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'm sure he is too clever for me. I'm just a dolt.
The fact that populations evolve over time is not in dispute among researchers actually doing work in the field. The disputes come from the proposed mechanisms that drive evolution. The controversies on these threads over whether or not evolution occurs do not reflect the state of the science.
Well, I for one am a strong belever in observed evolution.
Uh, anybody can mis-interpret a biology experiment.
Appel and Haken's proof of 4-color was not wrong, just unverifiable.
I see. You know it can't be wrong, but you can't verify it. Very amusing.
Tell ya what, submit a paper to a math journal with no proofs. Claim that there is "way more math, pure or otherwise, than there is proof" and try not to be offended by what they send back.
Tell ya what, here's a simple set of arithmetic identities, all valid in finite math, and an equivalent set could easily be part of a useful program. tell me what c resolves to and provide the proof of your answer.
a = b + 1 b = a - 1 c = b + 1Since you know FLT existed for many years unproved, you acknowledge that math exists that hasn't got a proof associated with it. Perhaps you should deal with Godel's theorem, which proves that there must be true theorems for which no proof exists, before you start chewing that foot in your mouth.
Correct. In formal notation:
C(q,k)n = (q!/(q-k)!)n = (38!/37!)n = 38n
This is not an argument against God. It's an argument about silly applications of mathematics.
It's pointless to calculate probabilities if there isn't a favored outcome (ex. roulette table -- no bets).
Similarly, disputes among scientists about whether they've found evidence of life on Mars doesn't re-open the ancient controversies involving astrology and vitalism.
"I just think a class in critical thinking would be valuable..". ~ crail
Here ya go.
"....Darwin's dangerous idea is really two ideas put together: philosophical naturalism together with the claim that our cognitive faculties have originated by way of natural selection working on some form of genetic variation. According to this idea, then, the purpose or function of those faculties (if they have one) is to enable or promote survival, or survival and reproduction, more exactly, the maximization of fitness (the probability of survival and reproduction).
Furthermore, the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable (i.e., furnish us with a preponderance of true beliefs) on Darwin's dangerous idea is either low or inscrutable (i.e., impossible to estimate). But either gives the devotee of evolutionary naturalism a defeater for the proposition that his cognitive faculties are reliable, a reason for doubting, giving up, rejecting that natural belief. If so, then it also gives him a reason for doubting any beliefs produced by those faculties. This includes, of course, the beliefs involved in science itself.
Evolutionary naturalism, therefore, provides one who accepts it with a defeater for scientific beliefs, a reason for doubting that science does in fact get us to the truth, or close to the truth. [ 14 ] Darwin himself may perhaps have glimpsed this sinister presence coiled like a worm in the very heart of evolutionary naturalism: "With me," says Darwin,
'the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?' [ 15 ]
Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism."
Darwin, Mind and Meaning --Alvin Plantinga May, 1996 Full commentary and bibliography here: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/plantinga/dennett.html
Which is why I used the example I did. As far as science knows, evolution doesn't have a "favored" outcome.
But I'm glad to know I got the basic odds calculation right. Thanks.
That's right. They're censoring again.
Darwin Central!
Many people see atheism and evolution as having a connection. I don't know about other scientific disciplines but it certainly seems so with regard to evolution. Probably the whole Genesis thing. I don't know anyone who questions the laws of physics or astronomy or geology like they do evolution. Of course, that doesn't mean they don't, just I don't see it. And again, I think the major stumbling block is the ape to man thing. Just anecdotal articles I've read lead me to believe quite a few evolutionists are atheists or at least agnostics. I did have an article with figures but like polls, they don't mean a whole lot.
Which government? The UN? Since evolution is pretty much accepted everywhere, outside of a few places with heavy theological influence.
I didn't know the UN was that powerful. [/sarcasm]
The conspiracy that cares.
Darwin himself may perhaps have glimpsed this sinister presence coiled like a worm in the very heart of evolutionary naturalism: "With me," says Darwin, 'the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?'
Ah, yes ... yet another out-of-context quote, a splendid example of creationoid "research." Here is that same sentence fragment (shown in blue) with the surrounding text included:
... there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation-and no doubt of the conservation of energy-of the atomic theory, etc. etc., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?In the actual letter, Darwin isn't discussing evolution at all. Not even close. He's discussing the role of chance and purpose in the universe, and the blue part expresses his doubts about his conclusions. This is irrelevant to evolution. Further, note how the bogus quote falsely begins in mid-sentence, in an attempt to disguise that it is snatched from a larger bit of writing.
From a letter to W. GRAHAM, dated July 3rd, 1881. Source: here.
All creation "science" is fraudulent.
A given percentage of evolutionists are atheists. What bearing does that have on whether or not the theory is accurate?
I didn't say or imply it had anything at all to do with it.
".....at least the ID people recognize that there are philosophical positions being argued. The evo crowd either doesn't see it, or doesn't want to see it." ~ chronic_loser
It's getting harder and harder for them to pretend they don't see it. Hahahaha
"I lobbied the NABT [National Association of Biology Teachers] board of directors to make the change http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/theology_philosophy/bcs089.html [in their statement] because of both my respect for science and my respect for the philosophy of humanism that draws so strongly upon it. To explain requires me to reflect a bit upon both religion and science.
Therefore, I agreed with the two theologians http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html who asked NABT to take the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" from its statement on evolution. NABT was making a philosophical statement outside of what science can tell us. Plantinga and Smith wrote:
[I]t is extremely hard to see how an empirical science, such as biology, could address such a theological question as whether a process like evolution is or isn't directed by God.... How could an empirical inquiry possibly show that God was not guiding and directing evolution?
And they were right. If we are to say to postmodernist attackers of science that they should not confuse science with positions or philosophies derived from science, then we must be consistent and not equate science with materialist philosophy.
Now we get down to the nitty-gritty of science and religion, and why I lobbied to take the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" Out of the NABT statement.
Consider: If to test something scientifically requires the ability to hold constant certain effects, this means that omnipotent powers cannot be used as part of scientific explanations.
....if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent power's interference in nature, both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements.
Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.
I could say, speaking from the perspective of my personal philosophy, that matter and energy and their interactions (materialism) are not only sufficient to understand the natural world (methodological materialism) but in fact, I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy.
This is the philosophy of materialism, which I, and probably most humanists, hold to.
I intentionally added "I believe" when I spoke of my personal philosophy, which is entirely proper.
"I believe," however, is not a phrase that belongs in science. ..."
Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism
by Eugenie C. Scott
[In May 1998 Dr Eugenie C Scott, NCSE'S Executive Director, was awarded the American Humanist Association's 1998 "Isaac Asimov Science Award". What follows is excerpted from her acceptance speech. Ed.]
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/391_science_and_religion_methodol_5_1_1998.asp
*
Leading Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse:
"I allow - I insist - that, from its very birth, evolutionism has been used for more than mere science.
In this wise, it is often appropriate to speak of evolution as a form of religion, meaning a faith system with a moral message that makes sense of life's ultimate meaning.
You have only to look at the writings of a nineteenth-century figure like Herbert Spencer to see that this is true.
Or a twentieth-century figure like Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous Huxley the novelist). This second evolutionist even went so far as to write a book entitle Religion without Revelation!
There is all sorts of stuff about evolution being the key to the mysteries of existence and that kind of thing. Moreover, this brand of secular proselytizing is going on into the twenty-first century.
Look at Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson's recent best-seller Consilience.
I should say that it is by no means the case that evolution-as-religion is anti-Christian.
Sometimes it is. The English biologist Richard Dawkins (author of the Selfish Gene) is a fiery atheist, speaking of Christians as afflicted by an "unconscionable flabbiness of the intellect."
Sometimes it is not. The French, Jesuit, paleontologist-priest Teilhard de Chardin thought that evolution leads up to the "Omega point," something he identified with Jesus Christ. .." - Michael Ruse
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/8517
Call it "Creation Science Fiction."
Hasn't this quote been taken out of context enough times?
Here is the full quote:
C. DARWIN TO W. GRAHAM.
Down, July 3rd, 1881.
Dear Sir,
I hope that you will not think it intrusive on my part to thank you heartily for the pleasure which I have derived from reading your admirably written 'Creed of Science,' though I have not yet quite finished it, as now that I am old I read very slowly. It is a very long time since any other book has interested me so much. The work must have cost you several years and much hard labour with full leisure for work. You would not probably expect any one fully to agree with you on so many abstruse subjects; and there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation-and no doubt of the conservation of energy-of the atomic theory, etc. etc., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? Secondly, I think that I could make somewhat of a case against the enormous importance which you attribute to our greatest men; I have been accustomed to think, second, third, and fourth rate men of very high importance, at least in the case of Science. Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.
Matchett-PI is truly one of the more blatantly dishonest posters on these threads. To post something as true knowing that it has already been shown to be false cannot be considered a mistake but rather an outright attempt at lying. Of course, when your cause is right, you shouldn't be held to such standards as the 10 Commandments.
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.