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."
Example?
We are free to vote our conscience and that is how it should be. So long as we have fair and impartial elections, everybody wins.
This is an unconvincing argument. Suppose someone with really, really superhuman bladder control and no need to sleep or eat sits at a continuously operating roulette table for for a full week and writes down each number as it comes up. (No betting involved). This amazing person then calculates the odds of getting that exact result. If the wheel has the usual "0" and "00" slots, I think the odds work out as 1 in 38n, with n being the number spins -- you math mavens may pitch in here, please. But it doesn't matter, because the event had, in fact, happened.
This is not an argument against God. It's an argument about silly applications of mathematics.
It's a metaphor.
Cancer kills people...believing that the world was created does not kill.
When creationism is taught as science over evolution and promoted aggressively as a conservative political agenda, yes it is a cancer on conservatism. It will cost elections and it will label all conservatives as far right religious fundamentalists that seek to impose their faith above science on the American people. Teaching creationsism as science will kill the scientific potential of America as surely as cancer kills the body.
Even though it is none of your business, I am an ordained elder in my church. If you understood evolution, you could understand that there is no conflict, unless you are a young earth creationist (i.e. 7 day Biblically literal creationist). In that case, your mind is already made up and no amount of discussion, evidence or facts will change your faith.
What is reality to you be not be to someone else. You cannot force someone to believe that which they do not wish to, whether in religion or science. And as far as the "science sky is falling" drum beating, science survived a lot worse than a few school board members in Kansas. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
People tend to fear theocracies much more than they do socialist governments.
The interactions and the history were chaotic, yes, and things might with just a few changes have come out very differently. Shuffling a card deck and dealing it will give you a guaranteed improbable result, too. What ever you get, you only had one chance in 52 factorial of getting it. But you will guaranteed get something with those odds of occurring, every time.
How does you statement address my points at all?
Again, non-theocon voters will abandon the GOP if the party continues this nonsense. You disputed this, with a "yeah right".
And again, Americans FEAR living in THEOCRACIES. All the democrats have to do is show images of book burnings, "God Hates Fags" rallies, some guy handling snakes and the Kansas evolution trial and then superimpose those over images of Iran or the Sudan.
I'm sure they wouldn't have a hard time finding some clips of a GOP politician saying that God will punish this country for its immorality that would then be superimposed on a mullah saying the same thing.
"Would you feel better if Muslims were included?"
I'd feel better if Catholicism and other Christian faiths not afraid of Evolution were included.
I'd also feel better if other Creation stories besides Genesis were included.
Wouldn't you? If not, why not?
Good point. Also why Harper is walking a very fine line trying to keep distance between him and this end of the party. If the liberals pin "right wing religious nutjob" on him, which they will try, he'll lose any hope in Ontario.
Eh? On what planet? Biological mathematics is very well established, heavy into discrete disciplines, linear algebra and calculus, and has an enviable, well-established predictive track record. It hasn't been reasonable to call it a "soft science" for at least 40 years. Are you under the impression that pure math hasn't got it's byways and alleys where we deal with failures, natural limits of analysis, and groping around in the dark, unaided by provably formal demonstrations?
Yeah, isn't it great to have freedom of conscience?
I am not that familiar with Canadian politics. Could you elaborate?
Do you really believe that without the conservatice evangelical Christian vote that George Bush would now be our president? Be careful who you offend or you may want to start practicing saying President Clinton - again!
The idea that traditional conservatives are trying to impose a "theocracy" is nonsense. Theo-con is just a smear term created by PC conservatives. You know, the type of conservative whose main goal in life is to be patted on the back by liberals and praised for being able to "grow" and show "nuance".
We hear this nonsense all the time. "Gee, the Republicans are gonna lose voters unless they move to the left on [abortion, evolution, gay issues, school prayer, guns....just fill in the blank]."
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.