Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public

AP ^ | 5/9/05 | John Hanna

[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."

[Blzbba]

In this case, only the religion of evangelical Christianity seems to matter in KS.

[crail]

Man, you got a real problem with biologists!!! I work in math too, and prefer the "hard" sciences, but this is really hardcore! You got an ex in biology or something? Tutor one too many math for biologists classes? Well, thank your stars it wasn't math for poets!

[AmishDude]

Let me say it again:

Whatever evidence is presented to support the conclusion is weak at best at that level.

There.

[AmishDude]

You got an ex in biology or something?

Interesting thought. Some people think a relationship works better when the man is smarter, but that would be on the order of bestiality.

I just believe in a Platonic society and I have figured out who the philosopher-kings are.

[Thoro]

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!

The sheer improbability of it suggests divine intervention. For 2-3 billion years of random molecule interaction to firmly arrive at humanity is a statistic impossibility. If a divine plan isn't being followed there, then that was a really foolish gamble on God's part. There is more than enough ample room for God and evolution to co-exist.

I've been browsing these evo threads since first coming to FR. It's been a funny and sometimes sad ride. Some of the faces have changed in the debates, but the debates, if you could call it that, have pretty much remained the same. In a nutshell:

1. Creationist says evolution is flawed because of A.
2. Evolutionist explains A and provides reference links.
3. Creationist never reads link, ignores explanation, and continues with assumption.
4. Repeat ad nauseum.

The blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of some of the creationists has been embarassing. Having faith is fine. Criticizing a theory is more than welcome in the scientific community; it's actually a staple of the scientific process. There's just one little catch; you had better know what it is that you are talking about in order to have your contribution taken seriously.

Wasn't it around the twelfth century that certain factions in the middle east ceased the scientific process because it went against religious scripture? That really did the future of their people wonders. If Kansas has their way, the picture and sentiment in post #2 might not be too far off.

[mlc9852]

Along with the homosexual agenda and abortion on demand. Now I just need to decide which side I want to be on.

[mlc9852]

What is the highest science course you personally have taken?

[mlc9852]

Would you feel better if Muslims were included?

[Dimensio]

and since Creationists realize that the Creation of Genesis has the truth

Why do you arrogantly assume that all who reject evolution accept the creation myth of your religion? Do you not realise that there are countless creation stories out there?

[VadeRetro]

For 2-3 billion years of random molecule interaction to firmly arrive at humanity is a statistic impossibility.

It isn't random, as most people use "random." Some creationists make a point of tripping themselves by saying that anything not under active guidance is random. That would make the falling of a cannonball "random," a usage most people would not accept. It is after all falling and cannot go any way but down.

Every creationist argument from improbability I've ever seen has been based upon a naive model. Mostly, things have to jump together all at once from a whole lot of very simple components.

Then the creationist will rail about evolution, but he didn't model evolution. He modeled things poofing together from atoms, dirt, or whatever in one afternoon, which sounds like the version of events he DOES support.

[wallcrawlr]

Labeling creationism a cancer is offensive. I find that difficult to hear from someone who also mentions he's been to church.

Cancer kills people...believing that the world was created does not kill.

When you did visit church do you remember learning about Israel? Your comment, "A country that bases it core beliefs on strict fundamentalism cannot survive as a strong country." does not make sense if you simply remember how Israel prospered when it obeyed and praised God.

Are you simply an Easter, Christmas and funeral church attender? I'm trying to get an understanding of your worldview.

[Tungenchek]

1. Creationist says evolution is flawed because of A.
2. Evolutionist explains A and provides reference links.
3. Creationist never reads link, ignores explanation, and continues with assumption.
4. Repeat ad nauseum.

The blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of some of the creationists has been embarassing. Having faith is fine. Criticizing a theory is more than welcome in the scientific community; it's actually a staple of the scientific process. There's just one little catch; you had better know what it is that you are talking about in order to have your contribution taken seriously.

---

I have been reading these threads as well and I agree with your take on it for the most part.

I am not sure that ALL the creationists are being blatantly dishonest. I suspect some are simply not capable of critical thought, and are accustomed to thinking passion equals logic etc.

[VadeRetro]

The blatant dishonesty, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of some of the creationists has been embarassing.

Sometimes we pause to tell them how this has to be playing out there, but that's dismissed as an ad hominem attack. Then, as you say, we loop around some more.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Care to say which GOP members...

No. I don't mention names in a public forum. They are just people who used to vote GOP but now vote Democrat or not at all; similarly with their contributions.

What are you so afraid of?

Nothing. I survived one Clinton; I'll survive the next.

[Junior]

At the college-level I've had astronomy, anatomy, biology, and something called "Earth Science" which was basically a biology/ecology course.

[balrog666]

Until scientists come up with something they all agree on regarding species, what difference does it make?

Until believers come up with something they all agree on regarding religion, what difference does it make?

[Thoro]

It isn't random, as most people use "random." Some creationists make a point of tripping themselves by saying that anything not under active guidance is random. That would make the falling of a cannonball "random," a usage most people would not accept. It is after all falling and cannot go any way but down.

Agreed. Perhaps "random" wasn't the proper word. "Seemingly random" might have been a better fit. My point was about the immenseness of the equation of precise interactions required.

[Dimensio]

That they haven't changed any positions ever?

There are a multitude of examples here on FR of creationists refusing to change a position even when their position is demonstrated to be completely 100% wrong.

[JeffAtlanta]

Narby - "I can easily imagine that many Republican voters, embarrassed at the ignorance of their party in rejecting science, will stay away from the polls that November."

MLC9852 - "LOL - good one."

I don't think you realize the gravity of the situation. People tend to fear theocracies much more than they do socialist governments. For example, most Americans would prefer to live in western Europe than in Iran.

Theocons scare people - they really do.

Frankly, many will sit home (or vote libertarian) if the GOP continues this nonsense.

[mlc9852]

It doesn't make any difference. That is my point. And truth is truth. What we do with truth is up to us.