Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public

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."

I am sorry to reply so late, but from 9 to 5 my office is pretty much a madhouse and it is hard to get much else done. In response to your post, which read:

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.>>> The answer, or at least MY answer to this, is that there is no TRUE distinction between the "natural" and the "miracle." Both are the supernatural "interventions" (for lack of a better word) of a sovereign Creator who is always involved from the subatomic outward with every element of His creation. What we describe as the "natural" world, a biblicist would describe as the normal everyday activities of a sovereign Creator over and in His creation. A believer in the biblical God would deny that there are "natural" laws which exist and function apart from the sustaining and energizing power of the Creator/Sustainer. From the function of your autonomic nervous system, giving you breath, to the gravity that keeps you in the chair while you type, all are the activities of God, and would cease to exist apart from Him. I would define them as "miracles" that we have become accustomed to. The fact that we have figured out the patterns by which the God of order sustains his creation makes them familiar and we call these "natural laws," as though they operated on their own....., a sop to the naturalists. Even in this "natural" world, though, we still do not understand Smalls forces, which overcome electromagnetic repulsion in the nucelus of atoms, nor why a raindrop violates the laws of physics in remaining a droplet, rather than breaking up, nor why a bumblebee violates the known laws of aerodynamics and flies, nor why red shifts show us that the rate of expansion of the universe is INCREASING, thus fucking up every known model of dating the universe we have..., (and no, I am not a young earth advocate) along with myriad other things that should humble us as we approach the mysteries of a universe that is, in the words of Hopkins "charged with the Glory of God." You see, that is my world view. Within that world view, the activity of creation ex-nihilo, or creating sentient beings out of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen calcium, and hydrogen (with trace elements), or redeeming a universe in cosmic rebellion against Himself are not "miraculous" in that they are supernatural invasions of the natural, while otherwise the natural just chugs along on its own. They are "miracles" only in the sense that they are rare and sometimes of stupendous cosmic significance. What you (pardon the assumption, but I do assume you think this way) call the "natural" I would call the ORDINARY SUPERNATURAL, and ascribe what are called "scientific laws" to the general repeated and repeatable activities of God in His Creation. THIS was the worldview within which modern science was originally birthed. It is light years from the charges from naturalists that a supernatural world view in the science lab kills science, suspends scientific curiosity, or provides a "bail out" of "well, lets just say God did it, put up the test tubes and pray, shall we?" A biblical scientist may in fact be driven to an almost fanatical obsession with his research because he views discovery of the cosmos as an avenue to discovering about his Creator. Science becomes an act of worship. Please don't allow yourself to sneer too quickly (assuming you are tempted to do so) at this picture. Anyone who has ever read the public lecutures of Michael Farraday or the notes of Johannes Kepler knows that these two giants viewed science in PRECISELY this manner, and I doubt that any Freeper could hold a candle to the intellectual prowess of either.

Science done in THAT framework has no problem with saying, "hmmmm. the evidence here points to a creator who left his mark all through creation, and although I cannot dissect the spiritual, I can see that my dissections confirm what I already believe about the spiritual"

Sorry for being so long winded, but I am trying my best to answer your question.

You must be new to these discussions. Geology would be on the list if it were taught in high school, as would astronomy.

Not that new, but I like to pop up on a VERY occasional basis. I'm glad I got the astronomy word correct, anyway--I know there are astronomy and astrology, and I can never remember which word goes with the hocus-pocus and which goes with the science.

In chemistry we would teach that the unguided assembly of proteins is not merely an unsolved problem, but an absolute impossibility.

You got that right. I shudder to think what would happen if creationists were to learn that the daily metabolic processes of any organism, with the myriad input from both the external and internal environment, and the millions of reactions occurring every millisecond, is FAR more complicated than any mere process of evolution. Surely, there must be some intelligence guiding the second-to-second metabolism of every living thing on Earth, because it's far too complicated to continue to function by chemical/physical means alone.

Creationists would probably see astrology as being on more solid ground since it is referenced in the bible. Astronomy, however, contradicts the literal reading of Genesis so it is a theory in crisis.

They are already on it

See The ASSOCIATION for BIBLICAL ASTRONOMY

Credo of the Biblical Astronomer

The Biblical Astronomer was originally founded in 1971 as the Tychonian Society, on the premise that the only absolutely trustworthy information about the origin and purpose of all that exists and happens is given by God, our Creator and Redeemer, in his infallible, preserved word, the Holy Bible. All scientific endeavor which does not accept this revelation from on high without any reservations, literary, philosophical or whatever, we reject as already condemned in its unfounded first assumptions.

We believe that the creation was completed in six twenty-four hour days and that the world is not older than about six thousand years. We maintain that the Bible teaches us of an earth that neither rotates daily nor revolves yearly about the sun; that it is at rest with respect to the throne of him who called it into existence; and that hence it is absolutely at rest in the universe.....

Yes, They are for real

Actually the reverse of your post is true. It is you that are excluding information by your prejudice.

I really have no idea what kind of information I would be excluding by rejecting the well-established TOE.

St. Augustine walked along the beach and saw a little boy scooping up the ocean in a sea shell. He compared this to our ability to understand the universe in it's totality. All we have is a sea shell's worth.

Your point? If the universe were totally understandable and understood, there wouldn't be any need for scientists.

ID does not necessarily equal creationism. That is something put forward by the keepers of the evolution dogma in an effort to dismiss any challenge.

Actually, to be crude, that's somewhat like Michael Schiavo saying, with a straight face, that he wasn't planning to starve Terri to death, he was only going to withhold nutrition and hydration.

If you like, here is a simple scenario. Next Wednesday the Vulcans land because the last time they were here they left their DNA test tube by mistake and now the whole planet is overrun with life.

In reality, I would be extremely surprised if DNA, by itself, managed to do anything. Your scenario is not actually a scenario of anything other than evolution. To be able to spread across the planet and become complex life-forms, the simple organisms (in the test tube with the DNA) would have to evolve, à la TOE. All your scenario does is push back the time of the development of life, from happening on Earth some 3 billion years ago, to happening somewhere else even longer ago.

But let's go back, the only questions not being allowed to be asked are by evolutionists.

Actually, you misunderstood me. I meant that the questions, within the context of accepting creationism/IDism on a basis equal to scientific theory, become impossible to ask. Without the contextual basis of the TOE, most of the questions become impossible (especially in my field!)

As for your final silly paragraph it shows only your lack of knowledge about religion.

I would ask, where in my post did I say that I am not religious, or that I think religion is false? Or that scientists, as a rule, are atheists? I said nothing of the sort. All I was trying to do was say that science is NOT the tool with which to study religion, and that if someone's faith is dependent upon scientific validation, that person has a problem with weak faith. As a scientist, I cannot be responsible for other people's weak faith, nor will I change my career because of it.

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.