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 truth is still the truth even if everyone lies about it.
He said a lot of reasonably outrageous things in his book. And did claim some missing time, if not memories of abduction. And mind reading incidents, etc. But I think the astrology claim was based on anecdotal empirical evidence.
He also alleged that AIDS is not caused by HIV, but is simply a catastrophic build up of varous infections and diseases in the homosexual community, brought on by their unbelievably promiscuous life style. Interestingly, David Horowitz argues similarly.
Space in the book was devoted to his opinion that the Global Warming crisis is non existant. There was a chapter dealing with that kind of thing entitled "The Age of Chicken Little."
I can't necessarily accept everything he said either, but his prominence as a scientist obliges me to at least listen to it. Plus, the book was fun reading.
As an obsessive consumer of news on the subject of mathematics (including information theory) and physics, I'll continue with my position that it is a tide and not a ripple.
Those who concentrate on biology, chemistry and the historical sciences (evolution, anthropology, archeology, etc.) may not see it coming. But the mathematicians and physicist were invited to the table by the likes of Dawkins - it may have indeed been a death wish for the happenstance pillar of evolution theory.
My two cents...
So far as I can tell, the "happenstance" pillar of evolution theory - whatever that supposedly means - is nothing but your rhetoric, so its death probably would be for the best.. :p
They took something random and applied it purposely, which is different. But, interestingly, compelling cases have also been made that freedom and liberty are the results of and parallel to evolution.
I have a feeling that most home schoolers are religious, I would think that religion is a prime motive for home schooling. But home schoolers, IMO, do better because the public schools do an appalling job, for the most part, and because the home schooling parents really care and they make darn sure that the kids get an education. I don't begin to know what home schoolers teach concerning evolution, but I have a feeling they do cover it, possibly as a theory.
Non religious parents who really care often send their kids to private schools if they can afford it, where they also do lots better than the public school kids.
Well, your basic premise is wrong.
Home schooled kids are not taught creationism and ID as a rule. Indeed, you cannot possibly have evidence that they are uniformly indoctrinated in these beliefs.
But I have a lot of evidence that they are not. For example, fully 14% of the incoming freshman class at MIT has been homeschooled. This is an extraordinary statistic because no where near 14% of the high school population is home schooled. The simple fact is that the homeschoolers do better. Arguably, much better. But, in addition, we know that they are not schooled in ID or creationism. In order to be accepted into MIT you have to have a strong high school science background. And, this background is tested, usually by the AP exams. No creationist or ID educated kid is going to pass the AP biology exam. And, they are not going to MIT.
Another example is anecdotal; but in this case it is valid because all I have to prove is the exception to your assertion. In my town, which is a town of scientists working for a national lab, there are many home schooled children. And again, based on their numbers, they do very well. But they are home schooled in science. They are also home schooled in religion. However, they are not home schooled in creationism or ID. Arguably creationism is part of religion, although you never see it. But nobody believes in ID; it is neither science or religion.
If this is so, PH, then my interpretation would be that Darwinist scientists have not got any real confidence in the theory. If they did, they'd show up and defend it. Their argument that they'd just be conferring legitimacy on ID is just a smokescreen.
Plus the article misrepresents the ID position in stating that ID claims that "a supreme being guided evolution." ID has never made any such claim. That is a complete figment of the neo-Darwinist imagination.
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 religious people trying to make assertions about science.
With all due respect, sir, this is nonsense. It is nonsense because you are asserting guilt by association. You are generalizing from a few specific cases to the general case.
It is no more logical or fair then if I were to say: "All Christians are hypocrites because Tammy Faye Baker's husband was a philanderer." That is clearly not fair because one man's failure doesn't reflect on all Christians. (I will acknowledge that many liberal media outlets did indeed make this implication. However, they are liberals.) You cannot judge all science or scientists because of a few.
In particular, those of us who are scientists and Christians take exception. I am tired of having my faith questioned just because I am a scientist and believe in evolution.
Most definitely. :^) I'd have a field day. I'd love to give those guys a piece of my mind....
Quibbling over the definition of "happenstance" is a dodge, IMO. Happenstance in this context simply means "by means of a completely unplanned process" -- as you suggest.
I gather this is the part that PH just doesn't "get": IDers and some mathematicians and physicists are just looking at "what is," and realize that the likelihood of evolution being "unplanned" or random, accidental, just doesn't cut it; for it just doesn't explain at all what can actually be observed in nature.
Certainly there is a good deal of randomness in nature; but still, at the same time, the general direction of nature is not itself random. The genome, for instance, can hardly be explained as a purely random development.
Thanks for your astute observations, Alamo-Girl!
No doubt some resist because they are unwilling to give up the tenet that "Nature did it!" - though I would not put everyone in that group. IMHO, some might go kicking and screaming, but they will nevertheless go once they realize that the evidence against happenstance cannot be refuted.
For others however, "Nature did it!" is part of their theology/ideology and they couldn't possible "go there". That is what I aver is the source of contention and why so many on the evolutionist side want to slap the creationist label on Intelligent Design supporters, i.e. they are judging themselves.
I think that should be obvious to any fair-minded observer. 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. FWIW.
Thanks so much for writing, A-G!
p.s.: i have to go run some errands now, but hope to be back later.
Evolutionists are scared lol.
Successful boycott? Does that mean conceding the debate with some dignity left?
Permit me to raise a quibble with your terminology. You seem to be contrasting "God did it!" with "Nature did it!" as if these two phrases expressed the two conflicting positions. They do not. Sometimes it's not possible to boil a thing down so that it fits on a bumper strip.
"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.")
The distinction of this position is that a scientific claim (or its underlying evidence) is demonstrable, testable, and thus falsifiable. These factors are, by definition, absent from the "God did it!" position.
So the actual positions aren't "God" vs. "nature." That's reducing the situation to what amounts to sloganeering. The actual conflict is between: (a) declaring something in this world to be an inexplicable miracle; or (b) explaining the thing in a way that can be demonstrated, comprehended, and tested.
"How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon!"
-Pauline Kael, 1972
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.