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.
I wonder if the standardized testing people would include my question on their tests..
In a perfect world, stupidity would be:
(A) painful
(B) sinful
(C) fatal
(D) all of the above
I have never heard this sort of dogmatism from a scientific community. Carl Sagan spoke for Carl Sagan as far as I can tell and if he did say the things you quote, it's his opinion.
I don't know very many outright atheists among the several scientists I know personally. Most of them would reject out of hand the assertion of a null hypothesis. However, I will never understand the hubris adopted inherently by the anti-evolution crowd who would have the temerity to limit how the Almighty might effect His creation. Who among us has the standing to discuss the limits he feels the Creator has been obliged to work within to begin creation? Who says that the use of evolution is not allowed to the Creator? I have not the gall to make such a statement.
Stop giving evo's a bad name at least some on this board are sincere about their belief.
Like creationism's devotees, the woeful followers of the anti-rational beliefs represented by the foregoing websites, as well as numerous others (astrologers, spoon-benders, UFO buffs, Stalin appologists, "Bush stole the 2000 election" demagogues, Holocaust deniers, etc.} are always looking for debate opportunities, and when rebuffed -- as they should be -- their responses are all similar:
What are you afraid of? Why do you deny us freedom of speech? All we want is academic freedom, fairness, and an opportunity to be heard. You should teach both sides. Teach the controversy. Let the children decide. Censorship is unfair! We're the victims of a conspiracy.But it's wrong -- and actually impossible -- to "debate" with people who, among their other faults: deny facts (no evidence for evolution), invent their own facts (Darwin's deathbed renunciation), misquote their opponents (quote mining), make wild accusations (their opponents are Nazis, communists, tools of the devil, etc.), and endlessly repeat previously debunked claims.
There can be no debate with those who are openly at war with reason, with reality, and with freedom.
I don't neccessarily buy into these posited theories. There are way too may kids in school that just can't read, write, an add much less form theories about evolution.
It's simple, stop trying to make excuses, evolution should be only taught as hypothesized conjecture as well as any other religion.
"Please explain your enlightened theory on why religious home schooled kids usually rank high above the avg than most kids in publik school?"
Before even beginning to answer your question, I would like to see support for your assertion that, not home schooled kids, but specifically kids home schooled according to religious principles, have higher average test score rankings. Please provide a citation that identifies the study done, as well as the specific tests whose scores are being compared, as well as whether these home schooled kids are being taught the ToE or some creationist screed.
Thanks.
This seem to be America's version of the French 35 hour work week.
Do you homeschool your kids?
While the idea of ID seems plausible to me, what exactly is the "scientific backing" for it?
Yeah - we all know that Creationists have cornered the market on questionable tactics.
Thank you. That makes it perfectly clear ID is a religious, not a scientific concept. As such it should not be included in school science classes.
(Didn't think this would be settled so quickly)
If a student had given similar answers on a test, s/he would have been flunked. Case is wearing his emotions on his sleeve, like a little kid. Didn't they have any adults over there?
Truly, though, I think an evolutionist boycott is a very bad idea. Either party who refuses to show up for a trial before a jury of fact finders automatically loses by default. The presumption on the part of the jurists is that they had no case, couldn't stand the heat, didn't care about the jury, etc.
They may not like it, but the evolutionists do not occupy a seat of power which dictates to the American people what they shall accept as knowledge - that kind of ideological power is reserved to a very few and only within religions, such as the Pope is to Catholism. (Much to the chagrin of the mainstream media, the public is becoming more independent in their thinking.)
Also, the evolutionists may not like it, but the general public is a jury with reference to this dispute of "happenstance v design" and they are the ones who will determine the "facts" they will each, personally embrace and convey to their community, family, etc.
Dr. Kary Mullis, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemestry (for discovering the polymerase chain) is a believer in astrology, fwiw.
This isn't a trial; it's a burlesque. There is no jury, but merely spectators.
Yeah, didn't he say in his book that's what the alien abductors told him while they were probing his sphincter, or something like that? The daily acid trips have obviously fried his brain..
I wonder if this whole "trial" thing is an outgrowth of ed. schools.
I knew someone in an ed class. One day they were discussing the teaching of some science thing or the other and the instrucor did have the class vote on the correctness of the concept. :-(
FWIW I agree with the boycott. It's set up as a kangaroo court and scientists should not have to be lawyers also.
I teach. When a troublemaker starts up I simply tell them that this is what scientists have observed and concluded. They are free to think whatever they want but the class, nevertheless, will continue to be on what scientists have observed and concluded.
I think your post makes a key point.
Regardless of which side of the argument one resides on, it is likely that different communities/states will continue to challenge the content of public schools.
Perhaps these conflicts in position will drive to the surface what I believe to be the underlying issue: Should parents be forced to pay for, and send their kids to government schools?
If so, then parents will rightfully attempt to gain control of the government structures, and thus change (or maintain the status quo) the content of public schools (i.e., this issue in Kansas).
If not, then parents must take responsibility for ensuring that their children be educated to the depth and breadth necessary for them to be successful (the parent's definition) in life.
An interesting and complex issue facing our society and its future indeed.
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.