Science as Kansas sees it

Kansas City Star ^ | 11/6/05 | David Klepper

[LogicWings]

I notice you don't show the cables linked to the 6502.

Let's see: Load Register was 172, wasn't it? Or 160?

[furball4paws]

I honestly don't remember, but I bet dull ol'sharp will.

[VadeRetro]

Hey! I'm in the lead. I spotted two already.

[furball4paws]

Behe is Belie a couple of times - somewhat appropriate :)

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[furball4paws]

Why were you there with all them young 'uns?

[longshadow]

A minor quibble in the summation:

"Consider the example that Ken Miller gave. Evolutionary biologists were confronted with the fact that we have two fewer chromosomes than chimpanzees, the creatures hypothesized to be our closest living ancestors based on molecular evidence and homologies."

[emphasis added]

I assume he meant to say "closest living relatives with an ancestor in common with man" ... nobody thinks chimps were our ancestors.

[PatrickHenry]

Yeah, but all in all, he did quite well for someone who isn't a biologist.

[VadeRetro]

I assume he meant to say "closest living relatives with an ancestor in common with man" ... nobody thinks chimps were our ancestors.

Don't tell anybody, but that last common ancestor of humans and chimps would have looked a heck of a lot more like a chimp than like us.

[LogicWings]

Having nothing better to do today I went back and read every post to you.

I have collected my share of insults for the week.

There were no insults to you, just statements of theory, facts and evidence.

This is typical ploy. Debate for a while and then falsely complain about the treatment you received.

What I believe ID proponents desire is to be able at least to express their disagreement with the implicit, exclusionary materialism of TOE.

What you believe is irrelevant. Try dealing in facts from time to time. Or as you say:

I apologize for wasting your time. But you do wax personally offensive, for example:

I understand your frustrations

Who are you to judge and make assumptions about the emotions of others? Hmmmm? Why don't you stick to the facts and leave the emotions of others out of it? Because you would lose the debate, Hmmmmm?

not scholarly but jocular

You have a lousy sense of humor then. The "jocularity" wasn't evident. Perhaps at your advanced age, you could take a class.

When encountering those whose approach to evolution is purely materialistic

The TOE can only be materialistic, by definition, otherwise it wouldn't be science. Non-materialist science is a contradiction in terms. All evidence is natural, materialistic (if that includes energy as part of "materialism" - the flaw in the criticism) or it isn't evidence. There is nothing you can do to get around this point.

Like it or not, that is where the academy took the theory. Implicit to TOE is the "science" of denial of design.

There is no such thing as the "science" of something that is "denial." Denial is a negative assertion and science is only concerned with the positive evidence of something. This statement is irrational.

[furball4paws]

I hate to break it to you guys, but we are monkeys. It has been proven:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513930/posts?page=139#139

[longshadow]

Don't tell anybody, but that last common ancestor of humans and chimps would have looked a heck of a lot more like a chimp than like us.

Agreed; but it wasn't a chimp..... it WAS an ape!

;-)

[longshadow]

Yeah, but all in all, he did quite well for someone who isn't a biologist.

Yeah; but I bet his proof reader got 20 lashes after court adjourned.....

[VadeRetro]

Scriptural evidence! It's in the Ramayana and stuff. Must be true.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Even Laws change more easily than theory. Bode's Law and the Dulong-Petit Law for example. Cole's Law changes daily, at least in good diners.

[Doctor Stochastic]

[Liberal Classic]

The only things that the board wanted the students to hear about evolution were negative things - there are gaps, it is a theory not a fact - language that defendants' own expert Steve Fuller admitted is misleading, and denigrates the theory of evolution. As Dr. Fuller and plaintiffs' expert Brian Alters agreed, the board's message was: we're teaching evolution because we have to. As if their views weren't clear enough, the board issued a newsletter which accused the scientific community of using different meanings of the word "evolution" to their advantage, as if scientists were trying to trick people into believing something that there isn't evidence to support.

Your Honor, you may remember Cyndi Sneath's testimony about her seven year old son Griffin, who is fascinated by science. This board is telling Griffin that scientists are just tricking you. It's telling students like Griffin the same thing Mr. Buckingham told Max Pell. Don't go off to college where you will be " brainwashed." Don't research the theory of evolution. The board is delivering Michael Behe's message. Don't bother studying the development of the immune system - you're just doomed to failure.

Wow.

[js1138]

I said nearly. What I left out is that during the OCR process it stops on questionable words. Tehe firs dozen were right, and I was in a hurry, so I told to not to ask again.

If I had had the patience, it would have caught most of the errors.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your insights! Indeed, there is so much couching of terms these days to "spin" it is increasingly difficult to see clearly what is intended.