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.

[Alamo-Girl]

That's a great idea, PatrickHenry! You could make some extra dough printing bumper stickers which give people a choice:

Check one:

God did it!
Nature did it!
Not necessarily...

[SlowBoat407]

The argument for mankind's creation by God:

The argument that makind evolved from a lower, insensate form of life:

[Junior]

There may be but the theistic evolutionists ones get a lot of scorn from the atheistic ones and often have their work marginalized.

Really? I'm a theistic evolutionist and I have yet to be the object of scorn of my atheistic friends.

[dmanLA]

"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?

[dmanLA]

"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.

[js1138]

I have to say that's the clearest statement of your position I've seen. Much to think about. I disagree at most points, but find it interesting. The lack of new body plans could reflect competition. If body plans originate in the transition from single-celled to multi-celled, then it would be difficult for new types to emerge without being eaten. And for modern organisms to alter their body plan would involve a major breech of Dollo's Law.

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

If you want to be literal, it meant the day was extended. Nothing more, nothing less.

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?

[Sloth]

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.

You are exactly correct. They are *already* teaching religious beliefs in the science classroom.

[Junior]

First off, a monkey never morphed into a human. That you believe such is indicative of the woeful state of knowledge you have on this subject (and should be indicative that you should basically learn something before posting). VadeRetro does have an interesting link to a picture comparing skulls of hominids from the earliest to modern man. As you peruse the skulls (if Vade would be so kind as to post the image), you will note there is very little that changes between each individual skull in the series, yet the skulls at either end are light-years apart.

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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The phrase "Kangaroo Court" seems to come from Texas; I don't know why.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply! Truly, I wish I had more time to respond, but I must leave to go stain this afternoon.

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...

[dmanLA]

"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.

[js1138]

You might spend a few moments calculating the effects of slowing the earth's rotation.

But elsewhere that Bible says the sun moves.

[Doctor Stochastic]

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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

... As far as I knew, Intelligent Design supporters had not developed a scientific theory

You're correct here; they haven't. This is why ID isn't worthy of being taught in high school classes.

[Doctor Stochastic]

After sacs and tubes, what's new in body plans?

Of course, all the angiosperms and gymnosperms post-date the Cambrian.

[Timmy]

I would also posit that these factors play a role: (1) home school parents have often had a great amount of leeway in choosing whether to test and which tests to administer; it's only in recent years that states have moved to require equivalent testing, and unevenly at that; (2) as states have begun requiring equivalent testing, most also require that poorly scoring home school students enroll in school (public or private), which obviously removes them from future home school testing averages; (3) private/parochial schools also skew toward students with greater aptitude,* and so that amplifies the performance gap between home school students and public school students alone even more so.

It's no wonder you spout ignorance about evolution, a subject on which you are probably as clueless as about homeschooling.

[js1138]

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.

[dmanLA]

"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.

[js1138]

After sacs and tubes, what's new in body plans?

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.