Advertisement

Previous   Next

Do you think Kansas is getting a reputation for being antiscience?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on February 11, 2005

Browse the archives

Photo of Colin Baumchen

“I would have to say that based on recent events it’s hard not to think that. How else would outside observers view us?”

Photo of Peter Zacharias

“Gaining? It’s had one for several years. It’s a joke internationally. When I go back to Germany, I have to take a lot of ribbing and abuse. I makes us look like a scientific backwater.”

Photo of Nadya McClure

“Yeah, because they tried to ban evolution a few years ago, and I think it’s stupid for them to ban any theory from being taught in school.”

Photo of Timothy Hughs

“I think it’s easy to answer superficially, but the energy in Kansas is to hold on to the past. Eventually the past will catch up to the present and stem cell research will move forward.”

Comments

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Interesting that Pennsylvania has done, and considered, the same things Kansas has but has gotten no grief for it. Basically in Kansas we're just a bunch of slack-jawed yokels, right? Its all crap, what's going on right now is that folks just want it called a "theory" which it is. At least the textbooks say it is.

0

remember_username 9 years, 7 months ago

"Pennsylvania not backwards? Ever been to New York City?"

Kansas may not be anti-science but it does have some problems with history and geography.

0

wichita_reader 9 years, 7 months ago

Also, point well taken about Bibles not being distributed in public schools.

0

Huckleberry 9 years, 7 months ago

Would you mind expanding on how John Brown was clearly a terrorist?

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Hey artwhore (great name, man I love Lawrence), they are MY public schools too. Until I have the OPTION of paying TAXES on THOSE public SCHOOLS I have A voice TOO. Caps are cool.

0

Jayhawk226 9 years, 7 months ago

...try more like "antistatus-quo"

0

jonas 9 years, 7 months ago

Yes. When you try to dilute science to promote things that are NOT science, then you will be seen as anti-science.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

"When I go back to Germany...." Oh man, where do I begin....well, maybe with that hat....

0

Larry 9 years, 7 months ago

Oh, ouch, Peter! Germany laughs at us. Isn't this the same country that was responsible for thousands of deaths in WW II? That really hurts knowing that Germany and France don't like us. BIG DEAL! France will be that way until they get backed into a corner again, then they'll be screaming and crying for their good old friends from the US of A to come bail their weak, whinny, whimy A>>es out AGAIN. Just like in WW II. Did everyone forget how much France cried for America to get involved in WW II before the Japs bombed us? I would never wish their countries any harm but I sure get tired of their wishy washy stances. As for Germany - never mind! Nothing is worth mentioning. I know some very good people from Germany, but they sure don't like to take a stand on anything.

As for evolution, Kansas did not try to ban evolution. Their are two parts to evolution. Macro and Micro. Macroevolution questions were removed from the standards, not microevolution. Beside, I don't see a problem with letting kids see both sides, then let them decide for themselves. The problem is that many teachers claim to be presenting evolution as a theory, but they don't. Even the media will report on a fossil that is millions of years old. It is never reported as "scientist believe the fossil to be millions of years old". I'm not an expert on fossil dating but I have read several books that discredit it. Isn't there an old wise tale that says something about people who don't want the truth to be known, will do anything to prevent it from being spoken? Makes me wonder.

Hey- everyone have a great Friday and a great weekend.

0

remember_username 9 years, 7 months ago

Larry, "thousands of deaths"? You meant millions, right? I'm not ragging on you but I'd like to set the record straight because most people don't know the death toll of WWII. Try over 20 million Russians, over 6 million Poles, near 6 million Germans, about 1/2 million each from the U.S., the U.K., and France. 300 thousand Italians. Each of the commonwealth states lost about 40K. And we shouldn't forget the 14 million Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese. Sorry about the rant folks...

0

wichita_reader 9 years, 7 months ago

What are these ultra-conservatives so afraid of that they want to place stickers on science books indicating evolution is a theory? Maybe it's because evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact.

I don't understand why some Conservative Christians have such a hard time coming to grips with the scientific processes involved in nature, including evolution.

I think stickers on science books indicating evolution is a theory are assenine and an incredible waste of resources. Following that same line of reasoning, shouldn't there be stickers on the Bible that say it's a theory, or at least one interpretation or story of numerous events?

Also, for anyone who hasn't yet read it, I would recommend Gerald Schroeder's book, The Science of God.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

The text books use the word "theory." Wouldn't that indicate it is a theory? Wait, I wonder what the definition of "is" is.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Gerald Schroeder, isn't the German leader? Oh wait, haha, get all those german names mixed up.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Last time I checked, Bibles weren't given out at public schools. So a stick on that would be silly. You silly goose, wichita reader.

0

ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie 9 years, 7 months ago

"Maybe it's because evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact."

"shouldn't there be stickers on the Bible that say it's a theory, or at least one interpretation or story of numerous events?"

Technically, evolution IS a theory. A theory that I happen to agree with.

Bibles aren't distributed to kids in public schools, nor should they be. If they were, I'd agree that bibles and evolution material alike should let the reader know that there are two schools of thought on the origin of the human species. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging both sides of the story.

0

Huckleberry 9 years, 7 months ago

Mayber old Peter should just stay in Germany. That way he won't have to take so much 'ribbing and abuse'.

As for the question, I say teach both as theories. Let the kids learn and grow without being told what is and is not a theory or fact. Present them with the information and let them decide for themselves. I say teach evolution as a theory, and don't ban religion; let them say 'one nation under God' at the end of the pledge like we did when we were in school.

0

wichita_reader 9 years, 7 months ago

I'm not a trained scientist, so I'm not up to snuff on the lingo, but there's a substantial body of evidence to back up the theory of microevolution, right?

Is Pythagorean's Theory (spelling?) still a theory?

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Wichita_reader is that kind of person I like. Makes good points, pulls back points, keeps it above bar. Yeah, there would be something about it being just a "theory," but I'm not up on all the research either. I was educated in private schools all my life until undergrad and law school. Those private schools were religious schools as well where we learned the theory of evolution in science class and creation in religion class. I've always separated the two, so maybe I don't even have a dog in this fight, but I think its worthy of discussion.

0

jonas 9 years, 7 months ago

Captain P: That seems perfectly logical. There is certainly nothing wrong with teaching both theories. The problem comes when both are considered the same thing, such as Science. Only one of those theories fits scientific discipline. The other is a Philosophy.

I refuse to prove that I exist," says god. "For proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man. "The babel fish is a dead giveaway isnt it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist and so therefore, by you're own argument, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says god. "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh that was easy." says man. And for an encore he proves that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing. 'The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy' Douglas Adams

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

True, point taken. I do think they should be separate. I may move away from my Conservative brothers on this one. But as the former mayor of NYC used to say, "If you agree with me on 10-10 issues, you have a mental problem."

or something like that.

0

tir 9 years, 7 months ago

We've got conservative Board of Education members trying to force schools to include what amounts to religious instruction in science classes--oh, yeah, that'll give Kansas a reputation for being anti-science.

I think it is fine for science teachers in Kansas schools to teach that evolution is a "theory" as opposed to a "truth". But creationism is a religious belief, and should not be taught in public schools, period, let alone as part of the science curriculum.

0

Grundoon Luna 9 years, 7 months ago

I am a very religious person. I have a great beilef in the supreme diety. I do think that Genesis pretty well describes the big bang theory and the theory of evolation. Think about it. Look at it. It's right there!! I think ms_canda gets it. I've read what she's talking about and I think I understand it. The trouble is that Christian fundamentalists get caught up in literal interpretaion of the bible - which is as dangerous as the the fundamentalist muslims and their literal interpretation of the qaran - and they want to confuse faith with science. To flatly say that the Earth is 6000 years old is simply laughable (Larry, go stick your head back in the sand which is where it seems to be most comfortable). What was written to have happened in 7 days took billions and billions of years to accomplish - which may only be a week to a supreme being reigning over the universe. Ancient writers had to put things in terms in which they could understand, but you can't take that as literal. Especiallly from a document that had been as manipulated and otherwise altered as the Bible has with whole books removed and text completely mistranslated or changed altogether - talk about unreliable as empirical evidence! Even so, it does hold some truths (how do you like that coming from a Wiccan!). The scientific method that brought us every marvel of science and technology that we enojoy today also tells us, with a great amount of certainty, that evolution did happen.

If the narrow minded attitude is allowed to previal we will all look like slack jawed yokles and as much as KU would ever hope to known as the "Harvard of the Midwest," ultimately we'll only be a laughing stock if the zealots get their way.

PERSONS OF REASON MAKE YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!!!

0

craigers 9 years, 7 months ago

I understand what everybody is saying about creationism not being a science and I would be fine with them teaching them in seperate classrooms. However, I think the problem lies where science and the theory of evolution are required for everybody to learn, but creationism and the secular form of it, intelligent design is only a mere option to find out about. If you want people to critically think about an issue then make them exposed to both sides. Don't just say here is the wonderful theory of evolution that we are required to show you and teach you, but if you want to learn about other solutions to the question of where we came from, then you can learn them if you want.

Wichita, I am a conservative christian and I wouldn't say that microevolution isn't a very well supported theory of science. You can see that happen, but the drastic changes of species into a completely different species of life is not supported nor can it be seen. I don't buy into the notion of monkeys evolving into humans because that would be considered macroevolution. The same reasoning that is used to debunk the bible, could be said about all of history and science, it is heresay. We trust what these scientists say because they have a better way to record their results. Those that wrote the New Testament about Jesus and his life, lived at the same time of Him and recorded those observations and made conclusions based upon those observations.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Craigers lost me, probably a lot smarter than I.

As for Phred Phelps, who cares? Kansas doesn't house him and I am 99.9% sure he doesn't hold any, ANY, political clout in or out of the state.

There are preachers, ministers, priests....and then there are hate-mongers like Phelps. He can't die soon enough.

Hey Phelps, God hates meanies!

0

craigers 9 years, 7 months ago

goatdog, what did my post have to do with being a hypocrite?

0

craigers 9 years, 7 months ago

captain_poindexter, definitely don't confuse yourself. If I lost you, it was because I rambled, not because of my intelligence. I have just didn't have the time to think out a well articulated argument. Just throwing around ideas, since that is what this forum is for.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Oh, ok good, I was starting to lose confidence. Goatdog is a little off today. Or maybe he's on, who cares. Scumbag hypocrite, man I miss Lawrence. Always good for a laugh or two. Every time I've gone to a political forum, rally, whatever in Lawrence, all folks like goatcat can do is shout you down, call you Nazi, racist, pick your favorite losing argument. Guys like wichita_reader, will actually debate you. Goatdog and his goat people....nevermind.

0

billes1970 9 years, 7 months ago

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is also a theory. Which has the most supportive evidence? Do we think that the people of Kansas are so oblivious to free thinking that the State has to think for us?

If we are going to be putting stickers on science textbooks, how about putting a sticker on the Bible, "Creationism is a theory and not fact".

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

One of the main points about being Christian, I think, is that you are always striving to be the perfect Christian. I thought the idea is to attempt to become Christ-like, not Christ. See what I am saying? Just because a Christian has failings doesn't make him not a Christian, it makes him a infallable Christian. - which is ok. Anyway, enough of that.... I would have no problem putting a sticker about creationism on a textbook saying it is a theory. no worries on that one

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Where can I find this SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? I am looking at my "pocket-constitution," the small book that I place in my shirt pocket over my heart, and I can't find it. Please help me...

0

wichita_reader 9 years, 7 months ago

Craigers: remember, my post reads "some Conservative Christians," not all. I'm glad to hear you are one of the enlightened, and your response nearly mirrors my opinion. However, keep in mind that science is not totally based on hearsay. Although those not trained in the field may not completely understand the datum, it is based on a process of controlled observation. Controlled observation, which I believe can (and probably has already) be used to prove/disprove accounts laid out in the Gospel.

I think we've already dispensed with the idea of placing stickers on Bibles calling creationism a theory, as there is no state action involved, or whatever the legal speak is, but I still don't see the point in wasting money to put a sticker on a textbook saying evolution is a theory. The idea seems redundant.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. A state should not impose religion upon its citizens. If a student is a believer in Jesus Christ, or wants to learn about God, good for them. There are numerous churches, study groups, etc. that would be willing to educate them.

0

remember_username 9 years, 7 months ago

"Do you think Kansas is getting a reputation for being anti-science?" This question assumes the Kansas didn't already have an existing reputation for being anti-science. Kansas has always had several stereotypes to attempt to disprove. It is not all flat, not everybody has experienced a tornado, not every Kansan comes from a farm, not every family looks like a Norman Rockwell painting, and Kansan's are not a bunch of bearded, bible-toting, rifle-holding abolitionists. (By the way are you all aware that the Kansas hero, John Brown, was clearly a terrorist?)

Kansas is in a position to change and expand from an argricultural state to one with a mix of argricultural and hightech industry. Bringing new biotech and other industries to the state is necessary to increase the tax base and add money to the states dwindling coffers. This task becomes increasingly hard to do when the state is perceived as "anti-intellectual". It isn't just the state board of education that is causing this perception. It's the media as well. But to use a cliche where there is smoke there is fire. It is up to Kansan's how they want their state to change, or if they want their state to change.

0

ms_canada 9 years, 7 months ago

Larry - I wonder why you have made no comment re my posts of today. What is your reaction? Post on this site, if you will, I will check back.

0

remember_username 9 years, 7 months ago

Huckleberry, as I recall John Brown with about twenty others raided and captured a federal arsenal in Virginia with the stated intention of clearing out the weapons and equipping an army of slaves in a failed insurrection. He was caught tried for treason and hung. This was before the U.S. civil war and thus an action of a terrorist.

0

nukegirl 9 years, 7 months ago

Some of you people are confusing the word "theory" as it is used in everyday language against the word "theory" as it is used in science. By way of comparison--I have a theory that people think Kansans are backward and anti-science. This has not been proven yet, and it happens to be my opinion based on some of the comments people have made in this forum, as well as news stories from my hometown newspaper, the LJW. I haven't really got anything to base this on except anecdotal information.

On the other hand, evolution is a theory the way gravity is a theory or the fact that we revolve around the sun is a theory. A "theory" in science is a quantified thing, not some random idea somebody thought up to put in a science book. It involves four different steps: 1) observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena 2) formulation of a hypothesis (a closer analogy to the everyday word "theory") to explain the phenomena 3) use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of similar phenomena or results of new observations and 4) tests and experiments of the predictions by independent researchers. All scientific theories must be quantified using this process or else they're really just hypotheses.

In other words, a scientific theory such as relativity is actually pretty well established as fact. They're called "theories" because that's one step below "law of nature" and you don't get to be a "law of nature" without years, decades, sometimes even centuries of repeated experimentation. You wouldn't want to test the "theory" of gravity by stepping off a 50-story building, would you? And yet gravity is currently considered a theory, not a law.

0

Todd 9 years, 7 months ago

What in the world is "anti-science"? Don't you have to think science is accurate to some degree to believe it's 100% wrong? Thus, the scientific method is fine for producing cars, cameras, medical devices, etc... but figuring out how your cat got extra furry eyebrows OH NO science is the devil!

0

Brian Sandefur 9 years, 7 months ago

Questions for you folks:

Who here can tell me the significance of irreducibly complex systems?

If you can, can you also propose a plausible evolutionary pathway to such a system?

If you can't, you're terribly uninformed about the debate over evolution.

0

Brian Sandefur 9 years, 7 months ago

Also, I haven't read through every post, so forgive me, but it seems some people are also very uninformed on what the BOE is considering. An 8 member sub-committee of the 25 member Science Writing Committee has submitted proposals for revising the standards. They have been EXPLICIT in their sentiments that they DO NOT SUGGEST requiring the teaching of any alternative theories.

0

remember_username 9 years, 7 months ago

We've a little problem with the concept of a theory. A theory is a hypotheses or group of hypotheses that have been confirmed through repeated experiments. Saying the theory of evolution is "only a theory" is like saying gravity is only a theory. We know things evolve we can see it every day all around us. The problem occurs when we consider origins. There are several hypotheses for the origin of life. For example the once commonly held belief that lightning strikes in the earth's primitive atmosphere produced the necessary building blocks has been challenged by planetary bombardment this is the way of science. There are those in intelligent design who postulate that a supreme being directed the creation of the building blocks and influenced molecular arrangement to produce life. Stated like that intelligent design doesn't sound bad does it? However, for a hypothesis to become a theory it must be testable, it must stand up to experimental challenge. This is where intelligent design has difficulty regardless of the debate over what data is allowed. Now there are some who try to use intelligent design to show that the earth is only six thousand years old, but I'm not writing this to those people, addressing that level of belief is hopeless.

I personally believe (new paragraph now because I talking about belief not fact) that try as they might the folks at intelligent design will never establish an experimental link to a supreme design. This is because to establish proof of a supreme being removes faith, and that faith is an underlying principle to a belief in a supreme being. What I hope some of you take from this is that 1) evolution is a theory; 2) intelligent design is a hypothesis; and that 3) faith and belief are not part of the scientific method.

0

remember_username 9 years, 7 months ago

Thanks, nukegirl, you got there before me.

0

wichita_reader 9 years, 7 months ago

Captain: Check Amendment 1.

Of course it doesn't say "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE," but I think it clearly states something like Congress shall make no law respecting religion or preventing the exercise thereof. Thus, a separation of church and state. Am I way off base here?

0

artwhore 9 years, 7 months ago

listen up christians, if you want your kids to grow up thinking the world was created in 7 days by god, then send them to a freaking christian school.

then if they decide to go to college send them to a christian college too.

keep that crap out of MY public schools.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

No, no, you're not way off base there, I was just checking. And you are right, that's what the first one says. I am just troubled whenever someone uses the phrase Separation of Church and State. What the phrase really should be is No Excessive Entanglements, b/c that's where we are right now when discussing church v. state issues. If there really was "separation of church and state" then churches would not be tax-exempt.
But you are right, that's what the first says. I wonder how many times God or the diety is said in the declaration of independence and constitution. Anyone up for some research?

0

wichita_reader 9 years, 7 months ago

I had the same thought, and considered the research, but then reconsidered. May be an interesting project for this weekend.

I have some issues with the tax-exempt status of churches as well under 501(c)(3). Does the tax-exempt status mean that any religious organization holding stocks isn't taxed on the dividends paid on that stock? If so, I see that as a problem.

I've been told by former classmates that the Mormon church is the majority stockholder of Coca-Cola, and that the Morman Church doesn't allow the drinking of caffeine, with an exception for Coca-Cola. I have no idea if this is fact or myth, but if anyone reading knows I would love to hear about it.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Hmmm, don't know about that one. Not sure about whether church's are taxed on dividends. That is quite a research project.

0

ms_canada 9 years, 7 months ago

Many interesting and well thought out comments today. Have you ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research in Santee, Calif. It is a creation science institute. web site at www.icr.org interesting reading. In Dec. I was teaching a class on Gen. 1. I had the students do a little experiment. I told them to close their eyes and cover them so as to block out as much light as possible. I asked them, 'What do you see?' I saw nothing, only darkness. Then, 'Imagine that the Spirit of God is hovering there in that darkness'. Gen. 1:1 says, in the beginning, what does that mean? To me it means that time began, there was a beginning, true? A beginning of what? Time for one thing. Then it says God created the heavens and the earth. Note that heavens is in the plural indicating a vastness of space. By earth I take it to mean matter, not this terrestrial ball. I could reword that first verse to read, "In the beginning God created time, space and matter." The Hebrew word translated as created is "bara" which means an act which can be performed only by God making something out of nothing. The basic building material that God made was the sub-microscopic energy particles that make up the atom. these particles move in an orbit so small and at such high speed that they cannot be pictured with the naked eye. Heb. 11:3 says that God made 'what can be seen out of what cannot be seen'. An atom is mostly empty space and this is what is meant by the phrase in Gen 1:2 'the earth was without form and void' (empty) The Biblical account of creation was written in language that could be understood at the time. Because of scientific study, we now understand so much more. But we have a stubborn blockage of the mind that forbids us accepting certain things. There is really not so much difference between creationism and the scientific theory of evolution. If people would just get their heads out of the sand their eyes would open to the truth. Legislators everywhere, not just Kansas, need to wake up. Children need to be taught all things about their world, not just the selected opinions of a few closed minds.

0

wichita_reader 9 years, 7 months ago

Sorry about starting the caps thing. Looks like I'm responsible for that. I always get ticked off at work when someone sends me an e-mail in caps or with enlarged or boldface font.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Wow, actually I understand a little better. See, we can all get along. I actually agree. Is it really possible that both happened? I'm open to that possibility. Maybe Adam and Eve were examples for us mortals to understand? Kinda makes sense.

ms_canada brought a big brain to the table, nice work.

0

kansas 9 years, 7 months ago

THAT'S OKAY, WICHITA_READER!! WE STILL LOVE YOU JUST THE SAME!!!!!

BTW...SOMETIMES USING CAPS CAN BE A GOOD THING!!!! ;)!!

0

Reader 9 years, 7 months ago

ms_canada, Very Interesting. Going Along With The "Theory" Concept Here. From On The First, "Let There Be Light" To The Seventh "He Rested". Where Do The "Dinosaur" And The "Cavemen" Fit In? Were They Here Before, "Adam And Eve", If Not At The Same Time, Or Somewhere In Between? And How Did That Part Of The "Theory" End? Before, During, Or After. "My" Kids Came To Me With That Question? Which One Of The "Two" Were Really Here First?

0

Mari Aubuchon 9 years, 7 months ago

Craigers, you wrote: Those that wrote the New Testament about Jesus and his life, lived at the same time of Him and recorded those observations and made conclusions based upon those observations.

This is not true. There may be disagreement among biblical scholars as to the dates of the various gospels, but all seem to agree that none were written by eyewitnesses. At most, the New Testment is a second- or third-hand account .

0

Brian Sandefur 9 years, 7 months ago

Edit: I meant to say that you'd be uninformed if you don't know the significance of irreducibly complex systems, not if you can't propose a pathway. Sorry for the confusion.

0

Mari Aubuchon 9 years, 7 months ago

Ultimate175:

You are, no doubt, referring to the claim that some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Michael Behe and others claim that irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed. Source:

Response (copied from talkorigins.org, which I highly recommend for those who want to be informed about the evolutionary debate, as you put it):

  1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system which loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

      * Deletion of parts.
      * Addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system [Pennisi 2001].
      * Change of function.
      * Addition of a second function to a part [Aharoni et al. 2004].
      * Gradual modification of parts.
    

    All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common [Lynch and Conery 2000; Hooper and Berg 2003; Dujon et al. 2004], and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible, but expected. In fact, it was predicted as early as 1939 [Muller 1939].

    Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility was no obstacle to its formation [Melendez-Hevia et al. 1996].

  2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

  3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization which does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level which biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considers sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gives no indication of how he makes his determinations.

  4. Systems which have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. * The mousetrap which Behe uses as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch. * The immune system example which Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies which mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

0

captain_poindexter 9 years, 7 months ago

Jesus H. Christ, incredible conversation. But let me tell you something. Everyone, whether they understand complex bio-whatchamacallits is qualified to talk about this issue because it is our kids that will be learning it.

Relax with this stuff. It's actually more simple than BOE or EOB or ACC or Big IX or whatever.

man. I still love lawrence

0

Larry 9 years, 7 months ago

wichita reader - micro evolution is simply superior design. Macro evolution is a farce and has never even remotely been proven. Why do you think there are so many ID Intelligent Design scientists out there now days. Macro has so many holes in it, ID is the only answer. Intelligent Design as in the politically correct name for God.

Ultimate 175 - reference to the book "Darwin's Black Box". Nice call and I agree with the author Michael Behe, the biochemist whose research shows that macroevolution is truly a farce. So many people have been misled for so many years, they have simply never jumped off the bandwagon.

As for "separation of church and state" - go back to my Nov. 16, 2004 "On The Streets". It provides a bit of history to Jefferson's comments on separation of church and state. Liberals, college professors and the media have blown his comments way out of context. Good day all!

0

ms_canada 9 years, 7 months ago

Reader - What to tell your children? Genesis is, at first glance, a difficult book to understand. With a little study it can be made quite clear. If you take the days of creation you see that the creating activity was very logical. i.e. animals and humans were not created before there was food available to them. One thing that might cause confusion is that in verse 3, as you point out, God said, let there be light and there was light. This was on the first day. Then you have 2nd and 3rd days when He created the upper water and the lower water. (I am putting this very simply) then He gathered the lower water together and the dry land appeared. Then on the 4th day (here comes the confusion) He created the sun and the moon. So the question is, What about the light of the 3rd verse? Creation science tells us that water that the spirit of God hovered over in verse 2 was a gaseous liquid, not H2O. About the dinosaurs, etc. the living creatures that dwelt on the dry land were not created until the 6th day. The creatures of the air and sea on the 5th day. The land creatures are not individually named. So, that is where the dinosaurs came in. The first humans lived in what is now Iraq. In Alberta, where I live, there are numerous bones of dinosaurs in the south of the prov. Cave men? The first man, (the Hebrew word for man is adam) lived in the Garden of Delight (the meaning of Eden) After his fall from favour, he had to live somewhere else. Caves? Would that be an answer for your children?

0

Larry 9 years, 7 months ago

Acure_Attitude - you, my friend are a social Christian. I can tell that by the tone of your words. Ah what the heck, maybe I'll try sticking my head in the sand. Just a second..... I'll be right back. Wheeeewww, that took me awhile to drive out to the lake and back, but nope - it didn't help. I'm still the same person I was before. Looks like your THEORY of sticking my head in the sand didn't work. Thanks for trying though. It obviously works for you so you should keep doing it. You continue to put others down when you don't have an argument. Have a good day!

0

Curious 9 years, 7 months ago

May this be in the school books?

"there is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

The above is the last sentence of chapter XV "Recapitulation and Conclusion" of "The Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos15_1.htm

0

das 9 years, 7 months ago

"People sometimes try to score debating points by saying, 'Evolution is only a theory.' That is correct, but it's important to understand what that means. It is also only a theory that the world goes round the Sun -- it's just a theory for which there is an immense amount of evidence. There are many scientific theories that are in doubt. Even within evolution, there is some room for controversy. But that we are cousins of apes and jackals and starfish, let's say, that is a fact in the ordinary sense of the word." -- Richard Dawkins, "Nick Pollard interviews Richard Dawkins" (Damars: 1999)

"I had always been scrupulously careful to avoid the smallest suggestion of infant indoctrination, which I think is ultimately responsible for much of the evil in the world. Others, less close to her, showed no such scruples, which upset me, as I very much wanted her, as I want all children, to make up her own mind freely when she became old enough to do so. I would encourage her to think, without telling her what to think." -- Richard Dawkins, in a letter to his daughter, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

0

artwhore 9 years, 7 months ago

saying that because you pay taxes, you should have a voice in public education is like saying i pay taxes i want to design highways and bridges.

leave the teaching of our children to the professionals and keep your religion out of OUR public schools you surely don't want the theorys of the earth on the back of a turtle taught too? zeus and the titans? odin and thor?

the problem with christians they think freedom of religion is only for them

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.