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."
" Until a positive alternative for evolution is proposed, then evolution stands, criticism and all."
Well, maybe not in Kansas.
What the Kansas board wants is to ensure that students in Kansas are hoodwinked and misled about the current preponderance of evidence in biology. The first lie is that there even is a secular movement within science called "Intelligent Design." There is a political movement called "Intelligent Design" pushed by creationists in school boards around the country.
You don't educate the next generation of scientists by lying to them about science.
That may be true. And when it happens, that will be the beginning of the end of the "Red State" majority.
All that Hillary needs to do is pick up a few thousand votes in Ohio and she wins in '08.
I can easily imagine that many Republican voters, embarrassed at the ignorance of their party in rejecting science, will stay away from the polls that November.
Hillary wins.
I am a scientitist, I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. I see no conflict. That being said, the people representing intelligent design in Kansas aren't scientists. They are creationists arguing in favor of ID. ID = creationism. QED. Moreover, the anti-evolution board members admit to not reading the majority report on the science standards, either. This is further proof that they are not interested in the science cirriculum, but in ultimately promoting a Christian fundamentalist program for all kids, not just those being raise in a fundamentalist Christian home.
The 'question evolution' concept is corrupted. Yes, there is plenty of dicussion, disagreement and quesioning of evolution in the scientific community. This is not critical of evolution itself, but of the details like specific mechanisms of natural selection, how the genetic code has changed, how specific species and lines of species came about, etc.,. It is not a critique of evolution itself. These are things that in order to understand, a good grounding in science and evolution is necessary. Most IDers and creationsists do not have the background to even begin to understand the nature of the work, let alone contribute scientific discussion on the topics.
ID'ers and creationists use these discussions as a wedge to say that scientists don't agree on evolution and extrapolate and spin it to say it is flawed. The questioning IDers purport is designed to confuse and obfuscate the boundaries of science and religion. It is designed to open a door to creationism proper. The Kansas board has to change the basic meaning of 'science' and 'theory' i order to do this. In the long term, Kansas will be hurt.
I also agree with you that science instruction in general is abysmal in the U.S.
"I can easily imagine that many Republican voters, embarrassed at the ignorance of their party in rejecting science, will stay away from the polls that November."
LOL - good one.
bump
Hmmm.. "Negatives" is probably not the word I would have used. Yes there is much we don't understand. That is a given. But what we do understand fits the accepted theory. Indeed the theory can be revised (like all other theories) as new data is introduced. In fact, if contradictory data is discovered, it may toss the theory out altogether. Such is the way of science. The problem I see is that Genesis is not revised as new data comes to light. Instead of modifying the understanding of it to fit the new data, the new data is crammed into it no matter how hard it needs to be distorted.
But we are all just rehashing the same old arguments every day on here. You won't convince those who question evolution and we (those who question evolution) won't convince anyone else. So basically we are all just wasting our time. Luckily my boss is on vacation so I have nothing better to do at the moment.
This I disagree with. I learn every day from these threads. So do many others I suspect. :-)
"Why should science class be any different?"
Or a religion class, if the Christians get their way. I imagine that would be a pack of lies as well.
I don't think science will ever convince the vast majority of Americans that we descended from apes or chimps or any other furry creature. That is where the problem is with evolution. Remove that - concentrate on natural selection and adaptation and we'll all be one big happy scientific family again. It won't happen.
What "religion" are we talking about?
So, do you think you'll win by default?
"Science" has had the reputation for the last hundred years as being a bastion of logic. A collection of "truth finders". A culture willing to critically re-examine anything and throw it out if it was incorrect.
It is true that some "scientists" have whored themselves out to environmental and other agenda entities. That fact wasn't known to the general public, and the reputation of science has remained high, nevertheless.
But in this instance, science is being hijacked from outside. It's good reputation is being stolen to provide aid to a particular religious viewpoint. And it is being done in plain sight, with the whole world watching.
This is bad for science. It is bad for the conservative movement. And it is even bad for those Christians who have taken on science, because their children will now have their noses rubbed with fossils and information that they can pick up in their hands and told that "this proves your faith is false".
If only those Christian leaders had embraced science. If they had told their children that the remarkable similarity between Genesis, when interpreted correctly, actually helps reaffirm their faith. Then all this would be unnecessary.
Most people to believe in evolution in some form or another. However, what the average citizen 'believes' is not what science is all about. People can deny human descent from another ancestral species, but that doesn't mean they are supported by science.
Nicely said. And IMHO, it does not contradict being a Christian.
I don't think of it as win or lose. I think of it as a continuing process. We should just all be willing to keep an open mind.
You never did read that post from Ichumon (sp?) with the details of viral markers in various ape DNA, and how they trace directly to humans?
But you're probably right. Human ego being what it is, most Americans will never think they "descended from monkeys".
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.