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."

[gobucks]

"I think so. And, the defenders of ignorance and scientific stagnation are already making noises here."

Well gee, evos to the rescue!! (Cue the Rawhide T.V. Show theme song!!)

[Non-Sequitur]

Kansas has given us a real gift... crevo threads every day. We should all enjoy it. :)

(*sigh*) On the plus side it's knocked all the Wizard of Oz jokes out the window in favor of Unintelligent Design cracks.

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 270 names. See the list's description at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[Junior]

Hey, when you've got science on your side (as we do) you have a duty to fight back the forces of ignorance.

BTW, have any of y'all come up with any POSITIVE scientific evidence to support your positions?

[chronic_loser]

Here is a summary of the two sides, best I can reproduce:

1) There are many problems with evolutionary theory. There are mathematical improbabilities associated with observed complexities that are not easily explained no matter how much time is provided for them to develop, there are questions about whether the fossil record truly represents changing from one phyla to another (or points to common ancestry), and there is NO evidence of abiogenesis. Since the only alternative theories out there are cosmic panspermia and intelligent design by an intelligent source (the two may be conflated, for sake of the debate), perhaps alternative theories should be discussed.
2) The other side, best I can see, holds:
a) this is an attempt to teach religion in the name of science
b) all the smart scientists believe this theory, only a few mutants believe otherwise
c) this will destroy science itself if we bring in the supernatural

As a subset to this challenge, and what is really the core issue to me, "science" -so called- has been completely co-opted by philosophical empiricism. Many modernists who work within scientific disciplines have confused methodology with philosophical assumptions and insist on a skeptical empiricism as their starting point. This starting point is not "scientific" nor scientifically justifiable, nor justified from the history of science itself, but arbitrarily chosen. The real problem is that most of them don't see it as an arbitrary dictum, but as a part of the warp and woof of science itself. That is why, when the issue is brought up, you get the ridiculous challenges to "prove" a theistic construct of the universe using the scientific method. Neither construct is scientifically verifiable; the assumption that we live in a supernatural world, nor the assumption that science properly done assumes a cosmos explainable by empirical observation alone.

For example- there are two scientists in two labs. One believes in a Creator, and believes the way to bring honor to that Creator in discovering the "patterns" in which the creator works. He believes the Creator has communicated in a variety of means that He is a Being of order, regularity, and discoverable patterns of operation in the cosmos. He believes that it is part of his job to "worship" this creator to discover these patterns of behavior in the cosmos, as the Creator displays Himself in creation for those who will open their eyes to see. He believes in a rigid use of the empirical method to determine those patterns of behavior. He believes in the use of deductions to piece together theories of behavior in the cosmos, because his God is one of order. Although he believes in the possiblity of the miraculous, he defines miracles as a suspension of the general (not natural, GENERAL) order of works. He believes that the observed "everyday" workings in the cosmos are just as much a reflection of the glory of God as the story of a crucified and risen Savior, and it is his job to expand and expound that glory through science just as much as a "preacher" is called to do the same thing through the pulpit. The history of science is replete with such men and women.

The other lab is a naturalist...., if not OUT OF THE LAB, at least while he is in the lab. He makes the assumption (entirely UNscientifically arrived at), that the study of the cosmos is best performed within the assumption of a "closed system." That is, that the practical assumption that is the basis of "true science" is to assume naturalism, exclude the supernatural, and "observe the data." Supernaturalism scares these folks. To many of them, acknowleding the supernatural is a short trip to suspended reason and invoking the miraculous over everything, resulting in praying to drive out the demons rather than seek amoxycillin. In their minds, assuming the supernatural means the death of true science. They misuse Occam, thinking they have "cleaved away" unnecessary baggage, when all they have done is start at a different place and argued in a circle.

Of course, there are gradations of both labs out there in the real world, and the differences are made louder, if not clearer, by asshats on both sides. Religious fundamentalists (some very intelligent, IQ has nothing to do with being an asshat) will at times insist that "the bible teaches......." something completely unjustifiable from the text, like Archbishop Ussher's assertion of the date of creation. On the other page, Carl Sagan will make pronouncements of profound idiocy ("The cosmos is all there is and all there ever has been," which is simply a restatement of the philosophical position of lab "b" above) in the name of "science."

The point is, that BOTH parties employ identical methodology and do "real science," capable of independent testing, peer review, and publication. They can communicate with each other on one level, because they share agreement on a methodology, but they CANNOT communicate with each other as to what the correct attitude toward science is, because they are living in diffeent philosophical universes. They can, however, lay down their swords and collaborate to get data that each of them respect. The problem is that they disagree on what "science" is.

The differences have NOTHING to do with scientific method itself. Rather, they are talking "past" each other and reciting their philosophical prejudices. One side acknowledges this. The other insists that their philosophy is science itself. This is hogwash and a better shell game than you will find in Central Park. The problem is compounded when one claims that science "teaches" a theory of origins of one type or another, and both sides demand equal time to display their philosophical prejudices masquerading as science. On this point, it is the evo crowd who is really silly. at least the ID people recognize that there are philosophical positions being argued. The evo crowd either doesn't see it, or doesn't want to see it.

[crail]

Good article by the way.

The concept makes no attempts to verify the creation myth or other major biblical events, such as the flood, he says. Nor does it worry about whether Earth is a few thousand years old, as most creationists believe, or four-and-a-half billion years old, the current geological estimate. Intelligent design, Cordova notes, does not even attempt to prove the type of deity involved, it just points to some sort of supernatural intervention. In other words, he says: "Intelligent design doesn't have any theology to it."

So it's a "scientific" theory that makes no predictions, and has no explanitory power past "god did it," without knowing who's god or how, and can't answer the "when" question even to within *6 orders of magnitude*!!! I hope I've got that straight.

[crail]

Science isn't allowed to cite god or miracles, because they, by their nature, can't be understood by the scientific method. Can you imagine a publication that essentially says, "I can't make much sense of the data, so I assume god did it." It essentially ends the search for patterns in nature by resorting to the supernatural.

[chronic_loser]

So it's a "scientific" theory that makes no predictions, and has no explanitory power past "god did it," without knowing who's god or how, and can't answer the "when" question even to within *6 orders of magnitude*!!! I hope I've got that straight.>>>

So, IF physical evidence points to a non-empirical entity (not arguing that point at present, just laying down the supposition), we should reject it because by definition the non-empirical entity is beyond the scientfic method? Who slipped that assumption in while I was not looking? This is prejudice, cold and solid, and has nothing to do with science itself. It is a rigid insistence that reality be defined as ONLY that which is observable, quantifiable, and explainable. Hold that if you wish, but don't ask me to call it "science." It ain't.

[crail]

No, not that *reality* be defined by that which is observable, quantifiable, and explainable, but that *science* be. Going on your assumption again that creationism turned out to be true by some miracle, what should then happen is that origins part of biology be removed from science and be studied elsewhere. For the same reasons we don't study history or philosophy in science class, not because it isn't true, but because it can't be addressed using the scientific method.

This wouldn't mean it's wrong, it would just mean that because it involves something unknowable, it is outside of science, too big for science to ever grapple with, so it is dealt with elsewhere. Plenty of things are beyond science... science isn't the center of all knowledge, it is a limited and well understood process to studying things within its realm, but inapplicable outside its reach.

[chronic_loser]

It essentially ends the search for patterns in nature by resorting to the supernatural.>>>

Farraday, Kepler, Curie, GW Carver, and a host of others would disagree. As would Alfred Noth Whitehead, who claims that the Chrisian worldview birthed modern science itself.
I see this claim made frequently. It is essentially that claims of the supernatural lead to the abandonment of science itself and embracing mysticism/witchcraft/superstition in its place. If we observe and test this theory, we find that the observed data does not fit the theory. Advocates of what would today be called ID were at the forefront of modern science, many theists have made significant contributions to our field of knowledge in the area, and did not feel compelled to abandon their laborotories to read the chicken entrails or pray to the virgin or drive out the demons in order to explain the data.

The assertion simply does not fit observed behavior, and must be abandoned.

[Non-Sequitur]

Add me to your list, please.

[crail]

Most of them didn't study something in direct contradiction to their theology. But tell me then, if we abandon evolution and replace it with a miracle, how do we study creationism inside science? How do we tease apart the strands of a miracle to understand the underlying process? Can we work to on limited experiments that reproduce in a lab some part of the miracle? We can't. The underlying process is miraculus too. This isn't something scientists can study because it can't be broken down and it's parts examined. This is something philosophers study because they study the big.

As for the Christian worldview inventing science. I would point out that their refinement of science was based on a lot of prior work by the Greeks.

[chronic_loser]

You have confused a methodology with a construct of scientific theory. The two are vastly different. All scientific inquiry rests on some philosophical presuppositions. Modernists have slipped those in under the door and falsely claimed they are a part of science itself.

There is nothing in the application of empirical methodology which demands we begin with the (NON SCIENTIFIC) assumption that everything has an empirical explanation, or at least that real science operate within this construct. This has nothing to do with science itself but is arbitrary prejudice. Yet that is what is argued here. Many of the founders of modern science, would have scoffed at this.

[eccentric]

Kansas has schools? Things are better than I'd thought.

lol We have flush toilets, too! impressed?

Actually, I went to a school concert last night where songs included references to "God." Shocking? and, yes, A PUBLIC school!

[crail]

But this is what modern science is... we look for natural causes of repeated patterns. If our assumption is that god can make anything happen at any time by miraculous means, then there is no reason to search for pattern. Science now is a way of studying something... like it or not, as a scientist you are not allowed to resort to miraculous explanations for phenomenon. Period. You cannot explain anything by saying it was a miracle at the hand of god, since we can't dissect god. Without this assumption, we can't study the depth of science. Beyond this there are things that science can't address. These are the things you are talking about, but they aren't science. Morality, religion, politics. Not that they are wrong, only that science can't work on them... they are beyond its reach.

[exDemMom]

The message in post #2 has nothing to do with the relative intelligence of Chinese vs. American children. What it is saying is that people like those on that Kansas school board are attempting to handicap budding young scientists in the name of religion, and that handicapping will help China (and other countries) surpass us in science.

The fact is, that evolution is a multifaceted theory that covers just about every facet of biology. Trying to conduct meaningful science without taking into account evolutionary principles would be nearly impossible. Let's take a simple scenario--I am studying a particular protein made by bacteria A. I'm wondering if bacteria B, which causes an illness similar to that caused by bacteria A, has a corresponding protein with a similar function. Right here, I'm running into problems--because, without taking evolution into account, I can't even wonder about similarities between bacteria A and bacteria B. I haven't even gotten to the technical aspects of how similar protein bA and protein bB are, or how I'm going to show they have similar functions--because creation or ID (whatever you want to call it) doesn't even allow the questions to be asked.

As far as I'm concerned, it is creationists who have constructed the world view that God cannot exist if life evolved on this Earth who have a problem, not scientists. We're merely observers.

Does it shake your faith that geologists have never found evidence of pits where evil souls are being tormented by demons for their sins on Earth? Or that astronomers have never seen anything up there in the big wide sky that resembles a paradise populated by angels? Why just pick on biology?

[chronic_loser]

You are arguing in a circle. You are stating that because scientific inquiry concerns itself with the observable, the repeatable, the quantifiable, and the reproducible (!), that if such inquiry supports a theory that something exists OUTSIDE the system, that theory must be rejected BECAUSE it is outside the system.

There is no intrinsic reason why science should be defined so, outside the materialistic prejudices of some of those who observe some of the data.
I would post more on the false bifucation between "natural" and "supernatural" world (the Christian position is that there is no such division, and that the activities of the "natural" world are simply repeated instances of what naturalists classify as "miracles"), but alas, work calls.

thanks for your kind, reasoned and enjoyable chat.

[crail]

that if such inquiry supports a theory that something exists OUTSIDE the system, that theory must be rejected BECAUSE it is outside the system.

No I'm saying the whole topic becomes unaddressable by science and should then be dealt with by philosophers, theologins, and so on. People who think about the big and aren't limited to operate within the rules of the scientific method. It's a different way of knowing, one outside science.

[js1138]

Seems to me learning more about problems with evolution would be a way to encourage more scientific discourse.

If it were scientific it would be useful, but spoon bending adds nothing to the understanding of science.

A course in the history of science might be useful, but it isn't science.

[mlc9852]

"how I'm going to show they have similar functions--because creation or ID (whatever you want to call it) doesn't even allow the questions to be asked."

Surely you know that isn't true. They want MORE questions asked, not fewer. And I doubt anyone questions mutation or adaptation as it relates to the theory of evolution. They just want the problems with the theory of speciation, etc. to be presented. How is more knowledge dangerous? Seems they want the students to be able to make up their own minds after reviewing different aspects of evidence. That can only be a good thing.

As for educating budding scientists, if you have children in public school, you must know the theory of evolution isn't thoroughly explored at the high school level anyway. That normally comes in college-level classes.