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.
"Does this sound like microevolution? "
But then you answered it. And looking over your dozens and dozens of posts, I see you are still setting the example of not asking sincere questions. The Clinton 'questions' weren't really questions of course...
I thought science types were supposed to set a good example of asking questions. Maybe I was wrong, maybe scientist types are enforcers of a particular line of thought.
Am I wrong? Can someone show by example how to ask questions, show forbearance even? Even if such a person is welded to 'rationalism'?
Don't misunderstand ... I'm honestly curious. I could have picked any of PH's posse to ask this question. I'm noticing you are ignoring all my questions ... which is ok, of course, but I'm still hopeful. JS, you are more polite than most of them, though sometimes you get a bit acerbic, like most of them.
I'm guessing you will help me understand why you don't ask questions in your posts ... they are simply declaratives. Where does that habit of mind come from? How is it ... appropriate, scientifically speaking?
No offense, but I will take the musings of my uncle over the stuff you guys have been churning out. As far as his being a REAL scientist, he is actually a chemist who invented a drug that gets drug addict un-addicted. I'll take his word over yours.
As my wife said last night...some day we'll all know for sure.
Until then I'm sure the arrogance and scientific elitism will carry you far. I didn't even bother to read your response...I'm sure it's more of the same.
And since you CONTINUE to mention my offhand, sarcastic remark about your eternal damnation (mischaracterized, of course, like a good scientist), I'm going back to the fact that deep down in your SOULS there's a little TWITCH because there's a possibility that you are wrong (theories can be that way), and there's an element of fear.
See ya. (not really)
And thanks to everyone who sent me such nice FReepmails, though you should have been on this thread backing me up.
How do you mischaracterize "you're all f--ked"?
The last time you posted this it got lost in a sea of posts, and I had time to respond I couldn't find it.
I believe you raised the issue of creativity. Was that the question?
I've no desire to enter into a private debate with you, but I'll gladly debate you in public. "Disprespectful" coming from you, that's a laugh. It is interesting that you perceive my attempts to drag arguments of the slightest substance from you (no success there so far) as "bullying".
No offense, but I will take the musings of my uncle over the stuff you guys have been churning out. As far as his being a REAL scientist, he is actually a chemist who invented a drug that gets drug addict un-addicted. I'll take his word over yours.
Failure to address the actual points I made about what constitutes a scientific theory and why ID fails to make the grade noted. Repeated fallacy of argument from authority of an unnamed third-party noted.
As my wife said last night...some day we'll all know for sure.
Yessss... aaaannnd... we should stop trying to work out how the physical world works in the meantime? That is where ID leads.
Until then I'm sure the arrogance and scientific elitism will carry you far. I didn't even bother to read your response...I'm sure it's more of the same.
I'm just a poor engineer, so I don't understand what your reference to "scientific elitism" is germane to.
So you send me stuff, I respond to you, and you don't even bother to read my response. How rude and militantly ignorant can you get?
And since you CONTINUE to mention my offhand, sarcastic remark about your eternal damnation (mischaracterized, of course, like a good scientist), I'm going back to the fact that deep down in your SOULS there's a little TWITCH because there's a possibility that you are wrong (theories can be that way), and there's an element of fear.
Ah, the marvellously effective ARGUMENT BY UPPERCASE. I note that it wasn't just me who took exception to your vile gloating. Committed Christians on these threads have also taken exception to them in public. Repetition of previously rebutted speculation noted.
See ya. (not really)
Insult noted
And thanks to everyone who sent me such nice FReepmails, though you should have been on this thread backing me up.
I really enjoy getting backup mails from lurkers. Which position of yours were they supporting? Was it the militantly ignorant refusal to learn, the refusal to state your best arguments against evolution, or was it the threats of eternal damnation?
Come on guys, post in public, don't let Cato down.
Actually, its all right after all. It was just a "sarcastic offhand remark". He's a real scream isn't he, I bet he goes down a bomb at kid's parties if he can tell them like that. I'm laughing anyway, now he's explained the joke to me.
Here are a couple of illos.
Time is still short, maybe more this evening
a progymnosperm: http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB117/JPEGs%20CD/1033.JPG
A seed fern with the seeds http://www.science.siu.edu/plant-biology/PLB117/JPEGs%20CD/1034.JPG
It's easy to see how the sporangis on the progymnosperms became cones isn't it?
Nice pictures.
Have you had any thanks yet from ModernDayCato for your efforts on the seed question front?
Of course not.
After not getting a response to my first post I just addressed the rest to furball4paws.
Figures. What an a..hole.
Excellent point - and correct
Magical math...add a course, subtract none and add no costs.
Ah, but now it's on display for everyone, especially lurkers, to see.
Not only the facts on our side, but the good manners also.
Be still my heart!! Yes, that was the question, and I'm delighted to see you ask.
Js ... do you think creativity can be taught?
What, do get a residual for these plugs?
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.
