Posted on 11/08/2005 4:17:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry
For the past six weeks, the debate over evolution and intelligent design has played out in a Pennsylvania courtroom.
Today, Kansas gets the national spotlight back — and with it, the possibility of a federal lawsuit here.
“What’s going on in Kansas,” said Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biologist, “is much more radical and much more dangerous to science education” than the contested decision in Dover, Pa., to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” in public school science classes.
Intelligent design speculates that the world is too complex to have evolved without the help of an unknown designer — an alien, perhaps, or God. Such teachings in public schools, the ACLU says, violate constitutional restrictions on the separation of church and state.
“Absolutely, absolutely,” said T. Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, when asked if the new science standards Kansas is expected to adopt today could be vulnerable to litigation.
An official with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which helped defend the Dover school board, said Kansas should be able to avoid legal scrutiny. Casey Luskin said the standards here critique evolution, but they don’t promote intelligent design.
“It’s definitely a different issue in Kansas” than in Pennsylvania, Luskin said.
‘More radical’
It’s a different battle, perhaps, but definitely the same war. Many of the participants in the Pennsylvania trial are veterans of the Kansas evolution debates, and are keeping a close eye on today’s meeting of the Kansas Board of Education.
Miller, for example, testified in the Pennsylvania trial against intelligent design. He came to Kansas in 2000 to campaign against conservative school board members the last time the evolution debate flared up here.
The new Kansas standards literally change the definition of science, he said, so that natural explanations aren’t necessary to explain natural phenomena. That opens the door, he said, for astrology to be taught in public school classrooms.
“Is this what proponents on the Kansas Board of Education have in mind?” Miller asked.
Michael Behe, a Lehigh University scientist, wrote “Darwin’s Black Box” — a touchstone text of the intelligent design movement. He testified in Pennsylvania, and before the Kansas Board of Education when it held hearings on the science standards.
“I think having students hear criticisms of any theory is a great idea,” Behe said. “I think in one respect, it’ll mean it’s permissible to question evolution. For odd historical reasons, questioning evolution has been put off-limits. If Kansas can do it, it can be done elsewhere.”
More evolution?
Luskin agreed.
“In contrast to what everybody has said, Kansas students will hear more about evolution and not less about evolution,” he said. “This is a victory for people who want students to learn critical thinking skills in science.”
But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life. The “handful” who don’t, he said, have resorted to making their case through politics instead of through traditional scientific methods.
“Do we teach both sides of the controversy on astrology in science class? Do we teach both sides of phrenology?” Gunn said. “This is not a scientific controversy, it’s a political controversy.”
Testimony in the Pennsylvania trial wrapped up on Friday. A ruling in that case is expected in January.
Of what conceivable interest to anyone is the pathetic limits of your understanding?
Never.
This is what gets me. You are hysterical and it blinds you.
It's a bit of paranoia as well.
It's funny. You are completely irrational and cannot realize it or get beyond your own boxed in mentality.
One does not need to share your hysteria to not accept intelligent design. That's what confuses you. You think anyone who doesn't buy ID has to react hysterically and zealously (defending the faith as it were).
I think you are the one who takes it seriously, not me hence your visceral reaction that even keeps you from seeing obvious things.
Evidently, forcefully defending the basic paradigm in biology from political attack by fundamentalists is 'hysteria' in your world. A shame, considering you are yourself a biologist of some sort.
Right. Talk radio is cutting edge science.
... He said that the odds of that organism evolving randomly were calculated to be 10 to the fifty thousandth power, which is basically an unfathomable number, ...
Deck of cards:
2-Hearts, 6-Diamonds, 3-Clubs, A-Spades
10-Diamonds, 9-Diamonds, 2-Diamonds, 9-Hearts
K-Hearts, 8-Diamonds, 5-Diamonds, 4-Hearts
10-Spades, 3-Hearts, 4-Clubs, Q-Hearts
3-Spades, 6-Hearts, Q-Spades, 7-Clubs
K-Clubs, 4-Spades, J-Clubs, 2-Spades
A-Hearts, 7-Diamonds, 8-Spades, 8-Hearts
J-Spades, 4-Diamonds, 9-Clubs, J-Hearts
5-Hearts, 6-Clubs, 9-Spades, 5-Spades
8-Clubs, J-Diamonds, 6-Spades, A-Clubs
2-Clubs, K-Spades, 3-Diamonds, A-Diamonds
10-Hearts, K-Diamonds, 5-Clubs, Q-Clubs
10-Clubs, 7-Spades, 7-Hearts, Q-Diamonds
That's 8.065 x 1067
I am a God (or an alien, or some other unspecified designer).
So, it's such a trivial issue, you've spent a large amount of time arguing with us over what a trivial issue it is.
What's wrong with this picture?
You're dealing with The Clown Prince of Astrophysics.
I can't understand why some "true conservative" republicans, back teaching something that has no foundation at all in science, in science class. Or at least no more foundation than astrology, esp, Philosophy or World Religions class, fine.
Nor can I understand why they support lying or "mispeaking" school board members who support their pet cause. I swear I believe Buckingham and the other idiots really believed they were going to get brownie points with God and that somehow their lies didn't count as sin because it was "good intentions" and God would wink at them.
Evidently not very carefully, if it comes as a shock to you that Behe endorses an old earth and universal common descent. And your memory seems to be going too, as I have cited the appropriate sentences in DBB to you before.
We disagree here, big time. I think that you misunderstood my post. From what I have seen, instruction regarding evolution in biology class in high school is very limited, as is instruction in other sciences. Most students (in my high school, at least) had no instruction in the TOE at all. What little there is should not be mixed in with the non-science of ID.
ID is not scientific, it is not science, it contributes absolutely nothing to our understanding of biology, it makes totally unsupportable claims against our understanding of biology, and it has no place whatsoever in biology class. Science is not about what we believe in, it is about what known facts support.
What I don't understand is why school boards are spending their funding on pointless court battles, all the while complaining that they don't have enough money to fund the schools. It is totally, fiscally irresponsible. To call their actions "conservative" is an insult to conservatism.
What's wrong with this picture?
I did not bring up the subject.
I commented on the structural/functional relationships between ATP synthases and flagellum motors.
Someone needs to tell this guy that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.
connectthedots, I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you 100%.
Not again!
I don't even think they banned his last alias yet.
He didn't put them in the book - Behe made those statements on the stand. They're public record - read the transcripts.
And he's the best scientific support for ID?
Hey, while we're at it, I have to ask you - as a creationist, how do you feel about lying to advance the cause of ID? Do you support the tactics used by the school board in the Dover case, or would you care to publicly condemn them?
You seemed to have missed the obvious sarcasm.
I see no reason to add the ID disclaimer either.
Anything is OK with me.
The problem is this argument is not over scientific merit but is socio/political.
Actually teaching basics of biology should not get lost.
What is life, what are the basic forms of life, how are they classified and why, what are the components of life etc... -- there is a lot.
In fact Behe's statements about an old earth and universal common descent *are* in his book. Yet the creationists who urge us to read his book are astonished to discover this 19 times out of 20. Of course to find them you do need to go through the soul-sapping task of reading his rubbish.
Thanks for the backup. Funny that they've elected this clown as their standard-bearer.
Then why did you mention his book?
I read the transcripts of his testimony. Since you made references to statements in his book that you obviously cannot cite; could you provide a link to his testimony where you claim he made those statements? I'd be interested in seeing it since your characterization of his testimony is not accurate.
Amazing. A creationist says you may be guilty of misquoting someone.
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.