Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists shun Kansas evolution hearing
Washington Times (via India) ^ | 08 April 2005 | Staff

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.


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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: crevolist; education; kansas; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 941-946 next last
Comment #461 Removed by Moderator

To: Terriergal
You might spend a few moments calculating the effects of falling into the hands of the Living God, who overrides nature.

If you are going to promote faith with threats I suggest you try Islam.

462 posted on 04/12/2005 7:51:15 AM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Funny, earlier you were approving of my open-mindedness. Why the change of heart?


463 posted on 04/12/2005 7:52:56 AM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

I'm just generalizing. You have potential. But these things take time. (As does evolution.)


464 posted on 04/12/2005 7:58:23 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Junior

"It is natural for those of limited intellect to hate and be distrustful of those who show themselves to be smarter, more successful or more capable"

That's laughable. You don't even know that I qualify for Mensa, and that Rotary International has asked me aboard based on one chance face-to-face meeting in a parking lot.

Maybe it's that I have more PRACTICAL knowledge instead of dreaming about physical anomolies and the like.

'Hence the popularity of "soak the wealthy" tax schemes and the time-honored physical abuse of "nerds."'

Two things here: I was one of those "nerds" and yet I hold as much contempt for arrogant football players as I do for intellectual wanna-bes.

and

The abuse of "nerds" should be taken as a way of letting the nerd know they need to get associated with the real world. They either take the hint and interact with others, or they lock themselves up and have wet dreams about Stephen Hawking.

Socrates once noted that the only way to finding the Truth is through interaction with others, not in simply one's own mind.


465 posted on 04/12/2005 7:58:38 AM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
Actually, I was using it to show the ludicrousness of the statement I was replying to. (By that logic:)

And your attempt was founded in a completely invalid analogy, because you were flat-out wrong about what Darwin said regarding the theory of evolution.

My point stands: a scientific theory cannot include within it any supernatural claims.
466 posted on 04/12/2005 8:01:35 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I'm not aware of a "degree" of Heaven. You're either in or you aren't.

That, and it was kinda funny.

Besides that, I seem to notice others throwing some mud at the intellectual base of the IDers. Why no whimper then?


467 posted on 04/12/2005 8:03:13 AM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

"...will teach Kansas kids to be stupid,..."

Well, aren't we the open minded one.

How sad.


468 posted on 04/12/2005 8:05:24 AM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

Mensa is for flyweights.

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html


469 posted on 04/12/2005 8:06:09 AM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator"

-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species. Chapter XV.

Your arguement still what now?


470 posted on 04/12/2005 8:10:04 AM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Mensa is for the top 2%.

And trust me, I MORE than qualify in that category.

If the makes Mensa a "flyweight" division I guess that means the general population is in the cellular division (badump, crash). And that would make this group in the horseflyweight division (nothing funny here, jsut keepingthe thought going)


471 posted on 04/12/2005 8:14:17 AM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha

For someone with so much practical knowledge, you seem to have know idea of the impression you are making.


472 posted on 04/12/2005 8:18:56 AM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: js1138

and "no" idea, either.


473 posted on 04/12/2005 8:19:29 AM PDT by js1138 (There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
The full context of that quote is this:
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Cambrian system was deposited, they seem to me to become ennobled. Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distinct futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species in each genus, and all the species in many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence, we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.
Source: Origin of Species: Chapter 15 - Recapitulation And Conclusion.
474 posted on 04/12/2005 8:20:48 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I should have pinged you to 474.


475 posted on 04/12/2005 8:25:58 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Heh, caught yourself.

If you think me a fool though, who am I to judge? Surely I can't know everything, though I be willing to learn.

And if I should enjoy my stay on this planet in the mean time with some sarcasm? What of it?


476 posted on 04/12/2005 8:26:13 AM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Endangered Mindz
I am now over 40, and have come the the determination that this world and all the multi billions of parts that HAVE to interact every second to make life and keep life going is no accident.

Curious, would you expect a world where evolution was true (since presumably you believe it to be false from your comments) to look different? In what way? Why do you think that all the interaction wouldn't result from evolutionary processes?

Would you rather be a descendant of a glob of protoplasm or be the loved creation and a child of God?

What has anyone's personal preference got to do with the truth of the matter? As it happens I was the loved creation and child of my human parents.

477 posted on 04/12/2005 8:27:46 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.
478 posted on 04/12/2005 8:28:40 AM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Dimensio

This passage right here states all that is needed for my arguement.

Evolution (whatever form it finally takes) is simply a word for the mechanism (see "secondary causes") that God used to bring about diversity of life and humanity on this planet.


479 posted on 04/12/2005 8:30:36 AM PDT by MacDorcha ("Do you want the e-mail copy or the fax?" "Just the fax, ma'am.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: MacDorcha
All that Darwin is saying -- as I read it -- is that his theory seems (to him) more in accord with the teachings of theology than the then-current views of the advocates of special creation. So he's attempting (without success) to blunt the objections of theologians to his theory.
480 posted on 04/12/2005 8:33:11 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 941-946 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson