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."

[Thatcherite]

Both creationism and evolution should be taught in school as equal options.

How many of the world's creationist tales do you want given equal time with the mainstream scientific beliefs in science class? 50? 100? 500? Would it help Christianity to see it put into context with the thousands of conflicting creation stories, none of which have any supporting physical evidence?

[Dimensio]

Both creationism and evolution should be taught in school as equal options.

Which version of "creationism", out of all of the religious stories in existence, should be taught and why?

I think God created life and probably designed most of the life forms.

To which "God", out of the thousands worshipped throughout human history, do you refer and why?

[Thatcherite]

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

Look, just lighten up and stop this ridiculous evo humorlessness. Can't you guys take a joke?

[mlc9852]

I don't really care what Mr. Flew believes. My point was I never heard of him before.

[mlc9852]

Yes they do.

[chronic_loser]

I don't understand what you are trying to say, unless it is that absolute knowledge is not available to a finite being, and that all "knowledge" is faith-based.

While this is true,and has been touched on before, I am not sure what it has to do with this thread.

[crail]

Science becomes an act of worship. Please don't allow yourself to sneer too quickly

I wouldn't sneer at that. I was just talking the other day about that... that Muslims used to have that view. The universe was god's creation, and if you want to know him, go out and understand what he spent so much effort building. Unfortunatly, that part of Islam changed, and there's not religion left with that viewpoint. From _my_ experience you are unique in not seeing a good understanding of the natural world as a threat to religion, especially among creationists.

[mlc9852]

Young earth creationists are a sub-species of creationists.

[Thatcherite]

I don't really care what Mr. Flew believes. My point was I never heard of him before.

That isn't the impression that anyone reading your post #248 would get. Only a few hours ago when you wrote #248 you seemed to consider Flew's views interesting and significant... Lets just see that quote from you:

...from what I've read of Anthony Flew's change of heart, he believes in God only because he doesn't believe evolution can fully explain the natural world. Is that your understanding or do you know something else about Mr. Flew's spiritual discovery?

That really doesn't look like, "My point was I never heard of him before".

[Thatcherite]

Young earth creationists are a sub-species of creationists.

So, do you know any or not?

[mlc9852]

See my post #261.

[mlc9852]

It was a joke - LOL. Gosh, some of you evos just take things so seriously. I mean, God must have a sense of humor - just look at zebras!

[Thatcherite]

See my post #261.

So, what changed between 9:48 (when you evinced interest in Flew) and 9:57 (when you evinced none) yesterday?

[chronic_loser]

To which "God", out of the thousands worshipped throughout human history, do you refer and why?>>>>>

Your question is a very good bifurcation line that most ID people would accept as the place to stop the discussion in a class on origins.

One need go no further than stating that the cosmos seems to bear the marks of design by an intelligent source (or sources), and refer them to a personal study of philosophy, religion, etc, if they have questions.

The idea that this will lead to high school chemistry class morphing into a gaggle of hesychastic monks contemplating their navels is a bogeyman of naturalists which deserves to be scoffed at.

I will grant you that there WILL be instructors who will color this. The committed materialist will not be able to resist sneering and inserting snide comments as he covers this, and there will be wellmeaning but dimwitted fundies who will try to open Genesis to correlate, and I can imagine an IMAM in Dearborn MI teaching his class that this confirms the glorious Quran. SO WHAT? How different is this from imbeciles who teach that Communnists were "left wing" and NAZIs were "right wing," or that John Maynard Keynes was a really insightful economist, that the policies of FDR pulled us out of the depression, rather than lengthened it, that the civil war was fought to liberate the slaves, that the Great Society programs have helped many minorities to succeed, or that global warming is caused by SUVs? The answer to that collection of unmitigated pile of pig sputum is NOT TO AVOID TEACHING KIDS THAT THERE EXISTED A MAN NAMED ADOLF HITLER, but to attempt to make your case, in print, in public, and in person. If you think ID is crap, then marshall your arguments, try to find an ID rep who has some intelligence (it is more fun to debate an ignorant rant, but that is propaganda, not a learning exercise), and sponsor a debate at the H.S. Simply standing in a corner and reciting YOU HAVE NO CASE, ALL THE SMART GUYS ARE ON OUR SIDE is a poor way to defend your position, even to imbeciles.

[Thatcherite]

God must have a sense of humor - just look at zebras!

Doubtless the lions fall about with laughter when they have difficulty picking out a particular zebra in the herd for the kill. (Lions have poor vision, in B&W only)

[Thatcherite]

It actually doesn't matter how this world came into being. Everyone can have their own opinion on this.

It matters if you are hoping to do any science based on this.

BTW: I believe God created life and most lifeforms and evolution kind of stuff only played a very minor role in shaping a handful of lifeforms.

Would you care to elucidate further please. Which lifeforms are the "handful" that got shaped using evolution? (all IYOH of course)

[mlc9852]

I only made a point that Flew decided evolution alone couldn't be responsible for the diversity of life. Again, as for his theology or lack of it, I don't care. Don't know anything about the man other than what I have recently read.

[mlc9852]

Don't they usually go after those they perceive to be the weakest? Lucky zebras are black and white for the lions' sake - lol.

[chronic_loser]

Doubtless the lions fall about with laughter when they have difficulty picking out a particular zebra in the herd for the kill. (Lions have poor vision, in B&W only)>>>

Actually, Lions have excellent binocular vision which is PARTICULARLY adept at locating and distinguishing moving objects. They are also able to see very well in low light. I do not know about color, vs b/w, but this is not really a hindrance in hunting.

Not that it "proves" anything one way or the other, but it just happens to be a piece of extranneous data that somehow lodged between my ears...., one of those damn things that gets in the way when I am trying to remember where I left my keys.