Intelligent design advocates to campaign in Kansas

Lawrence Journal-World (Kansas) ^ | 07 July 2006 | Scott Rothschild

[PatrickHenry]

Everyone be nice.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 380 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[2nsdammit]

Well, sounds like another opportunity for lawyers to get rich on the court fees.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, sounds like another opportunity for lawyers to get rich on the court fees.

If people were angels, we wouldn't need lawyers.

[VadeRetro]

A Seattle-based research group that advocates intelligent design said today it will campaign to educate Kansans that the science standards approved by the State Board of Education are sound.

"Making silk purses out of sow's ears since [insert date I was too lazy to look up here]."

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Kansas doesn't need these creationist carpetbaggers from Seattle to campaign there. They've apparently got enough goofballs of their own.

[2nsdammit]

Sadly, true. However, there does seem to be a cottage industry springing up around the "ID litigation" opportunities.

[scottdeus12]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd hate for PUBLIC SCHOOLS to teach intelligent design...or anything else intelligent, for that matter.

Scott

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Once again, we see the distribution of effort for the CRIDers is:

P.R. - 100%
Science - 0%

Who needs objective observation and rigorous experimentation when you've got.....MARKETING!

[Coyoteman]

Just to get in early:

This is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[dread78645]

Noodly appendage placemark

[Gumlegs]

Ramen.

[furball4paws]

Yup - we got us another Dead Head Thread. It's headed for the microbe lagoon as we speak.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Water seeks its lowest level.

[Paddlefish]

If people were angels, we wouldn't need lawyers.

Are you sure? After all, Lucifer was an angel and about 1/3 of the angels joined him in apparently inappropriate actions. ;-}

[freedumb2003]

Are you sure? After all, Lucifer was an angel and about 1/3 of the angels

LIke the old saw about God suing Satan for contract enforecement. Satan's reply: where will YOU get a lawyer?

[silverleaf]

No objective observation and rigorous experimentation? Not "science"?
This blog article gets to the root of that issue re Kansas.
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2005/07/kansas-science-standards-approved.html

As does this article by the current director of the Discovery Institute founded in 2001:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2739

No scientists? Check Discovery/affiliated fellows' CV.

http://www.discovery.org/fellows/

http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php

Is there place in the classroom for these scientists?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=726

[PatrickHenry]

For those who think the Discovery Institute is anything but a well-financed public relations outfit, consider this:

As Project Steve indicates, over 700 scientists named Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban, or Stefano, etc.), about two-thirds of whom are biologists, have signed on to a statement that says:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

These Steves are only the tip of the scientific iceberg, because the name "Steve" is given to only about 1% of the population. Therefore, the 700 Steves probably represent about 70,000 scientists. See also Project Steve update.

The Steves alone are greater in number than all the scientists (of every name) who have signed statements questioning evolution, and most of the evolution skeptics aren't biologists. For example, the much-publicized list of 500 names (compared to 70,000) collected by the Discovery Institute includes only about 154 biologists, less than one-third of the total. Those 500 signed a rather ambiguous statement, which says:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

[Note what a hollow statement that is, compared to the statement signed by the Steves; and also note what the hollow statement doesn't say: It doesn't say that those who sign it are creationists or advocates of ID (although some probably are). It doesn't even say that they reject evolution (although some probably do). It merely says they're "skeptical," presumably a term chosen to permit as many as possible to sign.]

In contrast, two-thirds of the 700 Steves are biologists, so the biologist-Steves are about 466 in number. Steves are 1% of the population, so they represent approximately 46,600 biologists. Compare that number to the 154 biologists' names collected by the Discovery Institute. Those 154 are the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. Did you get that? The comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evolution to a mere 154 who are "skeptical."

These competing lists clearly tell us that evolution skeptics are a tiny fringe group -- about one-third of one percent of biologists. Therefore, notwithstanding the unending demands to "teach the controversy," there literally is no scientific controversy about the basic principles of evolution. Scientists, especially those in the biological fields, are all but unanimous in their acceptance of evolution.

[OmahaFields]

"A Seattle-based research group that advocates intelligent design said today it will campaign to educate Kansans "

God did it, evolution bad.