Advertisement

Archive for Monday, November 7, 2005

Intelligent design good politics for some on Board of Education

Evolution showdown expected on Tuesday

November 7, 2005

Advertisement

Teaching intelligent design is bad science, according to critics of science standards that are expected to be approved this week by the State Board of Education.

But it's good politics, according to a poll conducted for the Journal-World and 6News.

The Education Board, which has a 6-4 conservative majority in favor of standards that question evolution, is expected to give them final approval Tuesday in Topeka, capping a months-long battle that has drawn international attention.

Earlier released poll results showed that two-thirds of Kansans say evolution should be taught in public schools and that there is no conflict in believing in God and the scientific theory of the origins of life.

But the statewide survey also shows support for teaching intelligent design, the notion that life's complexity points toward a creator or designer.


Mariel Pringle 14, a student at Heritage Baptist School, 1781 E. 800 Road, receives advice from her teacher Mary Bottrell, who supports the teaching of intelligent design. The State Board of Education is expected to approve science standards on Tuesday that will include intelligent design.

Mariel Pringle 14, a student at Heritage Baptist School, 1781 E. 800 Road, receives advice from her teacher Mary Bottrell, who supports the teaching of intelligent design. The State Board of Education is expected to approve science standards on Tuesday that will include intelligent design.

Fifty-three percent of Kansans say they know what intelligent design is, and 54 percent of that group says it should be taught in school, according to the poll. Thirty-six percent says intelligent design shouldn't be taught, while 10 percent were unsure or refused to answer.

A breakdown of the results concerning intelligent design shows more Kansans in eight of the 10 Education Board districts favor the teaching of intelligent design, while two districts show resistance.

The highest support is 75 percent in western Kansas, represented by Connie Morris, a Republican from St. Francis.

However, more people in District 4, which includes Lawrence, and is represented by Bill Wagnon, a Democrat from Topeka, believe intelligent design should not be taught. The same is true in District 2, which is represented by Republican Sue Gamble of Shawnee.

Why is there such acceptance of intelligent design, a scientifically unprovable idea?

Many supporters of evolution say it is because, most people if told there is a controversy believe it is fairer to have both sides presented.

In Lawrence, Mary Bottrell and Maggie Backus represent opposite sides of the argument.

Bottrell, an English teacher at Heritage Baptist School, said intelligent design should be taught in science class.

"There are several things that can't be proven by science," Bottrell said.

Bottrell said she believed in the biblical account of creation in Genesis.

"Any step toward teaching about creation is a step in the right direction," she said.

But Backus, a database administrator, said while she believed in God, she believed that intelligent design was "thinly veiled creationism theory" and shouldn't be taught in public schools.

If creationism is brought into the public classroom, she said, then other creationist stories must be presented.

Backus said she was a strong believer in keeping religion and government separate.

"Look around the world. In many societies, the mixture of religion and government has caused many problems," she said.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, at a speech last week noted four State Board of Education races next year will feature conservative Republican incumbents who have pushed for criticisms of evolution in science standards.

"I frankly would like some board members who paid attention to education in Kansas. That would be good to have a partnership moving ahead in that area," Sebelius said at the Kansas AFL-CIO Convention in Topeka.

The four conservatives up for re-election are Connie Morris of St. Francis, Iris Van Meter of Thayer, John Bacon of Olathe, and Ken Willard of Hutchinson. Democrat Janet Waugh of Kansas City also faces re-election.

Board agenda

The State Board of Education will meet Tuesday at the Kansas Department of Education, 120 SE 10th Ave., Topeka.

The board will conduct an open forum from 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. and is scheduled to consider the science standards at 2:55 p.m.

Comments

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

John1945:

"indeed, my friend Wendt puts forth more of an argument in favor of Darwinian theory in one days worth of these little discussions than I've heard out of the "scientific community" since day one of this whole farcical episode."

Them's strong words, my friend. Thank you.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

I meant to say that birds mate with birds outside their species, so I guess the proper term is "crossbreeding"

As long as the offspring survive and prosper, it's okay.

The thing that has always amused me is that people who promote a "Master Race" recommend limiting reproduction to a small population of people with similar genetic makeup. Biologically, that's a disaster waiting to happen due to inbreeding.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Johngalt:

"is there any evidence of one species evolving to another species?"

That is a very good question. If you ever watch the Westminister Dog Show, they do marvelous histories of the different breeds. One of the things you notice is that many of the breeds of dogs did not exist more than ~120 years ago.

Selective breeding is the cause, a kind of "Natural Selection" as it were. It comes down to the fundamental question of what constitutes a species?

Is it a particular DNA code? If you look at it that way, you discover that our DNA is very similar in sequence to creatures outside of "human". I may be wrong but I read somewhere that our DNA sequence is very close to that of bears. For what it's worth.

Is it number of physical features (two arms bilateral, two legs bilateral, etc)? Are physically disabled children "inhuman" because their mothers took thalidomide?

In chemistry, it's easy. Count the number of protons and you got your man. In biology, it's much harder. In botany, it's physical features. In zoology, it's physical features but there is so much overlap across species with regard to who has what physical feature.

Then there is inbreeding. Birds do it all the time. The result is new breeds.

"Order" is in the eye of the beholder.

0

johngalt 8 years, 5 months ago

serious and honest qeustions:

is there any evidence of one species evolving to another species?

0

John1945 8 years, 5 months ago

Posted by yourworstnightmare (anonymous) on November 7, 2005 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John, Your intemperate response about "anti-evangelical hate groups" is exactly what I expect from a member of the Kansas Taliban.


Let's see, you've referred to me as John spankboy and a member of the "Kansas Taliban" and yet you refuse to offer one element out of my original post that was incorrect. Is there something here that you're going to offer up besides more evidence of your religious bigotry.

And incidentally, to the LJ World censors, if this is deemed removable, I would request that both of yourworstnightmare's previous posts that mention me also be removed. Thank you, it's always nice to have balance.

0

John1945 8 years, 5 months ago

Posted by Kodiac (anonymous) on November 7, 2005 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lastly but best of all John - We have already been over this many times John and though Darwin and Spencer were contemporaries, Darwin never coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", that was Spencer. This phrase is not an accurate representation of what evolution is and you know it John. We have already been over the the title on the Origins of Species book and has nothing to with racism and it is only about the species that have adaptations that may help them or enable them to survive to reproduce. To imply racism or otherwise is a distortion of the truth.


I'm not sure what you're responding to. There is nothing in any post I've ever made that suggested that Darwin did come up with the phrase "survival of the fittest". You're welcome to search, but it's not there.

What I've pointed out is that Darwin was an admirer of Spencer's work and did indeed state that he felt that his work should be called Biological Spencerism rather than calling Spencer's work Social Darwinism. That's factual.

And, while Darwin may not have made race an issue other prominent evolutionary thinkers of the period did.

One of the folks who also drew a widely touted diagram that purported toshow the similarity between human and various animal fetuses (feti?), whatever, which was later discredited also drew an evolutionary diagram that showed evolution passing through a succession of apelike creatures one of whom had a very Semitic looking face, and another with a very Negroid looking face and culminating with a male who looked like he had just stepped out of a Greek bath house.

Incidentally, I've never approached this debate from a religious perspective, and I could care less about the various fine points of biological theory. I hate biology with a passion and you may quote me ad nauseum.

What I do take offense at is the biology uber alles approach that the original standards a couple of school boards ago took, and also the incredibly authoritarian nature in which the "scientific community" has addressed the debate.

I have seen only one biologist, a newly hired guy down in Wichita, who has said I will stand here and debate you on the merits of the theories. Most of the others are taking a stand that one dares not critique Darwinian theory, and it is a theory if you have any conception of epistomology, which I find to be utterly silly.

Indeed, my friend Wendt puts forth more of an argument in favor of Darwinian theory in one days worth of these little discussions than I've heard out of the "scientific community" since day one of this whole farcical episode.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

John1945:

It may be two revisions of the same text. I went through the first couple of pages of each one and they were different, but I didn't go deeply enough to be sure. There was a definite publishing date on one and nothing on the second.

The books are old enough to be in the Public Domain now. I wish every book could be this available. Makes it real convenient for searches and cut and paste.

0

John1945 8 years, 5 months ago

Posted by wendt (anonymous) on November 7, 2005 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John1945:

I did not know this but Darwin appears to have published two separate texts:

On the Origin of Species

&

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection

The text of which can be accessed here: http://charles-darwin.classic-literature...

Not that such trivia has any significance to this debate. (I did not know that two books existed myself before this morning.

It is neat that the full text of both books is posted there.


Wendt:

Thanks for the clarification. I'm wondering if we're talking about two revisions of the same text, or two separate texts. Either way, I'll look into it. Thank you.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Boltzmann:

1 - with a name like Boltzmann, I think it's safe to say that you've solved some PE+KE+in = PE+KE+out equations in your life. Any relation, however distant??

2 - make sure you take the time to fill in what you might erroneously assume the conservative bloggers know already. The scary thing is not that they don't understand evolution; The scary thing is that they don't understand science itself and that's worse.

Good post. Glad to have you aboard.

0

scottjp 8 years, 5 months ago

You have to say that ID and Evolution co-exist, because you use most of the evolution theories, except you are mainly trying to find the starting point of it all. With this, you come up with some intelligent designer. First, just because I personally do not believe in religion does not mean that many(and probably most) of the anti ID'ers on here are the same. Maybe I am reading into your statement too much, but saying that I am anti-Christ and anti religion is not why I believe in evolution. I believe in it because it is visible. Religion is not. It is also not right to say that I or other people that do not believe in religion Hate organized religion or that it has something to do with my/our judgement. I do not hate religion, although I do hate extremists of any group (ie. politics). I have many christian friends, jewish friends, and believe it or not my girlfriend is hindu. If my mind was so closed, I would just hang out with other people that do not believe in god.

Like it or not, order can happen randomly. Maybe you are thinking of it in a different context. If you have any knowledge or scientific background you should understand this in the context of 'survival of the fittist.' Many processes in the body are randomly formed (ie. the immunoglobulin chains of the immune system) If these are 'poorly arranged' then the immune system can fail...organism dies. Order takes place in this context. Sorry if it's not what you are thinking. Fairly easy example for you!

0

boltzmann 8 years, 5 months ago

Two comments to Mr. Ribs

Mr. Ribs says "Order does not come about from pure randomness - VERY, VERY, SIMPLE"

Comment: ice has a more ordered structure than liquid water, but we have all observed water converting to ice. According to your "simple" observation, water would never freeze. Mr. Ribs seems to hold an incorrect view of the second law of thermodynamics.

Mr. Ribs says "Order does not happen randomly. You will never be able to create order randomly - it does not happen..if you believe it does...you are a fool"

Comment: Aside from the fact that this statement is demonstratively false (See first comment), it also shows that Mr. Ribs adheres to the common misconception that evolution is a random process. Natural selection is NOT a random process, but is actually quite nonrandom in that change is driven by the need to optimize reproductive success.

I would suggest that Mr. Ribs learn more about basic science - including thermodynamics.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

PorkRibs:

"The problem lies in that the anti ID folks are also anti-Christ(or any organized religion)...so they feed people their big bang crap to go along legitimate theories on evolution."

Nay, no bias there. Completely objective. Thoughtful even. HAHAHAHAHAAH

Like I have said before, because we don't accept a theory that by definition can not be tested, then we scientists get placed in the same category as people who reach over the railing and interfere with a ball in play.

===

"Their hatred toward organized religion has clouded their judgement."

=== If I don't hate organized religion (and actually I am a member of an organized religion) then what possible relevence can what someone feels about an organized religion bring to a discussion about science and evolution.

Your statement is analogous to saying someone can't talk about Pontiacs because they are vegetarian.

Unless IT'S ALL RELIGION to you. But then that would make you "close-minded".

0

PorkRibs 8 years, 5 months ago

Evolution and ID can and do co-exist. A fine line between evolution and adaptation. I don't have a real problem with certain aspects of evolution. To me it is as much common sense as believing that an intelligent being can only create order. The problem lies in that the anti ID folks are also anti-Christ(or any organized religion)...so they feed people their big bang crap to go along legitimate theories on evolution. Their hatred toward organized religion has clouded their judgement.
THOSE are closed minds. Like many here. Order does not happen randomly. You will never be able to create order randomly....it does not happen....if you believe it does....you are a fool. The mere idea that you think that it is a fact that we are here out of sheer randomness should prove to you who actually has the closed mind.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

PorkRibs doesn't realize that the watch is subject to increasing entropy whether someone shakes it apart or not.

I may be a highly educated derelict but at least I know that much.

And I'm not stupid enough to believe in something I can't show others.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

PorkRibs:

Okay, I don't know where you are going with that example.

Is this a third school of Intelligent Design thought?

First we had the "Young Earth" theory. Earth is 5000-8000 years old. Debunked and not even accepted by Intelligent Designers any more. It's what the Intelligent Designers call "Creationism".

Second we had the "complexity" theory. Everything is so complex and it couldn't have gotten that way by itself. Hence some creature named the Intelligent Designer made it. Problem with that theory is no experiential data of the Intelligent Designer, therefore the theory (conveniently) can not be verified or tested.

Third we have PorkRibs theory of "If you can break it, then there must be a God". An offshoot (help me out here) of the Complexity school but one that provides a much more incoherent explanation. Still no experential data of the guy with the rock destroying creation.

To reiterate: Science does not exclude possible existance of the Intelligent Designer. Science say that we have no sense-data of the Intelligent Designer hence we can not correlate his actions with any results and create theories regarding him. We have no theories to test so we can not verify the Intelligent Design theory.

Therefore it is not science. That isn't to say that it won't be in the future with the addition of some sense data but not right now.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

OldEnuff:

"Science does not have "spin", but scientists with agendas do have spin. That is my position: we've been fed a theory and told it's "truth"."

As someone who has done real world science and published, I can tell you that scientists who "spin" don't last long.

What scientists publish has to be peer reviewed and duplicated by other scientists. When other scientists can't duplicate what you claim, then you lose credibility.

It's very hard (ne impossible) to have a tissue sample, animal, source of energy or an inert object in your experimental protocol help you "spin" your results.

In fact, it's a maxim of experimental science that the object of your research will "do as it damn well pleases" regardless of anything you might want it to do or want it to achieve. That's research.

0

prospector 8 years, 5 months ago

pork ribs

How are watch parts comparable to a living organism?
Take you apart and you will not tick either. Have you considered the science of chaos? You call the anti ID ers simpletons yet you have a simple explanation debunking evolution. Simple is not always correct. Randomness put you here today is a fact. You should have finished:

Mind closed

0

scottjp 8 years, 5 months ago

Old Enuf...people that do not believe in religion do not have to try to disprove/reject a god. If you do not believe in something, there is no need to do this. People that do believe in religion do have to try to prove/accept a god because there is absolutely no proof to the fact of a god. With this, evolution is not solely a liberal idea. It is also not needed, nor does it try, to reject religion.

0

prospector 8 years, 5 months ago

It is a leap of faith to bring one cell organisms through to homo sapien.

Some facts I like to think show it happened:

The chemical formula's of blood and chloropyll are very close. The salinity of our blood is the same as the ocean. Mammals- two eyes,ears,nostrils,and lungs A central nervous and circulator system Bearing live offspring

Yes it is not an exact science but you have to agree that calling it a theory only clouds the issue.

0

PorkRibs 8 years, 5 months ago

OK...to all ANTI- I.D. simpletons: Take a reeeeel nice Swiss pocket watch. You know...the ones with 8 gazillion parts? Take the watch apart without breaking a single piece. Put all of the pieces into your favorite Crown Royal bag and shake it. (we know how you have a hard time with the truth... so please put in ALL the pieces in the bag.) SHAKE IT! keeeeeep shaking. How long do you think it will take you to shake that watch back together....ready to wind and set?

No matter how much science you observe it with.....the watch will NEVER come back together while it is being shaken.


That is exactly what ANTI- ID folks want you to believe. Sorry....no matter how educated the derelict.....they remain a derelict.

Order does not come about from pure randomness. VERY, VERY, SIMPLE. Bottom line.

Case closed.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

OldEnuf:

I guess what I was trying to say is, if I detect both error and arrogance, then you asked for it.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

OldEnuf:

Bad analogy, but the incoherence is still there.

Intelligent Design is a myth / religion. No amount of diplomacy will make that fact palatable nor elevate the myth to the level of peer reviewed science.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

OldEnuf:

You and I know that you've read what I've written and I've read what you've written. I know you're a good guy.

We are not telling you to not believe in Jesus, God, or anything else. I think it's great that I that you believe these things and act on them. Like I said, you're a good guy.

Intelligent Design is like the Easter Bunny, or (more properly) the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's hard to have someone defend the Flying Spaghetti Monster and have it not come out derogatory.

If I have done that, then I am sorry. I do make the disclaimer that if I tell someone the correct answer or cite a publication where someone can put their questions to rest, and someone STILL acts the fool, then yes, I will "take that someone to school" as they say at the playground courts.

0

badger 8 years, 5 months ago

I'd like to enter a point of clarification before someone eats prospector's head.

Evolution, itself, is a fact. It is the observed and reproducible process by which natural selection acts on a population to produce genetic drift. You can separate a population of fruit flies from the same hatching into two groups, subject them to different pressures for fifty generations (less than a year), and find that you have two substantially different populations, because the fruit flies have evolved differently in response to selection based on the pressures of their environments.

The theory of the origin of species (specifically humans) as a result of evolution from unicellular organisms in a long process, which has never been able to be conclusively proven or reproduced, remains a theory, which (scientifically speaking) does not mean 'just a guess'. It means 'an explanation which takes into account the known data and provides a reasonable amount of flexibility to allow for additional data, but is open to change because it cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions.'

I just like to throw that clarification out there, because the fact of evolution (change of a species population over generations of time in response to environmental stimulus) gets mixed up with the theory of evolution (more correctly called the theory of the evolutionary origin of species).

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 5 months ago

See Wendt: now even you compare me to an incoherent drunk.

Later.

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 5 months ago

Fossil: I never stated that about ID. My perspective is more along the lines of "design suggests a designer" not "it's so BIG and we are so DUMB that we should just throw up our hands".

Badger: NOT well said. If you are replying to me, please note that I am NOT saying that science is a religion. I'd have to be Jethro Bodine that think/state such a thing. I'm saying that what we are being FED as scientific FACT is NOT always a proven fact. Evolution is being driven by a liberal culture that rejects God and needs alternative answers to God in order to bring legitimacy to its rejection of God. For some, evolution is believed because it has been examined and found to have merit. For some, it is an excuse for rejecting God and God's authority over mankind. This is what I'm concerned with, because this is (in my assessment) is why it is the only theory taught in our schools.

Kodiac: I've studied it enough to bring myself to a place where I understand these things for myself. I'm not in a place where I'm going to be able to win a debate. I'm not going down that road (even if I had the time). But, I'll state this: thanks to our public school system, I've spent more time studying evolution than I have ID, but still choose ID. Can you say that you had studied ID (not just reading criticisms) to that extent prior to reaching a conclusion about your beliefs? I dont' want to assume too much, but probably not. Not a lot of mainstream publishers, schools, libraries and universities are going to make that information readily available to you, and besides, you'd be an outcast for being so brave. That's why you've never heard of the legitimate scientists who promote ID: they publish their thoughts, then lose their jobs. Do you see what I mean?

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

OldEnuf:

There is no "liberal agenda". Evolution is not a religion. Evolution can be and has been proven to explain and predict the change in the development of all creatures (not just humans).

You can't just say that something is legitimate merely because you declare it to be.

The scientific community is not waiting to spring from the oppression of evolution into the light of Intelligent Design. The scientific community is laughing at you and wondering, quite frankly, how things got this far in the debate.

We know what science is. It's the Intelligent Designer / Creationist crowd that is ignorant of even that basic knowledge. This ignorance is evident in every statement made and doesn't do your argument much favor.

It's like listening to a drunk expound on politics. The drunk could be correct but the inebriated state tends to cause people to dismiss what is being said.

0

prospector 8 years, 5 months ago

Oenuf-already! Fact- evolution happens. Start with the penicillin resistant bacteria. It is an easy example of survival of the fittest. There are thousands of other examples proving this science and explaining the questions that arise about how, over the billions of years, what has happened. Cut the theory cr*p.

You started on the problems in your church being outside forces undermining it. My response to that is hold up a mirror. Still worried about long haired pinko? Accept love all thing great and small, grace, care for your fellow man and your church might flourish. Cram ID, homophobia, the devil dressed as liberals, and a womens place is in the home down someone's throat, you reap what you sow. So are Bush and company the bad example boomers?

0

scottjp 8 years, 5 months ago

OldEnuf...no matter how evolution is taught in school it can't violate the separation of church and state. If it is taught as fact, then it is taught wrong. It cannot be a violation because it has nothing to do with religion. If there is no religion involved, how can it violate a Law that has religion as one of its pieces? You cannot use the argument, because it doesn't say anything about religion, it is in some way talking about religion.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

Old enough -- "Now we are at a place where some have another scientific theory, and want it to be given some legitimacy"

But that's where many of us are crying "foul". ID is not a scientific theory. It's a religious theory.

You are one of the few on either side here that has not resorted to name-calling, etc. (myself included) and I commend you for it.

That being said, I don't follow your arguement that evolution is "Liberal propoganda". Evolution wasn't born in the US, it's been developed around the world and is taught in schools around the world.

0

scottjp 8 years, 5 months ago

Yes, thank you! I also went to bankboy's website...if you haven't, GO NOW...it is a riot. I got a good laugh at it.

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 5 months ago

Wendt:

Science does not have "spin", but scientists with agendas do have spin. That is my position: we've been fed a theory and told it's "truth". If you can understand how key that is to my perspective, that evolution became legitimate because those who rubber-stamped the curriculum had an agenda, you can see that there is no way to make the "seperation of church and state" arguement that you and so many others are making AGAINST ID. Evolutionists violated (sodomized) the concept of seperation of church and state maaaaaany years ago.

Now we are at a place where some have another scientific theory, and want it to be given some legitimacy, but that's not going to happen without a fight because those who have held the keys for so long don't want to open that door.

I'll tell you what concerns me. That I cannot post my ideas here without someone who thinks themself "enlightened" calling me "nutso" and worse. None of these people would treat me that way if they knew me. And, likewise, that many religious conservatives come here armed with faith... without realizing that their beliefs are rooted in fact, and can be supported intelligently without just getting all mad and being an embarassement (Titus 2:7-8). 95% of the posts we read here say "I choose not to think, learn and communicate; but to attack." I debate even looking at these articles because most of this is very unproductive, un-thinking dogma.

0

badger 8 years, 5 months ago

Science as a liberal religion?

Man, do I ever wish it were so.

However, religion is a set of beliefs designed around a faith that requires no proof. Science is a set of beliefs designed around a faith that everything can be proven regardless of belief in it if one is willing to question deeply enough. Just ask, say, the Catholic Church if it's possible to disbelieve science into being untrue. Excommunicating Galileo sure showed all those silly, foolish people who believed the earth revolved around the sun, didn't it? I mean, it's not like they had to apologize several hundred years later and--oh, wait...

I agree with the proposal made above, that it would be acceptable to add more philosophy to the school curriculum and discuss world religions and their theories of origin and science. However, because the same elements that want ID in the schools don't want nonChristian religions taught in a philosophy class, and the hard left balks at any mention of Christianity, even in discussion of it as a motivating historical factor, a la the Crusades, it would never happen, so people who want their God in public schools have to try to backdoor it in science classes where it doesn't belong.

Faith is a philosophical issue concerned with notions of belief. Science is concerned with notions of fact. If science weren't concerned with notions of fact, it wouldn't be so picky about what is a 'theory' and what is a 'law'. If science were faith-based, enough people believed in something, it could be a 'law', but that's not how it works, now, is it? The origin of species, by strict definition, remains a theory because the rules of science say so, no matter how many people believe it's true.

I believe in science, but I don't have faith in it, for faith requires belief without proof, and I only believe science to the extent that it's been proven. For me, the big bang remains a theory, not a fact, but it's the best available theory, so it's the one I'm basing my set of assumptions on.

0

Kodiac 8 years, 5 months ago

Hey OldEnuf2BYurDad,

Ok Dad you need to actually start giving evidence. Saying that if evolution is a science then ID is a science is not going to cut it here. Saying there are many, legitimate scientists (actual college professors, not just the one's at places like BYU and Bob Jones U) who can lend legitimacy to the theory of ID is a bunch of crap Dad. I can just see it now, oh yeah the evidence of the fossil record, molecular biology, genetics, geology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy this is all "liberal evidence" so it can't be legitimate. Come on Dad it isn't about being liberal or conservative, it isn't even about social change it is about what you can see in the natural world.

"The permissiveness of the liberal 60's ... still biting us on the arse." Good grief. You and bankboy need to quit your crying and whining and actually start supporting your ideas with actual evidence instead this smokescreen of political agendas.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

Old enough - I'm being serious here. Not casting barbs, just trying to understand---- ID's basic premise can't ever be proven because it is "Life is so complex that it just can't have happened randomly, so I must infer that something intelligent designed it." If I have it correct, then that is not science. That is "I do not understand this, so I will assume no one ever will, and take it on faith."

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 5 months ago

Wendt:

But what if the teaching of evolution IS ALSO a LIBERAL religious agenda (which, I think it is)? I'm of the belief that the best scientific theories should be presented in our schools, and I don't believe that's what's happening right now. Evolution (a religious agenda) gets it's "equal time", but since ID has not been recognized by those who have hijacked the title of "legitimate scientists", ID gets to be the religious agenda that IS suppressed due to our seperation of church and state.

When evolution is taught as FACT (not theory) in our public schools, church and state has been violated.

You are right in that IF ID is NOT science, it has no place in the schools. This is where you and I differ. I say it IS SCIENCE (at least as valid an idea as evolution), and deserves some attention in our schools.

Let me put it this way: if teaching evolution is "legitimate", then so is ID. Neither of them can be proven right or wrong, so give them both the attention they both deserve. Don't just say "the self-appointed experts say ID is religion, so we have to reject it as science". There are many, legitimate scientists (actual college professors, not just the one's at places like BYU and Bob Jones U) who can lend legitimacy to the theory of ID. But, they remain off the radar because 40 years ago conservatives watched the liberals take over education while the conservatives acted like it didn't matter. The permissiveness of the liberal 60's... still biting us on the arse. "Everything goes" pervaded even our churches while we slept on the job. Go into our churches today. Where is the Vietnam generation? Many of that generation was lost to liberalism. Now, there is a generation that sees the failures of the baby boomers... and this is what drives this social change.

Until we ALL open our minds to ask "what is science?", we will go round and round on this issue. Don't think for one second that this will remain a "Kansas issue" any more than the Civil War remained a "bleeding Kansas" issue.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

I don't know that IDer's are "nutso". Passionate - yes. Misinformed - absolutely. As obvious as evolution is to those who roll up their sleeves and play with it, ID/Creation is "obvious" to the sheep who believe the rhetoric they are told.

Challenging assumptions is great! Blindly believing rhetoric to the point where you cannot/will not look at obvious evidence is not only wrong, but dangerous.

0

BunE 8 years, 5 months ago

Ok, ok, leave the bankboy alone. He said he was out, but we keep pulling him back in!

This is the supertruth about creation

www.theworld isflatandweusedtrexesasjesushorses.ca

My cousin, he found a tooth that we though was real old but an angel came to him and said that god put it there to test us. Loki the trixter!!!

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

Wendt, fossil, et al. Thanks for your efforts here to educate the unwilling. These fundamentalist creationists/IDers are nutso. Yikes. They have a screw lose, the one that connects them to reality.

As was stated earlier, the market will eventually do away with these intemperate idealogues, but they are doing their best to take the entire state of Kansas with them. They will ensure that Kansas remains an intellectual and economic backwater.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

OldEnuf:

Science doesn't have "spin".

Children learning the Bible has gone on far longer than children learning science. It's the Bible trying to foist itself off as science that is new.

It's interesting that the Bible claims that science is wrong and then attempts to achieve the same status of certitude, an endeavor destined to fail.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Fossilhunter:

It will go right over Bankboy's head.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Bankboy119:

I went to your webpage. Humans only 5000 years old??? HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH

It's called the "Young Earth" school of Intelligent Design / Creationism. It's been largely discredited amongst the Intelligent Designer / Creationists that the church people cite as their experts.

The brainiacs among the Creationists know that "Young Earth" isn't going to fly, so they bailed to "complexity" or some sort of reverse Newtonian limit to the beginning of time. They don't believe Young Earth and neither should you.

You picked a part of ID that the IDers don't believe anymore.

0

The_Original_Bob 8 years, 5 months ago

Hey, if Kansas wants to teach that Jesus walked with dinosaurs that's great. This won't end with the vote Tuesday.

No matter how smart parents think they are, kids ain't stupid. And neither are teachers. This will get passed and then it has to be sold to unbelieving teachers who will be forced to teach it to kids who can see through BS. Have you ever tried to teach something you didn't believe in?

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

bankboy - potassium-argon. Much longer half-life than C-14

0

Densmore 8 years, 5 months ago

From Barclay: "Intelligent Design looks at the same evidence as evolutionists and scientifically interprets it differently." Barclay's comment illustrates the problem: A lack of evidence in support of evolution may cast doubt on evolution as a viable theory, but in no way does a lack of evidence in support of a natural process CREATE scientific evidence in support of a supernatural process. A lack of evidence simply casts some doubt on the natural process, meaning we may not understand the natural processes at work. Oldenuf: ID ultimately requires a supernatural explanation. Science deals with nature, not the supernatural. Hence ID, by definition, cannot be an "underground science" and cannot be part of a science class. If ID is taught in science class, the class is no longer about science. Personally, I do not believe that the evidence in support of evolution is conclusive. It is, however, highly persuasive and therefore remains the best available scientific explanation. However, evolution as a theory of development could be wrong. But if it is wrong, it does not logically follow that ID is correct. I have no problem with people that do not believe in evolution. I have no problem with people who believe in ID. The problem results when ID'ers push their beliefs as "science." Since no science is involved, the discussion ultimately comes down to a noisy hair-pulling fight. If, at the end of the day, the only ones left standing are the ID'ers, the next fight is over who's God did the Designing. Is the Christian idea of God any more likely to be the Designer than the highest Pawnee God ("Tirawa")? If so, where is the evidence? You see, it becomes laughable. Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so forth.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Actually, they have become footnotes in history. That's the point.

The people supporting Intelligent Design / Creationism are scared. They see their economic power waning. Governments are corrupt. Jobs are outsourced, etc, etc. They fall back on the thing that gives them comfort,....religion. Religion is glad to take them in because it gives conservative christianity it's political power. Ministers love political power.

My point to BunE is not that market based economies are best. It's to point out that market based economies are a red herring, because the markets are controlled. They are not free. It's a myth.

Let me repeat that: The markets are controlled.

0

BunE 8 years, 5 months ago

Compromise curriculum:

  1. History/philosophy of science (ID,creation, FSM)
  2. Actual science (Use the method, do experiments, put theories to the test)

If some conservatives take their children out of school and home school them, so much the better. Their experiments at the expense of their children will be exposed. They will lose economic clout and rapidly become footnotes in history. Like the Hugonauts or diplodicus. (true story: dinos became extinct after failing to adopt market-based economies like the bible says we should)

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Do I think it will happen??? No.

These movements only exist in ignorance. They can not exist when people know, are informed. When people become aware, the movements become footnotes of history, like Joseph McCarthy.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

OldEnuf:

You are getting so close to the truth.....if only I can push you over the edge.

You are correct. There is great turmoil right now. It appears that we made a boo-boo in going to Iraq. We are "the bad guys". You are correct in assuming that the Intelligent Design debate in Kansas actually means something to the rest of the country. It does.

The point of the Intelligent Design debate is not whether or not God exists. The people who are promoting the debate could care less. The point is modification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

America was built on the premise of tolerance of religion. The Founding Fathers didn't put separation of church and state in there because they were drunk on Caribbean Rum. It was because they had experienced persecution based on religion.

In establishing the conservative Christian religion as the state religion, we exclude Buddhists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Muslims, etc. We become one nation under Jerry Johnson. That is what is at stake here.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

OldEnough - Again, ID is NOT science. It is anti-science. If people want to home school because they do not believe the science, well there's not much you can do about that. If they want to run away and hide, so be it.

Bankboy - if you really believe that people that study evolution believe we are related to insects or all other "meat", then you really, really don't get it. I think that's what is sad about most of the people beating the ID drum. They really don't understand evolution. They just "know" it's wrong.

0

observer 8 years, 5 months ago

Bankboy, Just point out the facts and evidence.Saying you belive isn't a fact. Faith is not evidence or proof of anything.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Bankboy119:

If you are here to be "right", then we can't help you.

If you are here to learn something, then we can direct you to places, webpages, teachers, and institutions where your ignorance can be corrected.

Stop pouting.

0

bankboy119 8 years, 5 months ago

Well since all of the evolutionists on here are such experts I shouldn't waste any more of your time. You can say what you want about my "knowledge of science" and laugh at God all you want. This debate is completely pointless though because no one listens to reason.

If you all want to believe that everything here came from some ooze then have at it. The actual facts do point to evidence for creation and you guys can look at all the skewed information you want. I on the other hand do not like to think that everytime I swat a fly or eat meat that I just ate long lost cousin Vinnie or killed some distant relative named Marge.

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 8 years, 5 months ago

Wendt:

Keep this in mind: generations of schoolchildren have been actively taught evolution, without any reference to alternate views. Only 53% of the population knows what ID is because evolution is the only thing to which people in the mainstream have been exposed. Your 28% figure is not an opinion poll result.

Ignorance does not equate with "lack of support". If we actively taught Kansans about ID in the public schools, would the 54% figure stay at 54, or go up, or go down? It's hard to voice support for something that you know nothing about. Kansas are scientific agnostics on the subject of ID because it is an underground science that is fighting for legitimacy in a society that wants to keep it underground. IF we make ID mainstream, those statistics will likely change. Change dramatically.

I supported us attacking Iraq because I believed the crap I was being fed about Saddam and terrorism and satellite photos, etc. Many Americans made the same mistake. The same thing is happening with this ID/evolution debate: we have bought into evolution because it's what we've been told to believe. Just change the "spin", and see what happens.

Even those who oppose ID need to think about this: when all the brightest children of our conservative families are being homeschooled and sent to private schools over this issue, will that be good for our public school system? When the brightest of the conservative teachers leave the public school system for violence-free, drug-free private school jobs, will that help or hurt our public schools? What will this do to mainstream society when this "split" occurs in Kansas? Will we be proud of the results? We need to recognize that we are on the verge of a social brain-drain away from our public schools. With the un-addressed social issues that are already killing our schools, it's already happening. This ID debate will make things worse. If the liberals (or, even the moderates) of Kansas believe in preserving a strong public school system, they better start thinking "compromise" on ID.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Fossilhunter:

I didn't say the Intelligent Designers / Creationists were right. I think they are batsh*t crazy.

I would feel threatened if my whole world view came crashing down around the economic and political climate we exist in today. I know where the fear comes from, I just have a different way of dealing with it.

It was the amusement of watching Intelligent Designers / Creationists assume a facade of scientific inquiry that I miss.

Kinda like watching your father crossdress. It's amusing.

PS My Father did not continue his transvestitism after he married my Mother.

That is, assuming he actually married Mother. I admit I wasn't there at the time so I can offer no testimony but it's what I'm told happened.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

wendt - I agree, but come on...we're debating a scientific theory vs. a belief. There is no way to convince the other side they are wrong, because a belief, by definition is supposed to stand up in the face of or in spite of the facts.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

I think I liked it better when we were at least pretending to debate theories......

Some facade of sincerity was nice but this blog has degenerated into "I know you are but what am I????".

0

rhd99 8 years, 5 months ago

Conservatives, enjoy the party now because as it so happens there is a court challenge involving intelligent design in Pennsylvania. The litigants AGAINST ID say that ID proponents are mixing religion into a PUBLIC SCHOOL environment. Now, public schools are paid for by state taxpayers all across the country. Mixing CHURCH & STATE in public education is WRONG. The time to start putting together plans to disband the state board of education after 2006 is NOW!

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

Badger - You're welcome to come, but we'll have to suspend dancing around books. Dancing leads, to well, you know....

And you get a bunch of books together and someone's sure to start burning something.

0

bennyoates 8 years, 5 months ago

Along with yesterday's article about how research is becoming expendable at our Research-1 University of Kansas, this article about the Board of Education makes about an attractive a lure as I can think of for those who want to move to Kansas and increase our intellectual firepower!

Keep up the good work, Intelligent Designers! I already admire your politically correct name for what once was known as Christian Folklore! Don't leave a child behind when you serve up that Ol' time religion!

0

badger 8 years, 5 months ago

fossilhunter-

I think I've got a recipe for that. Can I come to the meeting too?

I'll bring pocket copies of blue-state science textbooks so we can all worship the Divine Heresy of Science and do our little dance around them.

Will there be goatskin legging rental?

0

prospector 8 years, 5 months ago

fossillhunter- there are excellent examples of the X-fish at Dyche Museum on campus and Sternberg Museum in Hays.

How 'bout those Mossasaurs. They made "Jaws" look like a cornhusker.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

Actually, Prospector, I'll bring Xiphactinus bones. That is a monster fish of greater than 15' that swam in the ocean millions of years ago that covered Kansas. It was "designed" to be an apex predator that featured characteristics of modern fish, but also many more primative ones as well. It was also "designed" to go extinct about 60 million years ago.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

John1945:

I did not know this but Darwin appears to have published two separate texts:

On the Origin of Species

&

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection

The text of which can be accessed here: http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/

Not that such trivia has any significance to this debate. (I did not know that two books existed myself before this morning.

It is neat that the full text of both books is posted there.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

John, Your intemperate response about "anti-evangelical hate groups" is exactly what I expect from a member of the Kansas Taliban.

0

prospector 8 years, 5 months ago

John-"anti-evangelical hate-group meeting" Hey when is the next one? Yourworstnightmare -bring cupcakes with pentagrams and 666 on them. Fossilhunter- bring a Mastadon bone to chew on. I'll bake a devils food cake.

John, institutes of higher learning meet every day and ponder these questions. Sorry there is no room for you to ponder something new or evolutionary.

0

StirrrThePot 8 years, 5 months ago

Next they'll be attacking Einstein's theory of relativity by saying it is not how each person perceives it, but how the Intelligent Designer perceives it.

0

BunE 8 years, 5 months ago

Anti-evangelical? I think not, your attempt to frame the argument by labling those who would support education and scientific discovery as members of "hate groups" is as ridiculous as those who would attempt to frame the argument of the existance of god by using the scientific method.

Darwin did not invent evolution, he wrote about it and hypothesized and tested it and brought it to the forefront of scientific thought. The thousands of scientists who have come since have further refined his work, rejecting some parts, embracing others.

That's how science works.

0

nekansan 8 years, 5 months ago

Apparently even the Vatican supports evolution. It's just the Kansas Schoold board who can't seem to come to grips with the fact that evolution is the proper science that should be taught in Kansas.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

0

StirrrThePot 8 years, 5 months ago

ID attacks Darwin's theory as it was over 150 years ago. Science has changed a great deal since then. Darwin was wrong about things as much as he was right. The truth is, there should be no debate, as ID is not science. Science is testable. Religion is not.

Do I believe ID should be taught in schools? You bet! But put it where it belongs--in a religion or philosophy class where it belongs. I have known people who attended private Christian schools and these principles were never at issue. Why is that? Because science is science and religion is religion.

If these absurd changes they are proposing to approve do go through, someone answer me this--Who's creation/intelligent design story should be taught in the classroom? Christian? Buddhist? Muslim? Mine? Yours?

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

John - I'm not so worried about Darwin. I'm convinced by the research I have personally done and the evidence I see in the ground. I have real knowledge of the subject. The problem I have with ID'ers is that most of the people that are embracing it (that includes ALL of the KS BOE folks that want it taught so bad) have absolutly no idea of what they are talking about.

0

John1945 8 years, 5 months ago

Posted by yourworstnightmare (anonymous) on November 7, 2005 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I continue to be amazed at the dearth of knowledge about science displayed by fundamentalists and IDers compared to their willingness to spout off about it. John, spankboy, and Barclay are so off the mark as to be ludicrous.

Guys, why don't you get some real knowledge instead of relying on what your political-religious texts and mullahs say about evolution.

You all seem to assume that scientists adhere to every word written by Darwin and that the theory of evolution has not changed since Darwin. This is ridiculous. Religion might operate this way but science does not.

Your ignorance is truly unbecoming."

Excuse me, what in my post was not factual? Before you start bandying words like ignorance around, you probably ought to know something besides what you picked up at your last anti-evangelical hate-group meeting.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

but the intelligent designer can perceive it, of course...;-)

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

FastEddie:

Bankboy119 MIGHT (and I use that term loosely) have been referring to the wave vs particle debate re: quanta but I doubt it.

Like light, I bet he doesn't realize that wave-like phenomenom exist and extend past where humans can perceive it.

0

Kodiac 8 years, 5 months ago

I am continually amazed by the repetition of arguments that keep showing up through this form. Many of them have been shown to be clearly false or misleading to obscure facts or even truth.

Barclay, every one of your arguments you have espoused are all old creationist arguments and have been shown to be false either by factual evidence or clarification of what has been obscured (as with the case with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). I do not expect you to show up again since you always post once and then run off to hide.

Bankboy - You have been shown previously that Charles Darwin did not say that he was wrong and that the source for the information was a woman who claims to have been by Darwin's deathbed, a claim that has been refuted by all of Darwin's family. As for your other rants, if you read your own sentences, the amount of contradiction is staggering if not idiotic. If you truly are a bankboy I would stick to finance and not science.

Lastly but best of all John - We have already been over this many times John and though Darwin and Spencer were contemporaries, Darwin never coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", that was Spencer. This phrase is not an accurate representation of what evolution is and you know it John. We have already been over the the title on the Origins of Species book and has nothing to with racism and it is only about the species that have adaptations that may help them or enable them to survive to reproduce. To imply racism or otherwise is a distortion of the truth.

0

fossilhunter 8 years, 5 months ago

The sad thing is...if you polled the general population and said, "Did you know that is has now been discovered that the smallest part of an atom is a sound wave?" That a good number of people would answer "yes". That's why there is absolutely no validity to all of the poll numbers that are being thrown around.

0

FastEddie 8 years, 5 months ago

"Did you know that it has now been discovered that the smallest part of an atom is a sound wave?"--Bankboy

This is about the dumbest thing that I have ever heard. A sound wave is a mechanical wave that results from the vibration of molecules (which are larger than atoms).

This is what happens when people with absolutely no background (or apparent knowledge) in science try to interpret scientific research and "breath" their own delusions into it.

Please leave science to those who know something about it.

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

BunE is right about the value currently placed on expertise (none). In our equivocation society, every nutty idea that is expressed vociferously is given "equal time". Now, every fundamentalist nut is an "expert" on evolution not because of knowledge and practice but because of strength of belief and conviction.

0

prospector 8 years, 5 months ago

So was Noah a traveling guy at the end of the flood? I understand he landed on Mt. Ararat and disembarked his load.

So why is the Duckbilled Platypus in Australia, the Lemur in Madagasgar, the Lion in Africa, and the Whitetail Deer jumping in front of North American cars? So where does it say he placed specific ceatures in specific places as they are today? Must have been more work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Bankboy- sound is energy not matter. Yell in a jar and put the lid on real fast. Do you hear it when you open it?

0

BunE 8 years, 5 months ago

It is a shame that politics is driving curriculum. Science is a fact backed basis of studying the world, wheras politics is a constantly shifting landscape that answers to the whims of various constituencies.

To teach science to students information based on a gut feeling is not only wrong headed, it borders on the immoral. How dare anyone hurt the chances of our children to grow and to develop with all of the tools that a well rounded person should have. Faith, while important, is not in the same category as science.

On a side note, why would anyone of faith want to even teach ID? It opens the spirit world up to scientific investigation (even though none of the so called ID scientists are willing to do that testing ) and it sort of opens up the whole nature of god argument. If he made the dinosaurs and they were good, why did he then kill them off? Were they bad? Did they have a jesus that redeemed them? - So many questions.

Anyway, actions like the BOE, will have consequences, sure we may have a nation of believers of god, but without proper training, we will have a nation of idiots when it comes to medicine, biology, and any other science that evolution is a part of. Some would say that we need to teach critical thinking of evolution. That is what science does. It constantly tests and retests hypothesis, it modifies initial thoughts and changes our knowledge with each look. We don't need some ethereal philosophy taught to our children mucking up the search for truth in thet temporal world. Isn't that what family bible time and church is for?

Don't let anyone fool you, we are moving to a world where experts are anyone who talks really loud and people of education and intelligence are made out to be cranks because their studies ruffle the feathers of a certain special interest group. Sean Hannity and Larry King don't know what they are talking about. Willian Hamilton and Robert Krumlauf do.

Choose to listen to the wrong group (and there is an objective answer) and welcome to Idiot America

0

yourworstnightmare 8 years, 5 months ago

I continue to be amazed at the dearth of knowledge about science displayed by fundamentalists and IDers compared to their willingness to spout off about it. John, spankboy, and Barclay are so off the mark as to be ludicrous.

Guys, why don't you get some real knowledge instead of relying on what your political-religious texts and mullahs say about evolution.

You all seem to assume that scientists adhere to every word written by Darwin and that the theory of evolution has not changed since Darwin. This is ridiculous. Religion might operate this way but science does not.

Your ignorance is truly unbecoming.

0

ksmattfish 8 years, 5 months ago

"If you are wrong, what's the difference between worshiping God or Odin or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster???"

Arrggh, matey! The difference is that the first three are false idols, while the Flying Spaghetti Monter is the one true Creator. Arrrgghhh! After we're done rewriting the science texts to include the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we need to work on getting more pirate lifestyle skills taught in home economics. Arrrrgghh!

0

John1945 8 years, 5 months ago

The actual title of Darwin's book that you folks keep running from is On the Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection ; or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwin actually referred to himself as a "biological Spencerist" in honor of Herbert Spencer's theories of society which were, Darwin felt, incorectly referred to as "social Darwinism".

I would have far more respect for the arguments presented if I also saw a similar embrace of Spencer's work.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Brookcreeker:

Good observation.

"100% of evangelical / pentacostal christians believe that science promotes belief in something other than evangelical / pentacostal christianity."

Quote is mine, as were the sarcastic quotes in the posting at 7:04 AM. In case you didn't get it.......

0

brookcreeker 8 years, 5 months ago

Was this article ghost-written by "Fair and Balanced" FOX news? The reporter thought it might be a good idea to interview some people working at a school about this issue, so who does he pick? Heritage Baptist School. Excuse me, "Heritage Baptist School"?!? Sometimes I read these articles and think it all must be some elaborate joke.

Then I read the national news coverage of my state and am reminded that the joke is on us. And I don't find it very funny.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Bankboy119:

The idea that you may be wrong and are worshiping a myth never enters your mind, does it?

If you are wrong, what's the difference between worshiping God or Odin or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster???

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Bankboy119:

The statement that Charles Darwin repudiated his theory of evolution before he died.......this is found where???

I did find where you can read some (maybe all) of Charles Darwin's publications online. http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/ . I don't know if everything is there but it appears to be an exhaustive listing.

0

bankboy119 8 years, 5 months ago

Actually monkeys the more scientific knowledge has increased the more it does point to Creationism and less to Evolution. Did you know that it has now been discovered that the smallest part of an atom is a sound wave? Pretty interesting how the Bible says that God spoke everything into existence. Also it has now been scientifically proven that the universe came from nothing....also interesting to note that came from the Bible as well. According the evolution SOMETHING had to be here first and we all just morphed into random entities. Some of the random goo just became fish and some because killer viruses and some became humans, amazing theory actually. And to really get into it we'll bring up the best point of all. Darwin said he was wrong before he died. Kind of funny you never hear that in school.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

As a matter of fact, 54% of the subset of the sample of the population is less than the 60% of the Kansas Board of Education who started this whole mess.

How's that for context.

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

Here's some playing with numbers:

"Fifty-three percent of Kansans say they know what intelligent design is, and 54 percent of that group says it should be taught in school, according to the poll. Thirty-six percent says intelligent design shouldn't be taught, while 10 percent were unsure or refused to answer."

=== Okay campers, let's see who can answer this one.

What is 54% of 53%?

Answer: ~28.6% of the sample of the population surveyed.

My point is that 28.6% is obviously not a majority, but if you play with the numbers and if people don't read the passage closely, then you can make it appear as if teaching intelligent design has a "majority" of 54%!!!

A majority of a subset of a sample of a population.

Doesn't sound so impressive place in context, now does it?

0

John Spencer 8 years, 5 months ago

I think it would be ok to teach unintelligent design err excuse me, I mean intelligent design in schools, as long as evolution and the scientific process are required in Sunday School. Additionally; astrology, the flying spaghetti monster and the coming of the great handkerchief should all be taught alongside evolution in school as they also cannot be disproven and are just as 'valid' as ID. Barclay, nothing I repeat NOTHING can be proven. If you feel the need to believe some greater power governs your life, that's fantastic and I applaud your dedication to your faith, but please leave it in your church. Invite others to listen to your Priests, or Pastors, etc on whatever day you hold service but please leave it out of the public schools SCIENCE class. It can be taught as part of history or in a theology class. We as a people believed that train of thought for hundreds of years and as scientific knowledge grew so did our understanding of how we (the many varied organisms on Earth) came to be. We believed for a very long time the earth was flat, when that was finally disproved it took another couple hundred years for that to be accepted, there are still groups of people that believe the world is flat, do we force science classes to teach that? No of course not, we let the flatheads believe what they want and teach science in the public school. We don't teach the contradicting views that the world could be flat, or it could be spherical. Sorry about rambling on, it is too early!

0

wendt 8 years, 5 months ago

However, only 26% of the population were aware of such books as "1984", "Animal Farm", and the movie "Network", let alone had read or watched them.

Only 16% were aware that one of Charles Darwin's books is titled "On the Origin of Species".

Only 40% were aware of the name of their representative to the US Congress.

0

Bowhunter99 8 years, 5 months ago

And the Bible has been proven? Talking burning bushes? People living inside whales for days? Jesus walking on water? Managing to get a pair of EACH species of animals into a boat? Splitting a SEA into two so people can walk thru it?

You're right... Evolution is so far fetched.

0

Barclay 8 years, 5 months ago

Evolution has not been proven. There are no missing links, only speculation. The geologic column has huge discrepencies. Adaptation and natural selection have only been shown to exist within species. Adaptation and natural selection have never been scientifically proven to have the "power" to create new species. Most mutations have deleterious effects. Intelligent Design looks at the same evidence as evolutionists and scientifically interprets it differently. For instance, ID looks at the geologic column, sees no transition forms, only fully functioning organisms and says, "Since there are no transition forms and there is no genetic evidence that so many biological systems could have evolved randomly, we interpret that as scientific evidence of intentional design." There is other science that ID considers. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. entropy, states that systems tend to move from order to disorder. The claims of evolution contradict this law of science, making it a less plausible interpretation of how things came to be.

0

dex 8 years, 5 months ago

please ljw, make it stop! skepticism is necessary for scientific progress.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.