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.
Is that bozo back again?
Stunning, isn't it?
Patrick, do you have the link to Behe's testimony handy? I can't wait to see how connectthedots explains away his own standard-bearer's words.
Ah, that explains it. For a moment there I was afraid you had been abducted by, well, an intelligent designer from another planet or something and replaced with a pod person.
Now I see the universe is still as it should be. ;-)
I did publicly condemn the guy for lying; on the thread related to his testimony.
It serves no positive purpose. He was stupid to lie, especially when the trial is not about his personal beliefs; it's about a simple statement that accurately states that there is evidence that conflicts with the theory of evolution.
I've taken the liberty of adding his anthraciterabbit's name to my database just in case the mods discover it's ol' Ted again and ban him.
He did? Can you cite the page numbers so I can look it up in my copy of his book?
As for 'universal common descent'. I don't think that term was ever used during Behe's testimony. could you point out where it was used in his testimony?
But he did have to lie - the motives of the school board are essential in this case.
The school board brought in ID because they wanted to introduce religion into the science class, which they know is a violation of the Establishment clause. Because they couldn't admit what they were trying to do, they had to hide their motives.
In this case, why they did it is as important as what they did. They tried to sneak their faith into the schools, and got caught doing it.
I don't have his book, but you've seen the link I posted several times within the past few weeks. He said, in reference to the fossil record, that his book takes common descent for granted.
Do you have some Clintonian interpretation of "common descent" in mind? Do creationists and IDers have to be lawyered to death like Bill Clinton to find out what they mean by phrases in use for over 150 years?
Hoagland will be on Coast tonight to address ID. He might have an original take on the issue if he holds true to form.
"Common descent" and "universal common descent" are not the same. I also think it would be more accurate to say the Behe stated that ID does not take a position on common descent.
Voodoo? You've exposed yourself there.
Wouldn't surprise me. These are the same people who are trying to re-define the word "theory"....
Generally I find that the people who descend to name calling first are the ones w are losing the argument.
Thank you for being deliberately dense.
ID is the result of embracing all the evidence, including the statistical probability evidence. Creationism has never denied a single shred of evidence, and no evidence ever found has in any way undermined special creation. The genitic code is a guiding plan to specifically prevent evolution, and it works really well.
Michael Behe direct examination on qualifications.
Michael Behe direct examination.
Day 11, Morning.
Day 11, Afternoon.
Michael Behe cross-examination.
All I can say to this, is I am sure PatrickHenry has a suitable place for it in his List-O-Links. It is not just wrong, it is spectacularly wrong.
Oh! Thank you thank you for pointing that out (now open the air valve and inflate your cranium)
"Evolution has centuries of testing and confirmation behind it"
So does the religion of Islam, what is your point.
But it's amusing to note that no creationist has criticized any of these for lying. One must assume that such taqqiya is a legitimate creationist tactic.
Interesting... what testing and confirmation has Islam been subjected to?
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.