionists.
The reason Christians and others are fighting this battle at all, is not that they are so anxious to wade into science, but that science for many decades, has jumped in feet first into religion. Christians are tired of the philosophical/religious attacks on them made in the name of science.
When evolutionists stop making statements, like the populizer Carl Sagan frequently did, of "The Universe is all that there is and all that there ever will be," which is nothing less than an assertion of philosophical/religious belief, not science, then I don't think real scientists will need to worry about religous people trying to make assertions about science.
Intelligent Design, as the article makes clear, INCLUDES the tenent that a Christian may believe evolution--just an evolution with God as God. Evolutionists, on the other hand, seem to insist that anything other than outright atheism (or at least agnosticism) is unacceptable, even unthinkable, to be assumed in evolution.
As long as that sort of dogmatism in the scientific education community reigns, expect the Intelligent Design movement to grow.
Thanks for showing all of us early on that you elitist evo's really don't get it!
Please explain your enlightened theory on why religious home schooled kids usually rank high above the avg than most kids in publik school?
Too true.
The incredibly deep racism and even eugenics-into-fascism of early evolutionists is telling too.
Probably because the public school standardized test score averages are dragged down by abysmal inner city schools and immigrant students whose primary language is not English, whereas homeschooled children are almost entirely from an unrepresentative population of comparatively wealthy and established homes.
Bullseye. Read Scientific American for glaring examples of this.
APf
Not in the form of evolution. Evolution is a farce of the highest order. Evolution perpetrated as FACT is a lie!
This notion that God created and the rest evolved is just as unfactual and unscientific in it's conclusions.
Blah, blah, blah, I have to at least give you credit for your attempted answer, but the truth is they outrank and most don't buy into the lie that evolution is fact, and that's the point!
Money and wealth is not the problem and never has been so your socialist dogmatic answer would be more useful over on DU!
* This beyond the socioeconomic and demographic advantages, due to selective enrollment and selective retention.
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.