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.
The argument that makind evolved from a lower, insensate form of life:
Really? I'm a theistic evolutionist and I have yet to be the object of scorn of my atheistic friends.
"Circle takes the square. Science does not deal in "proof." Science deals in evidence. Your credibility has just taken a nose dive."
Ok smartass. Where's the evidence? Where's the morphing monkey (into a human)? I assume you have evidence for every species on earth, right?
"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. -- Joshua 10:12-13
If the Bible is the literal word of God, then that means that the Sun ceased revolving around the earth on Joshua's demand. Doesn't it?
"
No it doesn't. If you want to be literal, it meant the day was extended. Nothing more, nothing less.
Lot's of people have spent lots of decades looking for nonrandom variation without finding it. I've seen FReepers argue that most mutations are harmful, but then the chances against a germ cell achieving conception are a hundred million to one. There's an enormous selection factor prior to birth, much greater than after birth.
No, if you want to take it literally it means that the sun stood still in the sky. It ceased to revolve around the earth and the day was extended. Is that how it is?
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.
You are exactly correct. They are *already* teaching religious beliefs in the science classroom.
And that is the way evolution works. Evolution deals with small changes to extant structures that over time lead to massive changes. As for evidence, well, you have the skull images and you have access to just about every anthropology, paleontology and biology department in every major university around the globe at the tip of your fingers (it's called the internet). They have oodles of evidence available for your perusal. Ichneumon occasionally posts his "tip of the iceberg" listing of the available evidence (and he might be enjoined to do so again) that is quite lengthy, but gives you an idea of just how massive the accumulated evidence for evolution actually is.
Now, I'm pretty certain from your posting attitude that you'll simply dismiss all this out of hand. However, as I pointed out before, we're not doing this for you, but for all those anonymous individuals out there who remain undecided on this subject.
The phrase "Kangaroo Court" seems to come from Texas; I don't know why.
I just wanted to mention one thing concerning your remark about the inability to find evidence of nonrandom variation. You might find the interviews and discoveries by Gehring concerning master control genes - in his case the evolution of eyeness across phyla - to be illuminating. Ditto for Peter Weiss' commentary on "how the eye got its brain". More later...
"No, if you want to take it literally it means that the sun stood still in the sky. It ceased to revolve around the earth and the day was extended. Is that how it is?"
Suppose the earth slowed its rotation. Would that not seem like the sun 'stopped'? Doesn't the sun rise in the east and set in the west in your world? You're too obsessed with the sun revolving around the earth concept.
You might spend a few moments calculating the effects of slowing the earth's rotation.
But elsewhere that Bible says the sun moves.
That's about it. The Republicans wanted to build the system regardless of cost and whether it worked or not. The Democrats didn't want to build the system regardless of cost and whether it worked or not.
Neither group was interested in using scientific results (and uncertainty estimates) as an input to political policy.
You're correct here; they haven't. This is why ID isn't worthy of being taught in high school classes.
It's no wonder you spout ignorance about evolution, a subject on which you are probably as clueless as about homeschooling.
Ecc 1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Ecc 1:6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
Ecc 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea [is] not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
Please note that the references to the wind and the rivers, although poetic, are fairly accurate.
"First off, a monkey never morphed into a human." Geez, those diagrams from National Geographic shows that. Ok, I'll bite. Where did humans come from?
Additionally, what induces evolution? Evolution as a concept violates the law of entropy.
Segments and limbs. I do think the divisions are a bit arbitrary, but there are limits to what can evolve into what. After you've survived a sequence of mutations, the chances of those mutations reversing themselves are nil.
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.