Posted on 11/09/2005 4:31:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
(AP) Revisiting a topic that exposed Kansas to nationwide ridicule six years ago, the state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Critics of the proposed language charged that it was an attempt to inject creationism into public schools in violation of the separation between church and state.
The board's vote is likely to heap fresh national criticism on Kansas and cause many scientists to see the state as backward. Current state standards treat evolution as well-established — a view also held by national science groups
(Excerpt) Read more at worthynews.com ...
How do you test "ID"? And why do you think Darwinism is "crap"? It's accepted by virtually every biologist in the world, regardless of their religion.
"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg."
Now don't get distracted, Mr. Troll - you got any "statistics" to post yet? No? What a surprise.
I use the terms of science. I suggest you do so as well before you get confused any further.
If you wrongly claim that stats is not a science then its pointless for us to go beyond that, isn't it?
You can wrongly claim that a tail is a leg all you want, but it doesn't matter what you call it if you won't SHOW THE TAIL FIRST.
Put up or shut up, little-minded troll.
Here are my numbers
1. I believe that evolution took place.
2. I'm not afraid to use God given tools to explore our world.
3. I believe that stats are a valuable tool with which we can make sense of systems that otherwise appear random or are indiscernible.
4. I believe that the ID guys are raising some interesting questions regarding the likelihood of the outcomes we see.
5. I see two approaches to the questions they raise. One is to use logical fallacies to dismiss them out of hand (pretty much your approach). The other is to approach their apparent dilemmas using our God given gift of math to show where they are wrong.
6. I believe that the course you and others take that deny that stats has any part in the discussion or deny the questions themselves unhelpful in advancing the understanding of the science of evolution.
It seems to me that Intelligent Design attempts to apply statistics to various facets of evolution, claim that statistically evolution is impossible, and then claim victory. But what evidence do they provide to show that their theories are, in turn, the correct ones? Do they have any theories to begin with indicating who or what the intelligent designer is? Or is it merely their contention that there can be only two possible theories, and if evolution is wrong then intelligent design is right by default? What kind of science is that?
Yes.
If so, they might consider burnishing their resumes.
Four of them are up for reelection next year. We'll see what happens.
I read plenty of biologists who think Darwin is crap. Virtually all of the ID biologists say it's garbage. But suit yourself.
And what facts lead you to support intelligent design?
“Further, he (the Pope) seems to be cautioning those who have been claiming Church endorsement of the full-bodied, design-defeating version of Darwin's theory of evolution, which, after all, is often little more than philosophical materialism applied to science,” added Chapman.
Chapman noted that in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism.
excerpt from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3015&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
No, I think you have no numbers. Put your numbers on the table; state your assumptions; show your work.
Non-responsive. You have no numbers to offer. [Mode='VI']
Did I say I support that theory? I merely asked why many of you folks are afraid of stats.
Do you think stats are a valid science that can contribute to the advance of evolutionary theory? Or do you think that its futile to even try to use it as a tool?
Damn, boy, they don't add up to much of anything. In particular, nobody cares what you "believe" - only what you can establish through evidence and reason.
As for the ID/IOT clowns, yes, we dismiss them because their arguments are logically fallacious - just as we should.
As for statistics, you have yet to post any or even establish that you understand what statistics are and how they can be used.
Frankly, your reading for comprehension needs a lot of work, you reason poorly based on the arguments you posts, and you like to put words in people's mouths that have neither said nor implied. All the marks a garden-variety, pleading-for-attention, no-nothing troll.
Don't go away mad, just go away and quit wasting everyone's time.
Thanks for your response. I have learned much about how you and others apply reason and logic. I am very much impressed by the level of dialog.
Any of those biologists have a name?
Are you denying you do? Why? Don't the statistics work for you?
I merely asked why many of you folks are afraid of stats.
I'm not afraid of them at all. Haven't been since I was a little kid.
They do. Since you are so interested, you find them.
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.