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.
It's not just a matter of knowing "nothing". *That* is easily remedied. But as the old saying goes, "it's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble, it's what you 'know' that ain't so."
And the creationist propaganda machine has been filling the heads of millions of people with vast amounts of things which simply "ain't so".
I have to agree on that one. I am (finally) going to college as an adult, and I am more than twice the age of most of the other students. I am frequently appalled at the writing ability of the vast majority of younger students. I would never have passed the seventh grade with writing as bad as what I see in college. I literally wince at a lot of it.
Behe ain't dumb. I think his statement translates to: "It's great to question prevailing theory, especially if it involves spending some amount of school district money on my book, or otherwise keeping my name in the media so that aforementioned book stays prominently displayed at Barnes and Noble."
ROFL!! Thanks for post that. I also liked the link in the references to "Comparing Apples and Oranges".
We also tend to think of the Earth as a whole as being very "bumpy" -- an impression reinforced by topographical globes, which have their vertical component greatly exaggerated. But actually, if the Earth were the size of a billiard ball, it would be pretty much as smooth as a billiard ball as well. Even taking into account the extremes of the height of Mt. Everest and the depths of the Marianas Trench, an Earth shrunk to a three-inch diameter would have a surface smoothness perfect to within 2/1000th of an inch.
You're right. It is amazing, with these characters, that if you think it through, there's always a cash register ringing away...
You're absolutely right. He's taken the rubes for a ride - if creationists knew what he actually stood for, would they be giving him their money?
Behe had better hope that his creationist supporters don't actually read his book, lest they learn he acknowledges both an old earth a common ancestor between humans and other primates, not to mention the fact that we should teach that the Creator may be dead, since He hasn't done actually anything in millennia....
Well, you don't "have" to question it with science. From a religious vantage point it's certainly valid to question evolution (or anything else) with religion. And it can be questioned with philosophy, or from an ethical standpoint, etc.
How far you might get in that approach is another matter, as is whether you're going to make any headway with someone who doesn't share your premises.
The real problem, however -- and I think this is the point you're actually making -- is that Behe et al are *pretending* that they're using science to challenge evolution, when they're actually basing their objections on something else. They're dishonestly trying to give their religious misgivings about evolution the procedural authority of real science, in order to deceive the public about the validity of their "rebuttal". They're falsely claiming that their religious/philosophical dissatisfaction with evolutionary biology has met the high standards of scientific discovery and validation, when it most certainly has not.
SETI proponents aren't waging an assault against a scientific principle that is supported by mountains of evidence. They are doing things right; i.e. making observations, collecting data, and developing falsifiable tests to analyze their research. If and when they bring their work to the science community, I suspect it will be after collecting enough verifiable, reproducible information to merit scientific consideration. ID wants to be granted scientific status without doing the legwork first, mainly because there isn't any way to do it without changing the rules of science.
2. I am reading everywhere now that Darwin's concepts are an adequate explanation for the origin of life, NOT just its evolved present state. That's new isn't it? Patrick Henry, we've talked about this before and you said, if I remember correctly, that Darwin explains the descent of the species not the origin of life. For example, from this article: "But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life." So which is it?
Gunn is not a scientist; he is an ACLU hack. And there is also always the possibility that a reporter might wrongly state this either from ignorance or laziness. Other than that, the only other such claims I have ever heard come from the ID/creationist supporters trying to distort perceptions of what the ToE says.
3. What I object to in the persuit of science is the notion that we can explain it all without the need for a Creator. How do we keep science from encroaching into an area that it has no business? You can say that science evolution doesn't speak to the non-existence of a Creator, but very often that is what is being implied and conveyed via the theories(and rabidly atheist teachers). Often evolution is taught with a vengeance toward God, is my point. Are there any curbs in place for that excess?
Science goes where the evidence takes it. Just because some people are uncomfortable with how this might conflict with their religious beliefs is no reason to stifle or deny this evidence. Plugging your ears and pretending the evidence doesn't exist not only hobbles the usefulness of scientific discovery, but doesn't make the evidence cease to exist. However, I will concede that scientists are human, and therefore can succumb to their own personal bias just like everyone else. If that results in using science as a weapon to further their own opinions on religion then they are in the wrong as well and should be opposed.
But seriously, no. Google actually buttressed the argument. Take a look for yourself.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. If one's objection to the science of evolution is to be given the imprimatur of science, that objection must itself be scientific. And Behe et al.'s objections, as you correctly noted, are not scientific.
Afrocentrists already have a lot of clout within the educational community, and would take the opportunity of a creationist win to push their ideas further. Native American and other PC cultures' mythology would wind up pushed as being another means of viewing the world. Someone once wrote a letter to the St.Paul Pioneer Press noting that it was pretty disingenous of the Twin Cities' Science Museum to show an IMAX movie depicting Native American myths and beliefs as fact when they wouldn't dare show one depicting Judeo-Christian beliefs as such. In response, some irate reader sent off a second letter, which avoided completely the issue of superstition vs. science, and instead babbled on about the oppression of Native peoples, and how this somehow justified showing the movie.
You're working on the presumption that the schools are actually teaching evolution correctly and that the kids are really learning it. If what I've seen of the results of education in our society today holds true, they aren't picking up evolution properly to begin with. Just look at the pathetic state of knowledge in Math, English, writing, spelling, history, and geograpy. I highly doubt they're doing much better in science.
I did answer that one already I see. My mistake. Sorry if I seem to be harping on you. Sometimes I don't pay as much attention to the namse on the posts I'm responding to as I should. :)
The truth prevails only by opposing the lie.
I'm not doing well today. I just responded to myself when it should have been you. Please see post #73. Sorry again. I think I need to give FR a break for a couple hours and give my mind a rest.
nobody's talking about eliminating evolution. people are talking about presenting facts that do not support it or problems that scientists have with it. the evolutionists act like these scientists don't exist and that these facts don't exist and, when confronted with the fact that they do exist, their response is to silence them. doesn't sound like science to me. i would think evolutionists would welcome the debate.
it takes alot more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
You have something against religion?
i have read them on both sides. what amazes me is how afraid the evolutionists are of any dissent. i have no problem with people presenting their evidence of no creator or that Jesus was a fraud or that the Bible is a fairy tale. bring it on. it's the evolutionists who want to use the courts to silence all dissent or discussion about the issue. most people don't even know the basic assumptions made in using carbon dating to evaluate how old things are. there's a reason the majority of the population does not believe in evolution after a generation of the evolution monopoly in the scientific community. because it's not science.
study the woodpecker alone. no other animal like it. it didn't evolve. it was created.
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.