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."

[cookcounty]

"intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex.

Response: For instance: schizophrenia, hemorrhoids, MS, MD, bubonic plague, cancer...And to think I've been stumbling through life thinking these (and innumerable other "features") were the result of a blind and indifferent process!

"Some" is not interchangeable with "all." Check your dictionary for further explanation.

[AFPhys]

Thank you for your well written summary of "Evolution" vs. "Intelligent Design"

I have archived this.

I think one of the best "one liners" from it is, "Although [ID] believes in the possiblity of the miraculous, [it] defines miracles as a suspension of the general (not natural, GENERAL) order of works."
`

[Junior]

youre scared the 1500's are coming back too, huh. oooooo-okay....

Congratulations! Two apostrophe errors in the same sentence.

[muleskinner]

"...So there you have it. Three creationists wrapped up in their own lies. Their lies exposed, they retreat into a larger web of lies rather than admit a single mistake"

Well, I don't know what you actually do for a living, but you should be a chief detective in a big city, head of the F.B.I. or C.I.A.

Excellent work on documenting the scoundrels.

[JeffAtlanta]

You misunderstand my point. Some of what scientists assume about evolution is based on a small amount of physical evidence.

I think I understand part of your problem now. You are confusing the Theory of Evolution with paleontological working hypothesis.

An hypothesis of the diet or behavior of a prehistoric animal has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

[Junior]

Two of your citations are from the mid 70s and one is 13 years old. Don't you think the state of the art might have advanced since then? Can you find any more recent cites.

[Gumlegs]

I was just pointing out that a lot of science requires faith of what others have taught us. But so does most other subjects as well. History, for example. By definition it has to be passed on but a lot of people question others' take on it.

How do you know you're posting in English?

[mlc9852]

It does if you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds.

[mlc9852]

I'm sure I could find some but it would be pointless, wouldn't you say?

[mlc9852]

Sigh...

[daysailor]

"...based on two proximal femora... Not that means it isn't correct - just that there often isn't a lot of evidence. This is just one example. It wouldn't make sense to try to look up every fossil from every supposed animal, now would it? "

Nor would it make sense to wave away the entire fossil record based on a few examples *you* deem to be incomplete.

But still, your original comment was:

"Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe."

You must have *some* idea how many fossils have been found as opposed to how many we've been led to believe exist, or you wouldn't have said this.

And even if you don't, how exactly does "science" lead us to believe they have more than they really do? Is this like a giant poker game, and all the paleontologists are working together on a big bluff?

[donh]

Hmmm - let's see. How many fossils of a T-rex do you think lurk in the back of the Ft. Lauderdale Museum of Science?

You apparently think the fossil argument rests on some few glamorous pictures like of Roy Rogers riding a T-Rex from a 50's comic book. I suggest you try some of the links you've been offered, or actually visiting a working paloentological museum. If you are going to mount an argument against something, it would be more effective if it was something occupying the real world.

[JeffAtlanta]

I was just pointing out that a lot of science requires faith of what others have taught us.

You're using alternate definitions of the same word to try to make a point. Like the word "theory", "faith" has different meanings depending on the context.

When people say "I've got faith in modern medicine can remove this mole", they are using faith in the sense of being trustworthy.

That is far different that "faith" in a religous context which, at least in the Christian sense, is belief without proof.

You are using defintion #1 in part of your sentence and definitions 2,4,5 and 6 in the other part and then saying that the since the words are spelled the same, they must mean the same thing.

faith    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Idiom:
in faith

Indeed; truly.

---

[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fids. See bheidh- in Indo-European Roots.]

[wallcrawlr]

C's in english...follow me around all day and find more...better bring a fresh red ink pen.

[daysailor]

"I didn't accuse anyone of "mass fraud" as you call it."

Your original statement:

"Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe..."

By "lead us to believe" you indicate that science has taken a deliberate, active role in misrepresenting the facts.

If that ain't an accusation of fraud, I don't know what is.

[Stultis]

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.

Not really. ID'ers actually put forth few if any specific and concrete proposals, and at least some of them individually seem to accept the common ancestry of humans and apes, and maybe even the common ancestry of all life (e.g. Behe). Of course others are fairly strict creationists. This is the whole point of the ID movement. Through vapid and vacuous arm-waving it provides an "umbrella" under which a variety of evolution opponents can stand. It's this political function, and not scientific demands, that determine the movement's character and content.

Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex.

Just so. "Some features." They don't like to be pinned down, however, on just what features, and won't even discuss how, when or on what their nebulous "intelligent cause" acted. Read ID materials from now till Sunday and you won't find a single word addressing the actions of their "intelligent cause".

Every scientific theory must have a mechanism. ID'ers pretend to have a mechanism, but then won't talk about the mechanics of the mechanism. To have a mechanism and then refuse to address every single particular about it is just nuts from any remotely scientific perspective, but again this is what the political purpose of the "Intelligent Design" movement demands.

[JeffAtlanta]

It does if you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Some paleontologists believe that the dinosaurs and birds just have a very close common ancestor. I believe Jim Bakker is one in that group. Scientists don't try to hide this disagreements - instead they go on TV and talk about them because it excites them.

Again, how does this show that evolution has problems?

[mlc9852]

Roy Rogers riding a T-Rex??? I thought he rode Trigger.

[Junior]

Well, thank about it. We have several hundred Cambrian and pre-Cambrian species identified, so there is at least one fossil (and often very many) of each species. Then you have the literally thousands of fossil arthropod species, something like a thousand dinosaur species (with more being discovered every year), thousands of fossil bird, reptile, mammal, mammal-like reptile, fish and amphibian species all being represented in the fossil record. Hell, simply for hominids we have something like 100-150 Neanderthal representatives, and that's just one of more than a dozen hominid species already identified.

I'm thinking the number of extent fossils would number in the millions, including the lovely 1-inch trilobite sitting on my bookshelf at home.

[mlc9852]

How many fossils have been found? You seem to have all the answers so you tell me.