Posted on 05/09/2005 11:35:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
While Kansas State Board of Education members spent three days soaking up from critics of evolution about how the theory should be taught in public schools, many scientists refused to participate in the board's public hearings. But evolution's defenders were hardly silent last week, nor are they likely to be Thursday, when the hearings are set to conclude. They have offered public rebuttals after each day's testimony. Their tactics led the intelligent design advocates -- hoping to expose Kansas students to more criticism of evolution -- to accuse them of ducking the debate over the theory. But Kansas scientists who defend evolution said the hearings were rigged against the theory. They also said they don't see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses called by intelligent design advocates.
"They're in, they do their schtick, and they're out," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. "I'm going to be here, and I'm not going to be quiet. We'll have the rest of our lives to make our points."
The scientists' boycott, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.
"I am profoundly disappointed that they've chosen to present their case in the shadows," said board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis. "I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner."
Intelligent design advocates challenge evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes can create life, that all life on Earth had a common origin and that man and apes had a common ancestor. Intelligent design says some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are well ordered and complex. The science groups' leaders said Morris and the other two members of the board subcommittee presiding at the hearings already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates. All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution. The entire board plans to consider changes this summer in standards that determine how students will be tested statewide in science.
Alan Leshner, AAAS chief executive officer, dismissed the hearings as "political theater."
"There is no cause for debate, so why are they having them?" he said. "They're trying to imply that evolution is a controversial concept in science, and that's absolutely not true."
I personally never heard of Anthony Flew before he decided he believed in God so it really doesn't matter to me what the man believes in. I was responding to another post about him. I in no way think that what Anthony Flew believes or does not believe about evolution changes anything. Others may - I don't.
I was responding to your post at 201.
Projection of inadequacy?
If you want to invent your own definitions, then you will win every argument -- in your own mind. But you will find that no one wants to converse with you.
Neither had I heard of him before then, and neither, probably did 99.9% of Freepers. Yet the Freeper creationists seemed to believe suddenly that his views are tremendously important.
BIG NEWS, 85 yo guy who is a lifelong atheist wonders if there might be some kind of deity after all.
Well, certain Freeper creationists anyway.
I know you were posting to 201, but did you read it. Science cannot and does not attempt to contradict God.
It might, however, contradict what people say about God. In the long run, some people are going to have to change what they say about God.
You evos have absolutely no sense of humor. Sorry. I'm sure you found a perfectly good fossil.
I guess I should have said "contradicts the Bible".
Sure. And certianly your prejudice on math challenged folks like me will come into play.
The guy in the office with the Phd in Math (and uses it), has his talents, and I have mine. I have far more "vision" than he does. But he certianly can generate algorithms that I can then take and do work he would never have had the creativity to concieve.
youre scared the 1500's are coming back too, huh. oooooo-okay....
You misunderstand my point. Some of what scientists assume about evolution is based on a small amount of physical evidence. Case in point -
DESCRIBER
Harrison & Walker,1975 vide Le Loeuff, Buffetaut, Mechin & Mechin-Salessy, 1992
TIME
Cretaceous Late
Maastrichtian
CLASSIFICATION
Saurischia Theropoda Tetanurae Coelurosauria Maniraptora NOMINA DUBIA
DIET
Carnivore
FOSSILSITE
Sinpetru Beds, Judethean Hunedoara, Romania
FALL UNDER
ELOPTERYX nopscai
INFO
Elopteryx nopscai > Bradycneme draculae (Harrison & Walker,1975)
Le Leouff et al. 1992 showed that Bradycneme is a junior synonym of Elopteryx nopscai. However, Elopteryx is based on two proximal femora that cannot be compared to the distal tibiotarsus of Bradycneme.
...based on two proximal femora... Not that means it isn't correct - just that there often isn't a lot of evidence. This is just one example. It wouldn't make sense to try to look up every fossil from every supposed animal, now would it?
Anyway, I'm off to lunch now. Have a nice afternoon.
The way I look at it, God created "chance" itself. If the weather is "scattered showers", did God make it rain in one place, but not the other? Or was it "chance" that decided it?
You can answer that question just about any way you like. But the bottom line is that Gods creation is where the evidence for evolution was derived. Evolution is fact, whether the creationists believe it or not.
your mind is already made up and no amount of discussion, evidence or facts will change your faith.
I find it odd that you wouldnt think of yourself in the samy way...as if only certain people are so "closed-minded". ha. I wont see you in heaven but maybe we can work on other similar goals down on earth.Later...
Or contradicts what people say about the Bible. I happen to believe the Bible can be true without being a science textbook, or even a literal history book.
Reminds me of the Oracle's prediction -- If you invade Persia, a great kingdom will be destroyed.
Remember what I said about throwing rocks from glass houses? Trying to make the "other side" look bad by pointing out a few excesses can easly be carried over to Christianity where you find the Jim Joneses and faith healers with radios in their ears so they can "divine" details of the members of the audience.
I've got a great sense of humor. To prove it I'll ask again:
In your opinion, how many fossils has science led us to believe exist? How much are they exaggerating?
You must have some kind of numbers on this. Of course, if you want to say that your accusation of mass fraud on the part of paleontologists is simply your *opinion* and that you have no facts to back it up, well, I'll understand.
But it would be really cool if you could prove how many fossils there really are, compared to how many scientists *say* there are.
I really hope you can "dig up" those numbers...
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.