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.
Beware, mortal!
As I scan my family tree, I observe that I've got numerous great-great uncles. They're dead now, but they can still whip your butt. Mind your place!
Me and my uncle killed them for sport.
In your dreams, Dimensio. Evolution is unscientific because it can never be proved by science to be true. It is not happening at present and without a time machine, one can never be sure that it happened in the past.
Evolutionists have "Physics Envy." They tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases. It's not.
The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution (supposedly) took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact—no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics. And this is just what the public discerns — that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.
Scientists are normal, flawed human beings. They are as capable of prejudice, covetousness, pride, deceitfulness, etc., as anyone.
... to a monkey!
< /flaming anti-Evo humor mode>
What can I say? It runs in the family.
You're in. Put up the cash and we'll compare notes. I just noticed that Thatcherite is in the UK, so I'd like to suggest that the charity be RAFA, the RAF Association, of which my late Father-in-law was a member. If all you brilliant scientists want to pony up, I would love to see them get several grand.
So you're all in? Do you need an address to mail the checks?
In the meantime I've been becoming more educated on the ID/Neo-Darwinism debate, and while it is mildly interesting, I continually get both bored and overwhelmed, because it would be great to find a magic bullet that would put one theory above the other. I participated in a debate on another forum which I enjoyed, and I've been trading emails with a lot of intelligent people who make compelling arguments.
It is blatantly obvious that there is an amazing degree of scientific elitism on the evolution side of this issue. There is way more here on FR than anywhere else, and while I asked for, received and discussed facts and refutations, I have no interest in posting them here. It was definitely interesting and educational, but it would be wasted here.
So ID/evolution goes on the same trash heap with fiscal responsibility, CFR, Federalism and all the other stuff that I get tired of discussing on this board.
I think you're missing something very important in this whole *uncle* business. :)
This is a disingenuous response, an evasive maneuver on your part. It pretends that there is no more burden of proof required for the fantastical "theory" of evolution than there is for something repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable, like say, lighting methane bubbles and watching them rise in the air as I saw last night on Letterman. The claims made by evolutionists are much more akin to "Alice-in-Wonderland" adventures than anything remotely resembling true science.
LOL!!
This is ironic considering the current mess physics is in and how well biology is doing.
The mysterious attraction towards the sun (MATS) being experienced by the Pioneer spacecraft was so unexpected, the Planetary Society has decided to jump in and move the discussion along.
The accelaration of faraway galaxies was not only not predicted by any theory, there's still no good speculation, much less a proposal.
There's that mysterious "dark matter" consisting of "WIMPS" or "MACHOS". More data looking for a theory.
Then there's those mysterious gravity waves. $100's of millions later and there's still not a shread of evidence.
Last, but not least, there's that string theory. No particles to be found, barely a wisp of evidence of rolled up microscopic dimensions, and the thing has to be renormalized for each use.
I'm sure the biologists are all dropping what they're doing to get involved.
On the other hand - and I don't know if you're a creationist or ID'er, as long as it's anti-science you guys are OK - you guys have all these billion year old human fossils in your basement that you're not willing to show anyone. Trot out some of your evidence that mammals appeared before trilobites. We're all waiting to see it.
/sarcasm
In the meantime I've been becoming more educated on the ID/Neo-Darwinism debate, and while it is mildly interesting, I continually get both bored and overwhelmed, because it would be great to find a magic bullet that would put one theory above the other. I participated in a debate on another forum which I enjoyed, and I've been trading emails with a lot of intelligent people who make compelling arguments.
Stirrings of a crisis of confidence in his position?
It is blatantly obvious that there is an amazing degree of scientific elitism on the evolution side of this issue. There is way more here on FR than anywhere else, and while I asked for, received and discussed facts and refutations, I have no interest in posting them here. It was definitely interesting and educational, but it would be wasted here.<sigh> And thus ModernDayCato cuts & runs - even before we find out exactly what it was that he was challenging Thatcherite to! That is worse than junior-high. That is elementary school quality.So ID/evolution goes on the same trash heap with ... all the other stuff that I get tired of discussing on this board.
Note to ModernDayCato: The manly thing to say would be something like: "In the meantime I've been becoming more educated on the ID/New-Darwinism debate, and I have to admit that I don't understand this stuff quite as well as I thought I did. I still think you evoFreepers are acting as scientific elitists, but we'll just have to agree to disagree for now."
So, you think you are Pudge Hefflefinger (sp?), qv.
Don't you automatically lose when you cry uncle?
I think he was on Art Bell the other night.
LOL. Stuff that would be wasted here sounds like stuff that has already been wasted here.
More like waste that has already been stuffed here.
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.