Scientists shun Kansas evolution hearing

Washington Times (via India) ^ | 08 April 2005 | Staff

[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.

---

We can't post complete articles from the Washington Times, so I got this copy from a paper in India. If you want to see the article in the Washington Times (it's identical to what I posted) it's here.

[AntiGuv]

I have no doubt that home schooling is inherently superior to the public school system, but the question I was answering is why home school students score high above the public school average. Home schooled students average in the 77 percentile of public school students, and that's a major divide that involves much more than just the superior learning environment.

[Gumlegs]

Once I was invited to debate against the Wisconsin Democrat Party, The Wisconsin Republican Party, The Wisconsin Socialist Party, and the Wisconsin Communist Party; I was there to provide balance.

You were the party pooper ... ?

[DennisR]

Amen to that. My two daughters went to private, Christian school and/or were homeschooled the first eight or nine years of their schooling. Public the last four of five. Not even close. They were bored. I never, ever should have listened to them when they wanted to go to public school so badly. But I did, much to my chagrin.

[DBeers]

When any creationist finally does this, let us know.

Read the article -it is about evolutionists running scared from intelligent design not creation.

[betty boop]

Wouldn't you think the scientists would want to show up just to make fools of the creationists? Wonder why they won't?

That is exactly what I want to know, too, mlc9852.

Thank you ever so much for writing!

[sirchtruth]

In other words, you just made up your claims and now you're upset that you've been called out as a liar.

I'm sure you'd change your mind based on the facts that I bring forth, but I doubt your intelligent enough to get any kind of synapsis to fire around that ignorance.

Is this barb trade 101?

[Junior]

If you can't back up your claims, then you obviously made them up. Calling on your opponent to verify your claims is tantamount to admitting you lied.

[Dimensio]

I'm sure you'd change your mind based on the facts that I bring forth,

What facts have you brought forth?

[Dimensio]

The Bible does not teach the sun revolves around the earth.

There are some people who beg to differ.

[Dimensio]

The evolutionists use a materialistic methodology and inductive reasoning.( There is no God,

Wrong. Evolution makes no such claims. You demonstrate only your fundamental ignorance of the facts at hand, and thus you carry no credibility.

[2ndreconmarine]

Believe it or not, there is work afoot in the physics community that seeks to quantify entropy in living systems, particularly the entropy of human organisms.

Cool.

Love to see it, Please ping me.

Now when that comes out, we can have a real fun debate on these threads!!!

[2ndreconmarine]

I guess I'll rephrase my question. Do you believe in God as the creator?

Yes.

And the mechanism that He used was Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, Cosmology, The Big Bang, General Relativity, etc....

And, having studied these I have come to the inescapable conclusion:

Damn!!! God is smart!!!

[curiosity]

They do realize that by having nobody support evolution at the hearings, this will become a self-fulfilling prophecy and evolution will be downgraded in the state standards, correct?

Unfortunately, scientists do not have a lot of political sense.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply and encouragements!

Which just goes to show you that a good part of the "Nature did it" crowd is primarily devoted to upholding and defending what is essentially a theology/ideology, and science comes in at second place.

Indeed. The metaphysical naturalists rely on scientific materialism as justification for their theology/ideology and politics.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your quibble post!

"God did it!" is, I think, a fair (although somewhat abbreviated) statement of creationism. "Nature did it!" is, however, nobody's position. Instead, the scientific position is something along the lines of: "Here is a demonstrable way in which this thing happened naturally." (Observe that there is no reification of "nature.")

If you can get science to give up the anthropic principle then I'll be happy to drop the capital "N"!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your encouragement to keep breathing. LOLOL!

[Terriergal]

"Nature did it!" is, however, nobody's position.

Ok OK, Evolution did it.

We have a sort of drinking game here, Cyrano and me... we watch PBS or Discovery documentaries and whenever we encounter a phrase which is a permutation of "Evolution did it" or "evolution must have...." or "evolution created" or "evolution designed..." or.... you get the idea... we take a shot.

Never takes too long to get plastered, if we're using real adult beverages.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

The fact that you make sneering references to "happenstance" says more about the difficulty of the concept of natural selection than about its veracity.

The happenstance pillar is not the natural selection pillar, it is the part boldfaced below:

random mutations + natural selection > species

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Why do you identify the anti-scientists as conservatives?

It was in the article. From the article:

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.

You continued...

The discussions on FR have driven some people I know away from the conservatives; they point out that if conservatives can't get science correct (and continually misquote people for example), why should they be able to get morals or economics correct?

Single issue voters? Some [pro/con] lifers have left in a huff because Free Republic wasn't pure enough on that issue either, ditto for [pick a flavor] religionists, ditto for [pick a candidate] campaign. You get the idea, I'm sure.

If a Freeper refuses to make progress on their favorite issues in baby steps after rigorous debate, he's at risk of eventually getting miffed and leaving in a huff. But what good does that do? The only one who loses is the one who leaves.

More to the point of the above article, the one who loses is the one who doesn't show up.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

me: Strangely, the ID proponents don't specify who the designer is (God, aliens, collective consciousness) and are therefore the more neutral of the three - but are presumed to be creationist.

you: Oh please. ID proponents can hide their light under a bushel if they choose, for whatever political purpose they desire, but any assertion of a designer other than a supreme being just pushes the origins question back a notch. It's dishonest and should be shameful.

How bizarre! The IDers have figured out how to separate science from religion and that's a problem???

Those who believe the Designer is God are not "hiding their light under a bushel" - they're talking about science here.

There are ID supporters who believe the designer is a "collective consciousness" and others who believe the designers are aliens. The second notion (panspermia - Crick's worldview) is not far at all from exobiology or astrobiology.