Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public

AP ^ | 5/9/05 | John Hanna

[Tungenchek]

Just what we need more unemployed pastors with
their doctorates in Intelligent Design.

:o)

[mlc9852]

Excellent points. Do you ever feel like you're swimming against the tide? I know I do.

[narby]

So what are you going to replace evolution with?

Claiming that some "intellegence" created species at one time won't wash, because the fossil record refutes it.

Claiming that some "intellegence" created species over billions of years is irrational, because then that intellegence should still be here among us, and there is no evidence of this.

So what are you going to replace evolution with, once you've criticised it into oblivion?

[AmishDude]

Better than a "science" which is filled with ad hoc hackery and populated with "scientists" who go into the field because they can't handle calculus.

[crail]

What limits would you then put on what can call itself science, and what is too big for science? Mine are that it can be addressed with the scientific method, that you can't appeal to miraculous events. Just out of interest sake, I'd like to know yours. For example, philisophical pondering of morality and meaning? I understand you don't like the current definition of scientific material, but what limits yours?

[chronic_loser]

"Science" has had the reputation for the last hundred years as being a bastion of logic. A collection of "truth finders". A culture willing to critically re-examine anything and throw it out if it was incorrect.>>>>>

and a bigger pile of horseshit has never existed. no one who has worked in a lab for 30 minutes really believes this. Science is, and always has been, done by men and women, who bring their virtues, their prejudices, their cranky ideas, their jealousies, their political leanings and their religious ideologies (or lack thereof) into the lab with them. The only more laughable proposition than this is the left's idea that if we just look hard enough we can find the philosopher-kings of Plato, vest them with political power, and coast into paradise.

A really great and readable tract on this is DOUBLE HELIX, by Watson (Watson and Crick). Read that and examine the political moves, the personal animosities, the hatreds and shifiting loyalties that are admitted. Then read Rosalind Franklin's account of Watson and Crick for a few that are not exactly showcased. Science is done by people, and will always be fraught with the foibles of the people that do it.

[mlc9852]

Okay - I promised myself I would not get into it with you today. However, just this one brief post then you will never hear from me again - lol. I believe, and will continue to believe until it has been proved beyond any doubt, that God created human beings as fully formed, functioning human beings. The fact that DNA is similar to that of other animals just tells me that we all have the same creator. If we are just advanced animals, then what is the point of anything in life? I know - that goes into philosophical arguments - not science. However, I'm not convinced they aren't intertwined. I'll leave it at that.

You have a good day, Narby.

[AmishDude]

Most of them didn't study something in direct contradiction to their theology.

Are you talking about biologists or climatologists?

[upcountryhorseman]

You are absolutely right! Many of these things are beyond
the reach of "science".

[mlc9852]

My point is science and religion do have some things in common. People will look to "prove" what they already believe and discard what doesn't fit. And people will continue to argue about it as they have done throughout history.

[crail]

You can study all the calculus you want in biology. Lots of processes end up as non-linear and delay differential equations... very difficult calculus.

[crail]

Your confusing science with scientists. While scientists can be biased, angry, and political, their theories won't stand if they publish without the evidence. It's the group phenomenon of debate, experimentation and observation that weeds out the individual biases of scientists and teases out the gems.

[VadeRetro]

You misunderstand the issue.

No, I don't. You do. Your disgust with rationalism, materialism, whatever is unrelated to the preponderance of evidence for common descent, an old Earth, etc. Science has not been doing science wrong for the last 200 years. Get over it.

[AmishDude]

I just think a class in critical thinking would be valuable to students.

That would be the whole math department. You might want to give bio students a tour of the building. Or at least directions on how to get there.

[RadioAstronomer]

I have a whole book of Sidney Harris cartoons. :-)

One of the ones that made me laugh loudest, was a guy was at a synthetic polymer plant exclaiming "AH HA" as he saw a sheep escaping. LMAO!

[Gumlegs]

Exactly. A myth-busters class. I wish I had one now that you put it that way!!!

Try here.

Or here.

[narby]

My objection to this whole sorry pile of dreck is that "rational" now means "rationalism" and thus the realm of the supernatural has become defined as "irrational."

I'm sure the astrologers of the world celebrate that you're taking up their supernatural cause. I think I'm a Sagittarius. Wonder what my future holds today?

You do realize that once the "supernatural" is defined as "rational". Then anything goes. Any faith. Any crackpot whacko with Koolaid and a tent in the jungle is now "rational".

You do realize that Christians are a small minority on this planet, don't you? By making the argument that the supernatural is rational, you're giving more aid to other faiths, than to Christians, merely because of the demographics.

I've heard the screams from DU that Bush and conservatives are attempting to start a theocracy. I've paid them no mind until now. But maybe they're not so far off after all.

[crail]

We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States.

Grrrr. Second link is good. Could I bother you for a short descriptive surf of the second?

[AmishDude]

Geology would be on the list if it were taught in high school, as would astronomy.

This is my whole problem this is taught in high schools, before anyone has any understanding of anything (oh and it's taught in Jr. High, too). Regardless of the scientific merit of evolution, it is taught as theology. Students must believe and swear fealty to the wise and knowledgeable biologists.

[VadeRetro]

I've heard the screams from DU that Bush and conservatives are attempting to start a theocracy. I've paid them no mind until now. But maybe they're not so far off after all.

I still don't think that's what's going on, overall, despite the delusionally wishful thinking of the creationists. However, if it is, that bus can go over the cliff without me on it.