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."
It's only controversial on those sites, not in the halls of academe.
"So occasionally you'll see a conservative precinct like Kansas or Cobb County, GA supporting a balanced view, in response to popular local opinion."
Only problem with that is that science itself doesn't conform to public opinion.
The earth was never flat...spontaneous generation was always a farce...the earth has always revolved around the sun...all 3 of these at one time flew in the face of "popular opinion".
Creationism will be seen as ridiculous as the flat earth theory or terra-centrism in time.
Are you really Amish, or just on drugs?
Which particular halls?
####spontaneous generation was always a farce####
I agree, but it's interesting to hear an evolutionist say that.
"####spontaneous generation was always a farce#### "
"I agree, but it's interesting to hear an evolutionist say that."
How so? Really, "spontaneous generation" comes across (to me) like Christian Creationism. Here's a dead animal. {waves Creationist magic wand} Voila! Now we have flies being born! Therefore, flies must come from dead animals!
Ah, the wisdom expressed by the priest-scientists of biology.
Science is not a popularity contest. Just because a notion is widely held does not mean it is the correct one. There was a news article recently that polled a sample of the general public. More than half believed that if you had a gun with a curved barrel, and you fired a bullet down this curved barrel, that the projectile would contine to follow the arc traced by the curvature of the warped barrel once it has left the muzzle.
I'm as ardent of a supporter of homeschooling as you will find. I live in a homeschool friendly state and I intend to homeschool my children if possible. However, I'll teach them evolution when the subject matter is biology. Furthermore, private schools, both secular and parochial, teach evolution in biology class. The teaching of evolution is directly related to scientific relevancy, not government funding. Government is not obsessed with promoting evolution. Government is obsessed with promoting government. Teaching creationism in life sciences class in public schools does little to nothing to actually address the problems of the public school system. It is a *feel good* measure, but little more.
Ah, the wisdom expressed by the priest-scientists of biology.
If you aren't on drugs then maybe you could repost #340, but in English this time...
I don't understand. Each word in there has a very precise meaning.
Oh, for a return to the days of Benjamin Franklin. One of the worlds greatest scientists of his day, but the same man that calmed the constitutional convention by pressing for daily prayers.
There was no fear of religion then, because by 1790 we had abandoned religious persecution. And no fear of science either, as it was looked on as an explanation of Gods creation, not a threat to it.
Perhaps it's been the pressure from outside of science to conform to a particular religious interpretation of life and the species that has created the mutual animosity? Nah.
His profile claims he is not Amish, but rather descended from Mennonites.
True, each word has a precise meaning, and the grammar resembles English "as she is spoke", but as a whole #340 looks to me like the work of a bizarre random-sentence-generation program. I suspect that is what the poster who queried your mental state was getting at.
I'm sure this is true, whatever it says, but the expression of your idea is rather poor. What, for exsample, is the logical difference between infinite and uncountable?
When you can generalize beyond the specific eccentricities of the specific problem on which you are working, you can begin to understand what is happening.
I suppose this is, in some way or another, not technically false, but what does it mean?
Who is pressuring scientists? (Other than the Bush administration to dump the global warming crap - lol)
AmishDude may correct me, but I think I remember that integers are infinite but countable, while irrational numbers are both infinite and uncountable. There is a difference.
Thanks for the ping.. deary..
Dimensio is correct, I had no proof... only an assertion..
Which I made.
Demenso can prove all "its" assertions by Evo dogma..
Which of course is all true.. and is no lie.. because "it" said it..
and seems to be an Evo fundamentalist...
Demenso has an aversion to lies.. and untruth..
You can tell that by the serious and paternalistic demeanor..
I like "hard heads" and Demonso could break things with "its"..
Who could hate being averse to lies and untruth.?...
I was playing in free Republics Semantic Gymnasium with "it"... and it was fun..
Of course, Evos work overtime to DISprove Evolution {the scientific principle}
But just not on THIS planet.. maybe "it" is from Melmac..
Goes ballistic when it gets its fur wet.. and gets very "Queegish" and trys to Bogard you..
Kind of FRENCH really..
This is correct.
Give me an example of a question that can be settled by observation or experimentation that any scientist is not allowed to ask.
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.