Posted on 05/09/2005 11:35:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
While Kansas State Board of Education members spent three days soaking up from critics of evolution about how the theory should be taught in public schools, many scientists refused to participate in the board's public hearings. But evolution's defenders were hardly silent last week, nor are they likely to be Thursday, when the hearings are set to conclude. They have offered public rebuttals after each day's testimony. Their tactics led the intelligent design advocates -- hoping to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution -- to accuse them of ducking the debate over the theory. But Kansas scientists who defend evolution said the hearings were rigged against the theory. They also said they don't see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses called by intelligent design advocates.
"They're in, they do their schtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points."
The scientists' boycott, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.
"I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," said board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."
Intelligent design advocates challenge evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create life, that all life on Earth had a common origin and that man and apes had a common ancestor. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex. The science groups' leaders said Morris and the other two members of the board subcommittee presiding at the hearings already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates. All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution. The entire board plans to consider changes this summer in standards that determine how students will be tested statewide in science.
Alan Leshner, AAAS chief executive officer, dismissed the hearings as "political theater."
"There is no cause for debate, so why are they having them?" he said. "They're trying to imply that evolution is a controversial concept in science, and that's absolutely not true."
I said science "had the reputation" of logic. Not that the reputation was strictly true.
When I was a kid, "science" was held up as an icon. It was "the future", and that future was glorious. We were going to progress, because we followed science.
Now that's BS in truth, but it was science's reputation.
But now Kansas is sealing the fate of science. The unwashed masses are taking it over and voting on what they feel science should be.
I think we all lose from this.
The fossil record alone, even without corroboration from DNA evidence (where available) is a staggering refutation of ID. Why -- if the "designer" is so "intelligent" -- have over 90% of all species that once flourished gone extinct? Why, around 100 million years ago when modern sharks appeared (they are probably the oldest of modern species) did all species allegedly begin anew, after every extinct species died without leaving descendants? (They couldn't have left descendants, because if they did, then -- gasp! -- we'd have to conclude that present-day species descended from earlier forms!) And, beginning anew with no ancestors, why did modern species appear full-blown, without gradually increasing in complexity as did the extinct species in the fossil record? Why do present-day species, if they are not descended from earlier forms, seem to be related in form and structure to now-extinct forms?
Second, I'm sure biologists have a passing knowledge of some mathematics. Of course, none of the students actually take any math courses and none of the Ph. D.'s can understand the most basic stuff when confronted with it in a dissertation defense.
Third, processes don't "end up" as differential equations, they can just be modeled that way. And if you don't know the difference...
This has been explained to you before. Scientists all agree regarding species; they agree that any definition of species is fuzzy (technical term) rather than crisp (another techincal term.)
Not all useful concepts are crisp; terms like tall, pink, riverbank, etc. do not have sharp boundaries, but that doesn't make the terms useless.
I think so as well.
You have to do the same thing with the atomic theory of matter, despite no one having ever seen an atom. If you're going to go into a scientific field, you have to learn the existing body of knowledge to know where to begin. You have to come all the way up to speed to have any hope of making a contribution. If you reject the last 200 years of evidence and conclusions in the discipline (especially if you do so as a matter of pure prejudice and not based upon knowledge or reason), you'll never get there.
I'm not surprised.
A "kind" is a species of limbo bar; it can be moved when shown to be an inadequate barrier.
In this case. They've tried it before.
They want it questioned.
But they don't have any scientific counter-arguments with which to question it. When they come up with one, I'll be all in favor of the questioning ... as will every scientist on the planet.
Why are the evos so freaked out by that?
Because they see it as an attempt to stifle science for thinly-veiled religious reasons.
And, believe it or not, there are Christians who are also scientists ...
True.
... though the vast majority of scientists admit to being atheists.
I'm not sure about this, but so what? If a dedicated atheist invented a cure for cancer, would you refuse to allow it because of theology (or lack thereof)?
And, by the way, how much evolution do you think is currently taught in US high schools now?
Not much.
Do you think there are a lot of qualified science teachers teaching in high schools?
Depends on what you mean. They are "qualified" as teachers because they've passed a state exam. Does that make them good? Probably not. It doesn't mean they understand science. It doesn't mean they're capable of teaching. It means they have a degree in education and they've passed a state exam.
Do you have kids in public high schools now?
I have one in eighth grade. They did a short unit on evolution.
The part that confuses me is, why is this necessary? Why does it matter the method God used in His creation?
People have posed long and involved discussions on the complexity of life and DNA, and posited that it just simply could not have arose from mere Darwinian "survival of the fittest" evolution. But that should only make Christians even more in awe of God. That He took a mere collection of molecules and arranged them in such an order that after 2-3 billion years they would produce humanity. Just think of the odds of that! Yet God did it.
Thinking that God merely snapped his fingers or waved his wand and Adam just appeared, just simply does not inspire awe for me. But that He spent all that time, arranging for humanity to evolve through uncounted stages of life, now THAT is impressive.
The evidence is not taught, the conclusion is taught. Whatever evidence is presented to support the conclusion is weak at best at that level.
The losses started some time ago. The GOP has been seen as the theological party since the Nixon Southern Strategy was implemented. Some former GOP memeber believe that the Kansas fundamentalist would rather ally with Islamic terrorists rather than scientists.
Very good point. It's like the theory that a collection of people can act in a way far more intelligent than any single one of them.
That's how the Pajamahadeen busted Dan Rather. Buckhead proposed that the letters were fake, and then one person after another took after them on many different tracks. The bad leads were quickly rejected, and in the end Dan lost his job.
I can see how science is similar. Many leads are tried, and dead ends quickly detected, so that the scientific community can accomplish what no single scientist can.
Thanks for the ping!
Trendy pseudo-scientific ad hoc garbage. They're desperately trying to mathematically model biological phenomena, most often with little success.
Further, even if biologists can't do math, does it mean they can't do biology?
It means biology is a soft science that should not be taken seriously. If you don't understand mathematics than whatever you understand is only at the level of theology anyway.
So tell us, how did YOU get here? Hatched? Thanks for sharing, and almost in time for Mother's Day!
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.