Scientists in the Kansas intelligent design hearings make their case public

AP ^ | 5/9/05 | John Hanna

[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."

[crail]

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.

[mlc9852]

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?

[mlc9852]

Nah, we prefer to concentrate on the negatives of the theory of evolution.

[js1138]

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.

[crail]

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.

[crail]

Exactly. A myth-busters class. I wish I had one now that you put it that way!!!

[mlc9852]

WOW! I've never seen such a well-developed, reasoned response on here. Thank you for a breath of fresh air.

[mlc9852]

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?

[norton]

"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)?

[js1138]

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.

[crail]

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.

[crail]

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.

[mlc9852]

You may need to do a little additional research before labeling all creationists as providing no definition of something.

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacroprnt.htm

Whether or not you are in agreement isn't the point.

[bvw]

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.

[bvw]

Good summary.

[bvw]

Edit:

.. into not theories ...

[bvw]

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.

[crail]

From your article, (half way down)

I’ll admit that it is partially true that creationists don’t have a definite definition of what a kind is, but this shouldn't be cause for concern. Evolutionists don’t 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.

[mlc9852]

Until scientists come up with something they all agree on regarding species, what difference does it make?

[crail]

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.