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 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 621-637 next last
To: crail
Are you saying creationists don't question anything? That they haven't changed any positions ever? Do you really believe that or is that just your way of dismissing them as inconsequential to the overall debate on the theory of evolution?
61
posted on
05/10/2005 6:25:51 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: bvw
"Science is highly political."
And don't forget who gets grants and peer reviews and publications. Anyone who argues that science isn't politcal must not live in the real world.
62
posted on
05/10/2005 6:27:26 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: chronic_loser
1) There are many problems with evolutionary theory. There are mathematical improbabilities associated with observed complexities that are not easily explained no matter how much time is provided for them to develop, there are questions about whether the fossil record truly represents changing from one phyla to another (or points to common ancestry), and there is NO evidence of abiogenesis. Since the only alternative theories out there are cosmic panspermia and intelligent design by an intelligent source (the two may be conflated, for sake of the debate), perhaps alternative theories should be discussed. Nope. Hmmm... Read all the links from both Ichneumon's and PatrickHenry's home pages. You might be surprized at just how much is known and where your statement is in error.
To: bvw
I'm not of the opinion that the space shuttle is science. Experiments on crystal growth in zero gravity (gravity is already an extremely weak force compared to the other forces) which never seem to give results, studies on human response, and exploration of low earth orbit are engineering, and no longer exciting engineering. Science is the mars rover, Cassini, Hubble, etc. Sorry, just my own rant.
As for Larry Summers, he had no evidence. Had he had evidence, people would have yelped and examined it, but if he was right... then he was right. Being a mathematician myself, (and married to mathematician member of the female species), I would disagree with him simply because mathematics is the study of categories of objects and the relationships between them. My incredibly sexist observation could that men are good at studying objects, woman at relationships between them. Sexist, yes, evidence, no, so I won't say it on TV, or to a journalist. But if I had evidence, from an experiment say, it would be science, even if it was unpopular.
64
posted on
05/10/2005 6:31:49 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: mlc9852
Neither, I'm trying to tease a definition of "kind" out of them. If there is a definition of "kind" written down, they we can talk about it's merits, other possible definitions, study exceptions and so on. If they won't give a definition then what can be done? Nothing. No science, no predicitions, no exploration or discussion.
65
posted on
05/10/2005 6:33:52 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: A_Conservative_Chinese
The kids in the pic look like they are Japanese. In Asia, creationism is look upon as a quaint myth. People that believe in creationism, in Japan, are typically though of as having meantal health problems. The point of the photo poster was that Kansas is leading its students to the new Dark Ages, where ignorance and superstition replace education and thinking. I've been to some fundamentalist churches where it is preached that it is better to be uneducated, ignorant and going to Heaven than to be educated and damned to Hell for learning and believing anti-Christian ideas. This is the type of mentallity that rejects evolution, or any other scientific idea that isn't scripturally sound. When these people get into power, as they have on the Kansas State Education Board, they will do whatever it takes to force change the cirriculum to reflect their fundamentalist beliefs. Without well educated kids, the U.S. will lose her place in the world as a technological superpower. A country that bases it core beliefs on strict fundamentalism cannot survive as a strong country. Just look at the Islamic states to see what happens when religious fervor trumps sound education. Over there, the Koran is seen as the source of all education and wisdom. And look at how backward and barbaric those places are. That's why creationism is a cancer in the conservative movement.
66
posted on
05/10/2005 6:34:58 AM PDT
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: chronic_loser
There is nothing in the application of empirical methodology which demands we begin with the (NON SCIENTIFIC) assumption that everything has an empirical explanationShould my elf theory of planetary movement be taught along side the theory of gravity?
To: exDemMom
Or that astronomers have never seen anything up there in the big wide sky that resembles a paradise populated by angels?Shhh... big secret.
To: mlc9852; Junior
Nah, we prefer to concentrate on the negatives of the theory of evolution.I am truly curious. What negatives?
To: doc30
You are giving the creationists way too much credit. They HAVE NOT said they want the teaching of the theory of evolution stopped. They want it questioned. Why are the evos so freaked out by that? And, believe it or not, there are Christians who are also scientists, though the vast majority of scientists admit to being atheists. And, by the way, how much evolution do you think is currently taught in US high schools now? Do you think there are a lot of qualified science teachers teaching in high schools? Do you have kids in public high schools now?
70
posted on
05/10/2005 6:40:24 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: RadioAstronomer
Take up your argument with the Kansas crowd. I was citing what I thought their argument to be. If you read the rest of my post, you would see that I am not arguing that position at all. My objections are deeper than that, and go to the framework in which the debate is occurring.
As an aside, I have, in fact read Patrick Henry's entire list of stuff on his web page, although not Ichneumon's (wasn't aware that he had a bunch of stuff, too). If you want to start a thread analyzing how much of this is valid or no, I will join it. For the time being, I will stick with what I was originally posting about.
If you want to respond to that, I will be happy to interact with you on it.
At any rate, thanks for the response.
To: mlc9852
And, believe it or not, there are Christians who are also scientists, though the vast majority of scientists admit to being atheists.According to the statements of the people giving 'testimony' last week, this is not the case. The ID people all gave testimony that there are all evolutionists are atheists, weren't you listening? It was Dr. Miller and others outside the courtroom pleading your point, not the people on the stand.
72
posted on
05/10/2005 6:42:20 AM PDT
by
ThinkPlease
(Fortune Favors the Bold!)
To: mlc9852
And, believe it or not, there are Christians who are also scientists, though the vast majority of scientists admit to being atheists.
I would ask for sources on that. In my experience, it's about half and half. I know some very religions scientists, and some very hard-core athiest scientists, and everything in between. Certainly no vast majority on either side.
73
posted on
05/10/2005 6:42:42 AM PDT
by
crail
(Better lives have been lost on the gallows than have ever been enshrined in the halls of palaces.)
To: mlc9852
Until scientists come up with something they all agree on regarding species, what difference does it make? One thing that I'm sure scientists do agree on. And that's the fact that criticisms of evolution can continue forever. But until a superior alternative explanation is offered that explains all the observed data, then evolution stands.
74
posted on
05/10/2005 6:42:57 AM PDT
by
narby
To: RadioAstronomer
Come on now. Be honest - you don't believe there are any negatives in the entire theory of evolution? Of course not. But we are all just rehashing the same old arguments every day on here. You won't convince those who question evolution and we (those who question evolution) won't convince anyone else. So basically we are all just wasting our time. Luckily my boss is on vacation so I have nothing better to do at the moment.
75
posted on
05/10/2005 6:45:13 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: crail
I know some very religions scientists, and some very hard-core athiest scientists The part of this discussion that amazes me is how some think that if you understand evolution, then you must be an atheist.
76
posted on
05/10/2005 6:45:43 AM PDT
by
narby
To: narby
Whatever you say is absolutely right. No argument from me.
77
posted on
05/10/2005 6:45:59 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: mlc9852; doc30
though the vast majority of scientists admit to being atheists.Not most of them I work with.
To: chronic_loser
I misunderstood! My apologies.
To: mlc9852
You won't convince those who question evolution and we (those who question evolution) won't convince anyone else. The problem is that "those who question evolution" have yet to offer up an alternative to it.
The proposal that some unknown "intelligence" created the species is analogous to the slang term "sh!t happens". It explains everything, and nothing. It is meaningless.
Until a positive alternative for evolution is proposed, then evolution stands, criticism and all.
80
posted on
05/10/2005 6:50:12 AM PDT
by
narby
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 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