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."
You are so generous.
THANK YOU.
Well, I'm about 45 degress from a real conservative; I am complex.
Sigh. Left out again.
Are you still around? I thought you got the zot for impure evolutionary postings!
Nope. Just demoted by giving out Darwin Central secrets! LOL
I'm very sorry. I thought you were joking around when you posted:
Now prove to me that the Theory of Evolution is not a government-sponsored religion.
I had simply assumed you knew it is impossible to prove a negative and were making a sly joke. I based that, in part, on the "government-sponsored religion," bit, which I thought was funny.
So, no joking around now.
You can only justify things by forcing them out into public view.
I don't know what you mean by this. What is to be justified and is not currently in public view?
I want scientists to prove the Theory of Evolution to me. Plainly and with personal respect.
I am no longer assuming sly wit, but rather ignorance. A scientific theory is never "proven," so you're going to come up empty-handed. If you want to read some of what evidence scientists have collected in support of the theory, visit PatrickHenry's page here at FR and follow the scientific links. They're below his collection of quotes; just scroll down. There, you will find a wealth of information, aimed at the general public, which does an admirable job of setting out the current state of knowledge.
Irreducibly so?
I thought you were compound-complex.
Just between us, some of the FReepers around here think you're acute.
I'm sure others think he is just obtuse.
Just to Kansas bash.
It is becoming a favorite pasttime of the evolutionists on FR.
I actually am pretty open to evolution and think there is some strong evidence for it, but when they pull this crap, I am not near as willing to listen to them.
Such childish behavior doesn't win friends, nor arguments.
I know how you feel. I was left off the original enemies list.
People learn evolution in college. What the state does for schools below that doesn't matter.
De gustibus ...
Surely you know that isn't true. They want MORE questions asked, not fewer.
I think you completely missed my meaning. I wasn't talking about permission to ask the questions, I was talking about the ability. The assumptions that have to be made to support a creationist/ID hypothesis do not lead to the kinds of questions that I ask on a daily basis.
For instance, if I am studying the function and structure of an enzyme, the assumptions of ID or creationism do not allow for differences in the enzyme between different organisms. There is no logical reason for RNA polymerase II, for example, to be different in mouse, human, lizard, oyster, etc., since it has the exact same function in each of these animals. The questions I would ask become impossible. Yet the enzyme IS different--unaccountably and unpredictably so, under the assumptions of ID/creationism. OTOH, taking evolution into account, I can make predictions about the differences in structure between the RNA polymerases, design experiments, AND the experimental evidence will support my predictions.
All of science should be reaffirmed regularly.
But evolution is singled out disproportionally for extra scrutiny. Therefore, it has been particularly confirmed, and no doubt needs even less scrutiny in the future than other part of science.
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.