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.
Patrick Henry, please add me to the Crevo ping list.
The lights may be going out.
but...
One gutsy teacher I saw on a newscast (sorry, channel surfing so I'm not sure of where) said she'd use ID to show what's wrong with non-science. Hope she keeps her job.
Dorothy was wrong. Kansas is Oz.
Sure, why not. After all, "the firmament goes a long way towards explaining some of the mysteries of modern science."
Behe does not say that he accepts universal common descent in that statement.
Furthermore, it seems to me that Behe is arguing that whether one believes in common descent or not, ID is a better explanation for life as it exists today. IOW, even accepting the notion of common descent, ID is still valid.
Were it otherwise, he would be well within the mainstream of Darwinian evolution.
Keep in mind that the main topic of the statement, if it is in answer to a question, is the fossil record and what it means.
I think you may be reading something additional into his statement that isn't there. It may also be possible that I have done the same, even if my comments are my attempt to construe all he has said to be consistent as a whole.
I would be very interested in a citation where Behe endorses 'universal common descent'. I don't think he has.
I believe he has stated words to the effect that ID does not require one to take a position on 'common descent', which is quite different from 'universal common descent'. I think pretty much the same could be said about the age of the Earth.
I also recall reading somewhere that Behe believes that the 'intelligent designer' is God.
In that cae, you should have little trouble in citing the page numbers.
They filed Last Thursday, but made it look like Next Thursday.
I think I'm gonna have to start a new thread for this.
Since I've given you three opportunities to distinguish the various gradation of common descent, I'm going to have to assume you made it up. Behe didn't see ant reason to hedge, nor does Denton.
If you understood the Lemon test, you would likely think it to be quite silly.
Exactly. Could you please give an example of evidence, which, if found, would falsify creationism.
For example, a rabbit's fossil found in Cambrian rock, or a mutation that was common to gorillas and chimps but not people, would tend to undermine standard biology.
But I can't think of anything that would undermine creationism; can you?
If, in fact, there is nothing that could undermine it, then it's a vacuous "theory".
Try googling 'common descent' and 'universal common descent'. You get quite a few hits. There is a significant difference in the two.
If you understood the Lemon test, you would likely think it to be quite silly.
Your assumption of my ignorance is noted.
Try googling 'common descent' and 'universal common descent'. You get quite a few hits. There is a significant difference in the two.
Actually, I was bored this morning as I typed my first response, but I'm more amused now.
I believe in intelligent design, and I believe in God. One of us will be right some day. If it's you, nothing happens. If it's me, you're all f--ked, which is what is making me laugh right now.
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.