Skip to comments.
Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public
AP ^
| 5/9/05
| John Hanna
Posted on 05/09/2005 11:35:25 PM PDT by Crackingham
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 621-637 next last
To: mlc9852
No one questions mutation... unless you mutate too much. Creationists seem to allow mutation within kinds but not between kinds. Problem is, they give no clear definition of a kind, which makes their theory irrefutable.
Although, I do agree that much more critical thinking and scientific method courses, (or even one), would be *very* valuable in high school. It would seem to me that a course involving a scientific and critical investigation of spoon bending, ESP, mind-reading, and all the James Randi type investigations would be both valuable and fun. Presumably then you wouldn't need anti-evolution in science because they would already think critically about everything... science, religion, both sides, and everything else.
41
posted on
05/10/2005 5:42:58 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: js1138
Spoon bending??? I must have missed that in the numerous articles I've read regarding Kansas. Your argument is specious and designed to make those who question some aspects of the theory of evolution look like backwoods superstitious morons. What are you people so afraid of?
42
posted on
05/10/2005 5:44:44 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: Junior
Nah, we prefer to concentrate on the negatives of the theory of evolution.
43
posted on
05/10/2005 5:46:46 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: crail
A Myth Busters class. Now that would be interesting. And quite difficult. Most anti-science types will not accept the concept of a double-blind experiment.
44
posted on
05/10/2005 5:47:03 AM PDT
by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: mlc9852
No, no. I'm not saying creationists belive in spoon bending. Off topic, sorry. I just think a class in critical thinking would be valuable to students. Creationists and evolutionists alike say critical thinking is missing in high school students. Sending students out to do experiments on spoon-bending, ESP and all that crap, learning about double-blind experiments, analyzing the results, looking for statistical correlations, talking about correlation vs. causation... would be valuable, to both sides, and especially to students.
45
posted on
05/10/2005 5:48:40 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: js1138
Exactly. A myth-busters class. I wish I had one now that you put it that way!!!
46
posted on
05/10/2005 5:49:34 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: chronic_loser
WOW! I've never seen such a well-developed, reasoned response on here. Thank you for a breath of fresh air.
47
posted on
05/10/2005 5:49:36 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: crail
Scientists argue about defining species, don't they? Scientists argue about all sorts of things. Does that make one side wrong and the other right? Who decides?
48
posted on
05/10/2005 5:51:33 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: Crackingham
"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."Sums it up for me.
On the other hand, I wonder if Gore or Kerry might have done better by standing outside of the presidential debates and being interviewed about having the rest of their lives to make their point (without debating it)?
49
posted on
05/10/2005 5:56:05 AM PDT
by
norton
(build a wall and post the rules at the gate)
To: exDemMom
Why just pick on biology? You must be new to these discussions. Geology would be on the list if it were taught in high school, as would astronomy.
Physics is already on the list. schools will have to entertain all kinds of speculation about the variable speed of light and rate of radioactive decay.
In chemistry we would teach that the unguided assembly of proteins is not merely an unsolved problem, but an absolute impossibility.
In computer science we would teach that feedback cannot be a source of information.
50
posted on
05/10/2005 5:56:09 AM PDT
by
js1138
(e unum pluribus)
To: mlc9852
Sure, but scientists are working *towards* a definition of species. The arguments are between those who would define species as:
1) interbreeding group,
2) group with a biological ability to reproduce but without it occurring in nature for other geographic or social behavior type reasons,
3) Genetic reasons
among others. Creationists give no definition of kind, and generally work *against* any definition being given. This is the problem... creationism doesn't work towards scientific goals, but against them as it works towards political goals.
51
posted on
05/10/2005 5:57:13 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: js1138
In computer science we would teach that feedback cannot be a source of information.
You'd have to teach that in mathematics as well... as soon as you touched anything nonlinear.
52
posted on
05/10/2005 5:58:23 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: crail
53
posted on
05/10/2005 6:04:24 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: crail
Strawman argument. Some knowledge seekers who hold to the Bibilical accounts work to weave observations into not theories that are compatible with those accounts as they understand them. Such honest scientists would not use supernatural as an easy out, as an excuse. They would realize, in scientific humility, that their understandings of biblical accounts are as in-development as their scientific theories.
Many other knowlegde seekers keep the two areas seperate. They may even work from a intellectual framework that is godless in casting science theory. Yet in non-work hours they do allow their spiritual and physical knowledges to interact, to inform each other, to speculate. Such persons do not use cheap strawman excuses such as you suggest when a simple "We don't know." would do.
54
posted on
05/10/2005 6:05:10 AM PDT
by
bvw
To: chronic_loser
55
posted on
05/10/2005 6:06:48 AM PDT
by
bvw
To: bvw
Edit:
.. into not theories ...
56
posted on
05/10/2005 6:08:06 AM PDT
by
bvw
To: crail
Science is political. Religion is political. There is a wholeness in things that can not be avoided.
For example there are topics in science that are not studied because of politics and there are topics that are because of politics. The Space Shuttle -- once politically favored science; Larry Summers recent comments on male-female differences -- and such studies are politically disfavored.
Science is highly political.
57
posted on
05/10/2005 6:12:12 AM PDT
by
bvw
To: mlc9852
From your article, (half way down)
Ill admit that it is partially true that creationists dont have a definite definition of what a kind is, but this shouldn't be cause for concern. Evolutionists dont have a definite definition on what a species is either
But evolutionists have working definitions, some of which I gave. These definitions are valuable. Beyond that species boundaries are gray when you consider evolution. By the nature of evolution they are a man-made construct. Creationists have *no* definition and use the fact that there are many competing definitions, and lively discussion, in evolution to defend the fact that they have none. (By their own admission.) Some will try to attach the interbreeding bit to their definition, but they abandon it when it suits them.
58
posted on
05/10/2005 6:12:38 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: crail
Until scientists come up with something they all agree on regarding species, what difference does it make?
59
posted on
05/10/2005 6:14:57 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852
Scientists are working towards a useful definition in a gray area. Species change over time, and branch. That makes species difficult to define. In spite of that, there is lots of ongoing work, discussion and working definitions.
Creationists say kinds never change, never branch. It should be easy to make definitions in that field, since time won't bring one kind to another, but they resist it because what they do isn't science. Scientists have debate between several camps, creationists have nothing, and you say what difference does it make? Science is learning, creationism is not.
60
posted on
05/10/2005 6:18:28 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 621-637 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson