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.
I consider what you say to be nonsense...lying is lying, and you know it...its not trivial, but if just a little lie is ok with you, then so be it...it is not a trivial matter...IDers use that 'monkey' word, I believe, because it is more of a buzzword, more likely to repulse people, rather than saying 'common ancestor'...it is an outright lie, to say that evolution states that man descended from monkeys..but if you are happy and accepting of that lie, then, like I said, be happy in your 'little' lie...
And I notice that you just had to throw in Clinton...another lame attempt to use buzzwords...well, it wont work...
Its not a personal attack to point out when someone lies...if you think that, I feel sorry for you...liars are liars are liars...you know it, as does everyone else...
Now, I do believe that God does exist, that he began the whole thing, but I also believe that evolution may be His way...you may not agree, but so what?...
People want to cage God up into a little box, and decide that everything must go along with their own little personal interpretation of the Bible, and that God must conform to their particular beliefs...afraid to let God be God...
I dont have the answers to all of this, but then neither do you...you may look at the Bible one way, and I look at it in another way...I doubt that God is going to swoop down, and declare one side or the other to be the winner...He did give us brains to think with, and we all use our brains differently I suppose...
But to lie, even to deliberately perpetuate 'little' lies, is against what God has said...so again, if you are happy with little lies, so be it...
I am not sure why you evos make such a big deal over this. Whether evolution states that we have a common ancestor with chimps or apes or whether we descended from them is a trivial difference to make such a big deal over.
It is quite obvious that you are using that trivial difference as part of your Clinton like scorched earth policy to discredit someone as a liar who is saying something not that different from what your are saying and focusing on a trivial difference rather than dealing with the common descent assumption directly.
I can't speak for other scientists, only myself.
In the science I do I have been trained to root out errors as well as I can. I hate mistakes, both in my work and in other's work; and have an even lower tolerance for deliberate falsehood. A scientist who engages in deliberate falsehood is finished.
That is why, to me at least, it makes a difference between monkeys and apes. I know when monkeys split off the line which eventually led to humans (in fact, New and Old World monkeys split off at different times).
When scientists approach a subject, it is natural that they try to correct any errors that others make as well. And when they are deliberate errors, perhaps done to denigrade evolution, it just makes it worse.
Hope this explanation helps.
Lemon was a 5-4 decision, if I recall correctly, and has been loudly denounced by many legal experts. I would suggeswt that the Lemon test may become history the next time the USSC has the opportunity to do so.
And if that happens, you can kiss the currently governing conservative coalition goodbye.
Festival of the Tractionless Medvedian Clone
For the purpose of this kind of discussion, it doesn't make any difference what the writers of Joshua really meant. We know from historical records that for at least 2000 years it was interpreted to mean that the sun revolves around the earth. We know this from the writings of people like Martin Luther.
We also know that other Biblical writings have been reinterpreted over the ages, just as Genesis will evntually be reinterpreted. Reality trumps the vanity of people who think they are the only true interpreters.
I know that they are lying, because they constantly use the same word 'monkey', after they have been told that evolution says no such thing...yet they want to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that no one told them any such thing...and jump from one thread to another, telling the same lie, and seeing if it will stick...now, deliberately passing on a lie, is to me, the same as lying...it does not matter if they are older, or just out of school...there are enough links given to provide them the information that they need...so there is no excuse...
No one is interested in character assassination...it is not characer assassination to call a liar on his lies...that is looking for the truth...yes you are wrong about me...one thing I like to have is the truth...and if someone deliberately lies about even a small thing, how then can I trust such a person a tell the truth about anything else?
You can try to twist my words to suit your notion of who I am...but, you are obviously wrong about me...and yes, I do mention the word 'lies', quite a lot,even if in one sentence, because that is the subject I was talking about...
To discuss evolutionary and ID theories, it is first and foremost very important to have the 'truth' of what each theory does claim...and if someone thinks that it is fine to lie about what either theory claims, I would have to disagree...
There are those who are perfectly happy to wallow in lies...and those on both sides of the ID/evolution discussion who have no compulsion about lying, even on little points, cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the other things...that is not character assassination, as you like to put it, it is just searching for the truth...
Behold!
Association For Biblical Astronomy
It's getting hard to lampoon this stuff. They're lampooning themselves.
The Kansas State Board of Education has once again thrown itself into the middle of the debate over evolution, adopting new science-curricula standards for the state's 445,000 public-school students that openly question Darwinian theory.The new standards, adopted Tuesday in a 6-4 vote after hours of sometimes hostile debate, are seen as a victory for religious fundamentalists even though the regulations don't require that Bible teachings be presented as an alternative to the theories of Charles Darwin, who said species evolved from a common source. Scientists and other foes assert that evolution is more than a theory, and that the new standards will prove an impediment to education.
"American children are consistently falling behind those of other nations in their knowledge and understanding of science," said Francisco Ayala, a biology professor at the University of California-Irvine. "We will not be able to close this gap if we substitute ideology for fact in our science classrooms."
[snip]
The newly approved Kansas regulations, which don't require the teaching of intelligent design, are significantly broader. They not only question the theory that all life has a common origin, they also rewrite the definition of science, holding that it no longer is limited to searching for natural explanations for natural phenomena.
Awsome! Can't wait to get my hands on the grant money awaiting for my research into my theory that Elvis was merely the latest incarnation of a million-year-old meta-intelligence that created a highly advanced simulation in which we are all "living".
People usually lie because they do not believe that telling the truth will get them what they want. Of course there are exceptions, X42 seems to have lied because it was in his nature to do so, not to his advantage.
Check out their explanation for constellations:
Our last assumption is that if God made the constellations for the gospel reason, then a figure should reflect what its name suggests. That assumption is flatly denied today. Indeed, textbooks on the constellations flatly state that the signs do not reflect what their names signify. The main reason why such a statement can pass as fact today is because of the widespread belief in the myth of evolution. Since evolution says we’re evolving for the better, and that each generation is physically superior to the former, it follows that if we are not visually acute enough to see the forms, certainly the vision of our grunt-and-groan troglodyte ancestors could not possibly be superior ours today. Our position is that since Adam was closer to the moment of creation, his vision was superior to anyone living today. We assume simplification (the antonym of evolution) over time. That is, we assume that the second law of thermodynamics is in effect. On that basis, we conservatively assume that our ancestors could perceive stars down to magnitude 6, whereas the limiting magnitude for the modern eye is around 5.2
One wonders how statistical probability differs from probability.
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.