Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal lawsuit could follow board vote [Evolution in Kansas & Dover]
Lawrence Journal-World [Kansas] ^ | 08 November 2005 | Joel Mathis

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationisminadress; crevolist; dover; goddoodit; kansas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541-560 next last
To: ModernDayCato
BTW, my fairy godmother says she knows your nameless uncle, since they both live in Invisible Friend Land and he's a dope.
501 posted on 11/14/2005 7:33:22 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato; Thatcherite
A lot of them did. You might want to check this thread.

Yes, people really *should* check out that thread, because despite the title ("Intelligent Design Grounded in Science"), the ensuing discussion showed quite clearly that there really is no "scientific theory of ID", and none of its supporters can present one either.

What else ya got?

Oh, right, you have a "I'm gonna run and get my big brother who can beat you up since I can't" response. Exactly how old are you?

502 posted on 11/14/2005 7:33:43 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You and this squirrel went to school together. He went economics, and you?

Wolf
503 posted on 11/14/2005 7:38:35 AM PST by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
Okay. Why is evolution science and ID NOT a science?

Why do you think that ID is a science? Evolution makes testable predictions about the natural universe, has established falsification criteria and is based upon observed physical evidence, not simply conjecture (though listening to a number of creationists who haven't studied the issue at all outside of creationist phamplets someone might not realise that). What makes ID a science? I've not heard of any positive physical evidence for ID, I've just been told "some systems couldn't have evolved, therefore they were designed" when even if we found systems without an evolutionary explanation (and thus far all examples I've seen given have been rather well-debunked), it still wouldn't amount to evidence for design (evidence falsifying evolution puts the default position to "unknown", not "designed"). What testable predictions does ID make? Is ID falsifiable? I've been told that ID does not make direct supernatural claims, as it's possible for the "designer" to be entirely constrained with the natural universe, and I've accepted that for sake of argument even when others here reject that. Of course, Pat Robertson's recent speil has made me wonder if the claim that ID isn't really about religion isn't exactly honest. But I won't paint all ID pushers with the same brush.

Is it because ID has religious, political or philosophical implications, and you guys are going to claim that evolution does not?

Any statement about the universe, scientific or not, has potential religious and philosophical implications. It's not the fault of science when it happens to contradict a religious belief, so no, ID does not fail simply for having religious or philosophical implications. I'm not aware of any real political implications of ID (I consider politicians using ID as an issue as pandering, not ID directly influencing them), but then I'm not aware of any real political implications of evolution. Well, there is one: if you have a theocracy then the aforementioned possible religious implications could potentially impact that.

I don't consider ID science because it hasn't brought anything to the table. No physical evidence for their claims. No hypothesized mechanism for the "design". No falsification criteria.

Or is 'science' now decided by majority vote?

Nope.
504 posted on 11/14/2005 7:58:14 AM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
REALLY? What do you think of this statement: ([The] hypothesis in general is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty ... and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts than most of its rival theories.")

It was a pretty rational statement at the time. You left out some rather important context.

Part of the problem was that Wegener had no convincing mechanism for how the continents might move. Wegener thought that the continents were moving through the earth's crust, like icebreakers plowing through ice sheets, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were responsible for moving the continents. Opponents of continental drift noted that plowing through oceanic crust would distort continents beyond recognition, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were far too weak to move continents -- one scientist calculated that a tidal force strong enough to move continents would cause the Earth to stop rotating in less than one year. Another problem was that flaws in Wegener's original data caused him to make some incorrect and outlandish predictions: he suggested that North America and Europe were moving apart at over 250 cm per year (about ten times the fastest rates seen today, and about a hundred times faster than the measured rate for North America and Europe). There were scientists who supported Wegener: the South African geologist Alexander Du Toit supported it as an explanation for the close similarity of strata and fossils between Africa and South America, and the Swiss geologist Émile Argand saw continental collisions as the best explanation for the folded and buckled strata that he observed in the Swiss Alps. Wegener's theory found more scattered support after his death, but the majority of geologists continued to believe in static continents and land bridges.

Continental drift failed because it lacked a mechanism. Plate tectonics succeeded because it provided a mechanism.

You might note that the Discovery Institute backed out of the Dover trial precisely because ID has no mechanism. Behe testified under oath that ID has no mechanism.

Continental drift and plate tectonics are similar in the sense that a time lapse movie of the earth would show the continents moving, consistent with either theory.

Darwinism and ID both agree on the fact of evolution and the time scale of evolution. They differ on the mechanism. Darwin provides a mechanism; Id provides no mechanism.

505 posted on 11/14/2005 8:42:32 AM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
Okay...I'm going to ask this ONE MORE TIME, and then I give up. What EXACTLY is the reason that ID should not be mentioned in schools? I'm still waiting for you guys to stop calling me an a--hole and start the debate.

It shouldn't be mentioned in science class because it doesn't make the grade to be a scientific theory. Even its leading exponent, Dr Michael Behe, under oath in the Dover trial agreed that if the scientific definition of theory were widened (as he wishes) to encompass ID then astrology would also have to be classified as science. Dr Behe's definition of "theory" is more or less the rest of science's definition of "hypothesis". What's your uncle's opinion about astrology, then?

OTOH you accuse me of a viewpoint that I have never espoused. I'd be happy to have ID mentioned in a philosophy class, or a religious education class, where it belongs. Perhaps if religious education were permitted in US public schools this debate would go away.

506 posted on 11/14/2005 9:33:53 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
One last thing, genius. Any time you want to put your scientific skills and bona fides up against my nameless relative, say the word.

We'll put up a thousand bucks each, and we'll compare notes...the winner choses the charity that gets the dough.

Let's see...mine has state and national awards and recognition, served in the Reagan administration (actually I think it might have been Nixon, come to think of it) and retired a wealthy man on his strength as a scientist. And you?

ANYTIME, BIG SHOT. Just write the check.

The reason I suggest charity is that I don't need the money...I retired at 35 on my strength as an innovator and entrepreneur. But that's another story. Yep, guess we're just a couple of idiots. And we're in good company.

And you?

What time do you get out of high school?

What a compliment. Thank you. Unfortunately those days are long ago.

Recognising your bullying problem was a real stride forward and I was proud of you. But you need to work harder at dealing with it, or the recognition is wasted. If you look closely at your post you might notice a bit of back-sliding on the bullying front.

I've never claimed to be a genius, in fact I'll stoutly reject the suggestion.

I don't know why you are still trying to argue on authority, and now trying to propose a credentials pissing competition, when I've already pointed out that (a) I'm an engineer, not a scientist. Any science PhD can out-credential me. (b) I'm not interested in argument from authority.

I'll debate your uncle anytime on the scientific method as it applies to ID, but not through you as a proxy. If you want him to take part in this debate then either point to his published work that refutes my position or get him to post here so that in either case I can debate his words directly. I'm fascinated to know by what means he thinks ID qualifies as a scientific theory, when it makes no predictions, and its supporters point at no real-world observations that could be made that would falsify it.

507 posted on 11/14/2005 10:29:07 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; ModernDayCato
I'm fascinated to know by what means he thinks ID qualifies as a scientific theory

Unless I've missed something, it's interesting to note that ModernDayCato never actually *says* that his Uncle thinks ID is a scientific theory... He just tries to imply it.

508 posted on 11/14/2005 3:46:18 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

The bet is open to you too, big mouth. Say the word.


509 posted on 11/14/2005 4:28:43 PM PST by ModernDayCato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato
I'll bring my fairy godmother when you name your uncle, OK?
510 posted on 11/14/2005 4:52:01 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: ModernDayCato; Thatcherite
One last thing, genius. Any time you want to put your scientific skills and bona fides up against my nameless relative, say the word.

We'll put up a thousand bucks each, and we'll compare notes...the winner choses the charity that gets the dough.

Let's see...mine has state and national awards and recognition, served in the Reagan administration (actually I think it might have been Nixon, come to think of it) and retired a wealthy man on his strength as a scientist.

And you?

ANYTIME, BIG SHOT. Just write the check.

I'm a little confused here. What exactly is it that you're challenging Thatcherite to? Is this a debate on the merits of ID between Thatcherite and your really smart uncle, or is it a numeric comparison of your really smart uncle's awards & diplomas against Thatcherite's, or... what?
511 posted on 11/14/2005 7:01:30 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; ModernDayCato; Thatcherite; VadeRetro
I want in on this too; I also have a nameless uncle who has many outstanding awards in science. He has 3 Ph D's and even worked at NASA (he invented the space shuttle). He served under BOTH Nixon and Reagan. He won the Nobel Prize 2 times and would have won it a third if the committee hadn't figured out all his aliases. My uncle became independently wealthy at the age of 15, the year he graduated head of his class(s) from both Harvard AND Cambridge. I think he can handle the other various nameless uncles and fairy godparents we have assembled here. We can have a general first round to eliminate the stragglers and then weed the field down to an all or nothing elimination round. So, is it a go?
512 posted on 11/14/2005 7:27:45 PM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Thatcherite; PatrickHenry; balrog666
This "challenge" crap brings to mind the image of a bunch of 15 year old boys sitting around a campfire discussing their sexual conquests, and the one really obnoxious but not-very-bright kid (whom no one wanted to invite but who just showed up anyway) pipes up and and says: "Oh, yeah; if you guys think your d*cks are so big, then put up or shut up! I'll bet you 1000 bucks I have an Uncle who has a bigger one than you do!"

It had, of course, no relevance to anything under discusssion, but it was a sure fire way to distract the rest of the boys from the fact that the obnoxious but not-too-bright kid had never had a piece of @ss in his entire life.

The moral of the story is: some kids never grow up, and spend the rest of their lives dreaming up ways to use their Uncle (real or imagined) as a tool to distract others from recognizing his "inadequacies."

513 posted on 11/14/2005 8:13:08 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 510 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
I'll debate your uncle anytime on the scientific method as it applies to ID, but not through you as a proxy. If you want him to take part in this debate then either point to his published work that refutes my position or get him to post here so that in either case I can debate his words directly.

That seems like the proper position to take. In these threads, anyone's views can be debated, provided he's got what it takes to come forward and present those views. If some alleged expert wants to send in his nephew to speak for him, on his behalf, and the nephew is basing his second-hand arguments on the alleged authority of his uncle's alleged expertise, the whole thing isn't worth dealing with.

Oh, did I mention that I have an uncle who could fly better than Charles Lindbergh, shoot better than Sergeant York, boff better than James Bond, speak better than Reagan, and had a biology theory way better than Darwin's? Oh yeah.

514 posted on 11/15/2005 3:54:01 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 507 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
I think it's really a tough-talking contest, so bring your uncle on. I'll rip off his head and make my widdle doo-doos down his neck.

Did I mention I weigh 380 pounds and am the oldest NFL All-Pro defensive tackle ever? I can still bench press the Pittsburg Steelers offensive line, although since I turned 50 I have to use both arms.

515 posted on 11/15/2005 7:15:55 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Did I mention I weigh 380 pounds and am the oldest NFL All-Pro defensive tackle ever? I can still bench press the Pittsburg Steelers offensive line, although since I turned 50 I have to use both arms.

Oh, yeah? What about your Uncle? That (in some people's minds) is the real meausure of a man.

< /proxy argumentum ad Uncle mode>

516 posted on 11/15/2005 7:34:07 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Right. I have an uncle who used to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before he went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when he got home, his dad and mother would kill him and dance about on his grave singing Hallelujah.

And then after he got is 19 PhD's, he worked for 9 US Presidents and 4 Prime Ministers while inventing the printing press, the atomic bomb, the Apollo project, the laser, the transistor, the communications satellite, the ballpoint pen, milk chocolate, internet spam, and latex condoms. He retired at the age of 17½ with 482 bazillion dollars in the bank, 91 ex-wives and 273,114 children. He still dabbles in financing the US Treasury out of his petty cash and likes to encourage internet flame wars in his spare time.

Oh, and he laughs at Intelligent Design masquerading as science since he invented it as a party joke.

/ flaming-idiot uncle mode

517 posted on 11/15/2005 7:54:47 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
argumentum ad Uncle

Barbarian! Must I always clean up your grammar? It's argumentum de avunculo.

518 posted on 11/15/2005 8:01:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
What about your Uncle?

He can still whup me, of course! But when he turns 75, I think I'll be ready to take him. ;)

519 posted on 11/15/2005 8:06:07 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; VadeRetro
Oh, yeah? What about your Uncle? That (in some people's minds) is the real measure of a man.

I am an uncle. Fear me!

520 posted on 11/15/2005 8:06:53 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 481-500501-520521-540541-560 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson