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."

[PatrickHenry]

Great. Now the thread will degenerate into a creationoid filth-fest. It's too much work to debunk all the garbage that one charlatan can sling, so I'm going to ignore it all.

[Gumlegs]

Sorry. I must have missed your meaning. When I read this in your post, "Many people see atheism and evolution as having a connection. I don't know about other scientific disciplines but it certainly seems so with regard to evolution," and then this, "I think the major stumbling block is the ape to man thing. Just anecdotal articles I've read lead me to believe quite a few evolutionists are atheists or at least agnostics," I made a connection and thought you were more-or-less expressing your own opinion. Upon further review (as they say), I can see that I made an inference.

[longshadow]

non-fraudulent placemarker

[Gumlegs]

Maybe we could start our own FR corner ... the Robert A. Heinlyin' Memorial Creation Science Fiction Forum.

[js1138]

He's discussing the role of chance and purpose in the universe, and the blue part expresses his doubts about his conclusions.

Actually his wording is similar to things being said by cognitive neuroscientists.

Science is, in its own way, an institution cobbled together to overcome some of our mental shortcomings. Primarily our tendency to see patterns in ambiguous stimuli and to attribute cause and effect to phenomena that occur near to each other in time.

[dread78645]

I've on occasion seen one creationist admonish another for such blatant dishonesty, but it is a rare thing to witness.

Link?

[Dimensio]

Link?

None handy at present, but I'm sure that I remember it happening once before, if only once. I'll see if I can't dig through the archives to find an example, provided that no other creationists hit the "abuse" button lest they admit that there exists such dishonesty on their own side that other creationists point it out.

[crail]

Here's a webpage by creationists telling other creationists not to use certain arguments. One is not citing Darwin out of context. Too bad they didn't recommend not citing anyone out of context. It also covers the "just a theory" we see so much of here.

Don't use these arguments creationists.

[Gumlegs]

PH has posted that link many times ... to no effect whatever.

[Matchett-PI]

Well, there was Matchett-PI fabricating a portion of a quote to make it appear as though Wayne Carley likened teaching evolution to teaching religion, when actually he said that teaching Intelligent Design is teaching religion.. When this falsehood was exposed, ..."

Hahahahaha

"...he made no apologies, and in fact REPEATED the lie by saying "How embarrassing is it for you blind-faith Darwinists to have the executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, no less, admitting that to teach evolution is to teach a religion?".

Intellectually honest people know that's exactly what he was admitting. The opinions of the others don't count.

Yessirree !! LOL

[crail]

to no effect whatever.

Probably not. Never come here expecting any of logic, evidence, facts, or authority will change a creationist mind. Jesus himself probably couldn't change a creationist mind if he sat down and evolved before their very eyes.

[js1138]

The folks at AIG aren't "real" Christians. ;-)

[crail]

Interesting thread you cite. It appears dimensio was right about you:

Dimensio: The executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers did not say that to teach evolution is to teach religion. Now that you have had the error of the 'quote' that you presented pointed out, you are nothing but a shameless liar for repeating the claim.

Congratulations Matchett-PI. You've gone from "possibly woefully ignorant" to "shameless liar". Do you believe that your blatant dishonesty is justified simply because of the cause that you are championing?

[BobS]

These theories need questioning. The UN is not a logical administrative body.

[chronic_loser]

Please respond to the assertions by this thread that you have deliberately misquoted others before responding to me again. the guys who have called your hand are by and large good people, even if I disagree with them. Patrick Henry in particular is honorable, even when I think his logic sucks. It looks like you lied your ass off in the previous quote regarding who is teaching religion. I want no part of that kind of junk. God doesn't need me to lie for Him.

Sorry if that sounds brutal, but if someone showe you that it appears you deliberately falsified quotes, you should either admit it and apologize, or explain yourself.

[BobS]

Quit joking around. You can only justify things by forcing them out into public view. I want scientists to prove the Theory of Evolution to me. Plainly and with personal respect.

[dread78645]

Don't spend time on it. See my tag line.

[crail]

The folks at AIG aren't "real" Christians. ;-)

You're one to talk... you're not even a real conservative. You, PatrickHenry, DoctorStochastic, the whole bunch of you. You... evolutionists. Darwinists. ;)

[dread78645]

"The lunatic is in the hall" bail out.

[wallcrawlr]

...you mean, like, when people with absolute religeous convictions take physical and political action?

now that you think about it...yeah that would be good to replicate the 1500's with physical and political action. People could go vote, go protest, make a letter, dial a phone, donate a $. That sure would suck if people didnt take action.