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."
auto-catalyzed placemarker
300?
Then how do you distinguish between those well-ordered and complex features that are the result of natural processes and those well-ordered and complex features that are the result of intelligent design?
Beat again.
Didn't ask you to. But if you wish to argue irrefutable facts that support scientific theories (including evolution), then you are arguing a lost cause. 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...
I'm not closed mined at all, at lesat when it comes to science and research. I've seen and done some interesting things, and some boring things, but I've always seen unexpected things. The one thing I've learned is that our scientific knowledge grows, but our understanding changes. I've seen accepted theories refuted and other refutations fall apart. I'm sorry to think you are so judgemental with regards to salvation, but then again, I have faith that we will both be in Heaven, but separated by barbed wire and machine guns.
Not really. It would show you made the effort to bring yourself up-to-date on the subject.
When making personal remarks about other Freepers, it is customary to ping them so that they may respond if they care to do so.
Concerning the argument over Anthony Flew, the source article to the Freeper excerpted post has expired - but Lurkers can read what was on the wires at this ABC News link
Finally, concerning his attitude about evolution vis-a-vis his change in attitude about God - this from the article:
There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.
Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"
The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.
"How many fossils have been found? You seem to have all the answers so you tell me."
Are you serious? I'm not the one who said:
"Overall, there have not been as many fossils found as science would lead us to believe"
You know, you can still retract that comment. It's easy. Just admit you have no evidence, were being hyperbolic, anything.
There are something like nine extent T. Rex skeletons in various states of completeness (the famous Sue being the most complete). Now, that's just one species of the literally tens of thousands that have been identified in the fossil record. I'm thinking you could do the math.
Another one!
This is actually a strength of science, not a weakness.
being judgemental is a fundamentalist trait...you shouldve expected that.
Species change, species evolve. How man times do we have to go over and over this?
I'm a creationist - I'll never admit to being wrong.
Nah - my math was called "math".
"Seems there's just a big fear of religion these days. Considering our religious heritage, I find it strange."
Given the history of failure in gov't when religions gain political power, it's understandable why some fear what they perceive to be a growing movement towards theocracy. No religion has done a very admirable job long-term in running a country. Look at Islam today. 95% of the problems facing Muslim countries today can be traced to the fact that they're all Islamic theocracies.
What I find strange is the entire religious argument. I mean, on the one side you have the evangelical Christians claiming to be almost as persecuted as their ancient brethren in the Roman Colosseum and wish to blame the "secularists" for the downfall of society. On the other side are the secularists/non-religious people who are afraid of the evangelical movement becoming theocracy.
Then there's the 'middle' ground, where people wish to keep their faith to themselves and their children while also abhorring some of the more decadent aspects of American culture. But since the middle is relatively quiet (but the largest of the 3 groups), their concerns are ignored.
However, species remain species.
"Next will be geology - the world can't really be 6 billion years old."
the Grand Canyon was actually created by the Great (yet localized) Flood, a mere 7000 years ago.
Ignore all the evidence in the strata of the Canyon that scream otherwise!
That's fine. Now prove to me that the Theory of Evolution is not a government-sponsored religion.
"I'm a creationist - I'll never admit to being wrong."
Even to yourself? With no one else listening?
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.