Posted on 08/24/2005 6:51:49 AM PDT by Quick1
Topeka — From Darwin to intelligent design to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The debate over teaching evolution in Kansas public schools has caught the attention of a cross-country Internet community of satirists.
In the past few weeks, hundreds of followers of the supreme Flying Spaghetti Monster have swamped state education officials with urgent e-mails.
They argue that since the conservative majority of the State Board of Education has blessed classroom science standards at the behest of intelligent design supporters, which criticize evolution, they want the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught.
“I’m sure you realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory,” writes Bobby Henderson, a Corvallis, Ore., resident whose Web site, www.venganza.org, is part FSM tribute and part job search. Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration
Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration
“It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” he wrote to the education board.
Henderson did not return a telephone call for comment. He says in his letter that it is disrespectful to teach about the FSM without wearing “full pirate regalia.”
Board member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat, whose district includes Lawrence, said he has received more than 500 e-mails from supporters of FSM.
“Clearly, these are just supreme satirists. What they are doing is pointing out that there is no more sense to intelligent design than there is to a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Wagnon said.
Intelligent design posits that some aspects of biology are so complex, they point toward an intelligent creator.
ID proponents helped shepherd a report and hearings that have resulted in science standards that criticize evolution and have put Kansas in the middle of international attention on the subject.
John Calvert, of Lake Quivira, the lawyer who was instrumental in writing the science standards that criticize evolution, said he had seen the FSM e-mails, and was not impressed.
“You can only use that misinformation so long,” Calvert said. Calvert said the science standards do not promote intelligent design, but show that evolution has its critics.
Wagnon and the three other board members who support evolution have written Henderson back, saying they appreciated the comic relief but that they were saddened that the science standards were being changed to criticize evolution.
Noone is forcing evolution down children's throats anymore than math is being forced down their throats.
Learning the theory that underpins modern biology makes for a well rounded education. I think this is a big part of what science lessons are about at high school level - giving kids basic understanding of current scientific fields. I learnt some basic chemistry in chemistry class but I can't say I've ever had a practical use for it. But it did give me some general basic knowledge about chemistry, and it did help me determine which field I was interested in (ie not chemistry).
Then why have scientific arguments been advanced aimed at falsifying it?
The arguments are not trying to falsify ID. They are trying to point out that ID has no scientific basis by which it can be falsified. To claim that the very act of criticizing ID is proof that it is scientifically valid is quite absurd.
Don't you find it funny that Evolution can mean a theory and a be a fact?
Bones are the data. Change is seen in the bones. People make some theories about that change. Evolution is both sentence two and three.
Crappy use of language doncha think.
DK
You were discussing evolution, before the molecular mechs were known. Neither genetics, or evolution were w/o evidence at Darwin's time. Hypothesis, supported by evidence, with no refutation is theory. Evolution was a theory even back then.
"If I were to say, for example, that Thomas Jefferson enjoyed Madeira sherry, I would need to cite a primary source since I can't just make random assertions about an individual."
Sure, the word "enjoy" is a qualitative adjective. Now change it to "drank" the verb. Know all one needs is evidence that he drank the stuff.
I do not except feebly connected analogy as logical refutation of anything.
"Likewise, if I am saying that ID advocates say there is a "hole" in physics, I would need to cite a text by one or more ID advocates making that very assertion. Otherwise, it's not a primary source - it's just hearsay, speculation."
LOL! This is science here. I just proved what they claim. They don't have to say anything whatsoeever. If you say ID is not science, fine, just keep it out of the classroom. Else, you have this proof to deal with that says it's not and all the scientists telling you it's not science.
It's science, deal with the facts and proofs.
A scientific law "is a statement that describes regular or patterned relationships among observable phenomena." It need not be unconditionally believed. Newton's Laws of Motion are a good example; they do not work well under all circumstances.
In other words, no garlic breadsticks for you!
Mendel's experiments with Pisum started in the summer of 1856; in 1859 Darwin's The Origin of Species was published. Mendel read the 1863 German translation, making a few pencil notes on the margins and at the back of book, as he did with another of Darwin's books, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (London,1863). Mendel seemed to accept the idea of the evolution of organic forms. His own understanding of plant hybrids was however at odds with Darwin's more traditional views. Crucially, Mendel focused on what is inherited (i.e. characters) and the patterns through which traits are transmitted from one generation to the next.
Your God is dead. I ate the damn thing last week. If you want, there's still the steaming pile under the outhouse.
Your God is dead. I ate the damn thing last week. If you want, there's still the steaming pile under the outhouse.
If you don't wish to be considered ignorant, then it is usually best to avoid the use of arguments that display your ignorance. I don't know what "fading argument of the left" you are talking about. I was referring to your incorrect usage of the words "theory", and "law" which has nothing to do with politics. Do try to learn the basics of a subject before you talk about it.
Can you empirically prove that proposition?
There is no obligation to prove that divine intervention is not a possibility, or more accurately to disprove that it is a possibility unless and until evidence claiming to support such a notion is presented.
The burden of proof is on the claimant, not the challenger. If you want divine intervention to be scientifically tested, and thus be considered as a 'possibility', you first need to establish it as a testable hypothesis. Good luck with that.
Again, your statement is a philosophical statement about science, not a statement of science. It is not itself an empirical construct.
...science studies what is real
Do you believe that science itself operates according to the laws of physics, that science itself, like everything else is purely physical, and material in nature, or, in other words, what you call "real"? If not, then on what basis do you imply that "the laws of physics govern the world"? But if the laws of physics govern the world how can scientists act as objective observers unless they themselves transcend the laws of physics, and how can they transcend the brute forces of physics if they are simply and nothing but a part of them?
Cordially,
So the standard of language has decreased, along with logic.
As I have said before, species are ill defined. Yet speciation is asserted. Extinctions are asserted as a mechanism, yet we know mergers exist and are ignored. I'd bet the genetic algorithms Junior mentioned used mergers and extinctions.
NS has a lack of results. It does not produce like other UNDERPINNING theories.
We're teaching our kids crappy science, and not giving them better pasta.
DK
Your God is dead. I ate the damn thing last week. If you want, there's still the steaming pile under the outhouse.<<
Repent, repent!!!
If you do, then maybe the Great Rotini will get you indoor plumbing!
DK
They'll know biology and depending on how much they learn, they'll actually understand it. It will allow them to think regarding matters of biology.
That's not what I claimed. I claimed that attempts have been to falsify it on scientific grounds, not merely on the grounds that it is unfalsifiable. Of course it would be absurd to say that the very criticizing ID is proof of its validity, but that's not what I said.
Cordially,
.
I was challenging your definition of science, and asking for empirical proof of it, not the proposition that divine intervention is not a possibility.
Cordially,
Genetic algorithms can use a variety of methods, but I am not aware of merging in the context I think you are using it. Typical genetic algorithms maintain a single inter-breeding population, and there is no other population to merge with.
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.