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.
Shall we also spend a semester each on refuting astrology, ufology, faith-healing, angelic intervention in human affairs, ley lines, palmistry, tarot, re-incarnation, flood geology? Loads of Americans believe in all those things too. What time will be left for teaching what scientists actually do believe? It is damn hard in high-school to even get time to cover the basics of accepted science.
I did. So what? He makes it crystal clear that ID accepts common descent.
no just evolution!!
You lost the ad hominem high ground when you laughed at those who disagree with your opinion of ToE because we are to be punished in the afterlife. It is a bit late to start whining about ad hominem now.
Tell me something...you prattle on about 'an evidence based war.' If something is a THEORY then there will be some evidence, but not enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that something is true. That's the definition of a theory. So I could rightly say that you have lost the evidentiary battle, and you could as well.
Thank you for demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about. There is no status for scientific truth higher than theory. If you are interested in learning something rather than threatening those who don't share your beliefs with eternal damnation you can follow the links on PatrickHenry's home page that explain what scientists mean when they use the words "fact", "theory", and "law".
And I don't know whether YOU will go to heaven...that is your problem.
That is a shift of ground on your part. In your OP you were very clear that those who don't agree with you are f-cked
I know the requirements for eternal life. I do my best to follow them. If I am right, terrific. If I am wrong, I can rot in the ground and never know better.
False dichotomy. For example supposing that God exists but doesn't care and there is no heaven, and Satan exists and punishes God's believers in the afterlife for eternity. You cannot prove that proposition is false. The certainty in your head that worshipping the Christian God is right could have been planted by Satan and you would have no way of knowing it. In such a case you would be the one f-cked, but rest assured I'd be horrified, I wouldn't laugh at you.
I am shocked (and amused) that so-called scientists will fight so bitterly and emotionally to defend a theory that is clearly flawed, when you eggheads are supposed to welcome skepticism and challenge to the status quo.
Please feel free to expound on the clear flaws of the theory of evolution. But please don't bore us with repetitions of the canards and lies that have been refuted thousands of times, here and elsewhere. If you find a flaw in the theory easy to understand, you might care to ponder why it has not convinced any biologists in the last 150 years. Do you think they are all stupid? Or liars who don't really believe in the theory?
Even for an utter moron like myself, it is a pretty big stretch to look at life here on earth and believe that the beauty, intricacy and balance was all achieved randomly.
It may come as a shock to you, but scientific knowledge is not required to avoid being "a pretty big stretch". Scientific truth is full of facts that are a pretty big stretch. Oh, and it didn't occur randomly. Selection is anything but random.
Let's see...I'm a moron, nasty, and me and my God are evil. Another brilliantly conceived defense on your side. I'm convinced.
To avoid being considered a moron avoid making moronic posts. To avoid the conclusion that you worship an evil God contemplate the nature of a being who punishes infinitely for a finite offense.
Fine with me. Push your school board to adopt it.
Very nice, FMO. I am a bit confused by this statement, though:
"The big deal is to get that pro-thallus onto the fern frond so in drier evironments it has a chance to grow"
Maybe your next post will clear that up.
Nostalgic - Botany classes many years ago.
The planned next post will be somewhat delayed. I have to go offline for a while and some of my original sources aren't where I expected them to be.
But, since you've taken botany, you can google "seed ferns" with the quotes and get a lot of stuff on your own.
The key factor is that seed plants grow their gametophytes and seeds inside the spermatophyte (google images: spermatophyte life cycle), in a protected position, while in Ferns the gametophytes and fertilized ova can only grow on moist soil.
"Seed Ferns" are the intermediate step.
I'll be back in a few hours and pick this up.
No you don't have it straight.
The theory of evolution explains what we observe in the world (and just as importantly, what we don't). Any theory that hopes to subplant it must explain all that data and more.
ID has been heard and found lacking in testable observations. ID doesn't explain anything -- and can't say what we shouldn't see. (After all, if God aliens didit, then anything is possible).
..." He then states that Copernicus' picture of the planets circling the sun was a hunch rather than a theory and only became a theory after centuries of observation and thinking determined it was compatible with everything we knew about the solar system.
In fact, the Copernican picture was a theory, and it didn't become fact until we started shooting rockets into space on the basis of the picture. ..."
The author is ignorant (or misspoke) of history concerning Copernicus and his theory (and it still is a theory, BTW, theories don't graduate to be come "fact").
Until Copernicus, the Ptolemic earth-centric view was the accepted theory -- but it had problems, planets would reverse course and then move backwards (retrograde motion), eclipses and occults could not be predicted with any certainty.
In 1514 Nicolaus Copernicus wrote a tract called "Little Commentary" that outlined the basic axioms of heliocentricy. This hypothesis explained the retrograde problem and gave the basis to accurately predict eclipses.
The next 30 years, he spent expanding the mathematical under pinnings of this hypothesis and noteing the predicted motions and observed.
By the time De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published in 1543 his hypothesis was a fully polished work deserving of the term theory.
Some 70 years later it received a major adjustment from Johannes Kepler by changing orbits from circular to ellipticals and deciding the Moon was in orbit around the Earth instead of a very fast and eccentric "planet".
The final theoretical evidence for the Copernican theory was provided by Newton's theory of universal gravitation around 150 years later.
Be wary of getting your "facts" from Apologetic websites.
i know that our educational institutions are a model of economic efficiency but i think that we might be able to squeeze the course in without raising taxes or cutting other curriculum. just a hunch.
And he may get 72 figs.
Climate or companionship?
A vicious mistranslation of Allah's holy Koran made up by Infidels to confound the Faithful. Prepare to be beheaded, Stochastic!
Because some of us RATIONAL HUMAN BEINGS who have studied REAL SCIENCE as opposed to FAIRY TALES happen to be conservative.
I was a math major in school myself. Mathematics is sometimes referred to as the "queen of the sciences". Mathematics includes things like logic and probability theory, and it's those kinds of things which pretty much can't coexist with evolution.
That's nice, but doesn't change the fact that ID IS NOT SCIENCE! It belongs in Sunday School or, at the very best, in Metaphysics.
The exact same can be said of evolution.
Don't think so. It is based on physical evidence, unlike ID.
Stick around; "Splifford the ASCII Bat" might fly out of a rabbit's ass any minute now...
If I say I believe I do believe in God, consider myself a Christian, and also believe in TOE, you want to question that, and imply that I must be making so many twists and turns in order to square evolution with Christianity...
Well, tho I am not a Catholic, I am proud to be in the company of so many popes, who also said that they believed in evolution...they stated something to the effect, that God did indeed start the whole thing, but God also used the mechanism of evolution to suit His purposes...and there are millions of good fine Christian folk who believe in evolution and find no horrible conflict between Christianity and evolution, do not find themselves making twists and turns in their thinking to square the two together...
Its you who put God into a little tight closed in box, and say that God must have designed things and He must have designed them in only the way which you think corresponds to your own personal interpretation of the Bible...its you who chose to limit God, you who are afraid to allow God to be God...you want Him to correspond to your beliefs, and you dont want Him to be true to His nature(which none of us can ever know)...I just chose to allow for the possibility that God used evolution...but I also have an open mind, and await the IDers to prove things otherwise...so far, every single arguement I have read here on FR, falls far short of doing such a thing....
If you want ID taught in schools, then who would you have the school teach is the 'designer'......would it be God?...would it be aliens?....would it be one of the spirits so common in Native American creation stories?...we could go on and on, as each culture and religion that has a creation story, has a 'creator', or 'designer', which differs from all the other cultures...who would pick which 'designer', we should discuss?...You?...Me?...my neighbor next door?...your family doctor?...should we vote on which 'designer' we want?...and how do you actually 'prove', that your personal pick for the 'designer', is in fact, the actual 'designer'?...You cannot prove, in any scientific way, that your God is in fact the 'designer'....you can believe it all you want, but to introduce your God as a 'designer', into a science class is to dumb down science...you cannot in any way, scientifically test for the presence and power of God...that is purely a matter of belief....
You can have your beliefs, and you can limit Gods power(which is what I see you doing)...me, I prefer to believe that God is all powerful, and if evolution is His way of doing things, who am I to question that...
Just because I view things differently than you do, does not make me less of a Christian, because you think I have to twist things to make Christianity and evolution compatible with each other...this is in fact, a result of your own narrow thinking...
You suppose yourself to be a Christian, yet you say you will be laughing when those who disagree with you about evolution are meeting a terrible fate after death...frankly I find that to be a very un-Christian sentiment...I thought Christians were supposed to try to witness to others, try to as a loving brother, bring others to Christianity...I dont think laughing at, what you consider to be the terrible fate of others is a Christian attribute....
You and I obviously see this matter differently...I just find your manner to be repulsive...
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.