Evolution on trial as Kansas debates Adam vs Darwin By Carey Gillam

Mon May 2,12:20 PM ET
TOPEKA, Kan (Reuters) - Evolution is going on trial in Kansas.
Looking forward to going to this:

Eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in Tennessee pitted religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of British scientist Charles Darwin, Kansas is holding its own hearings on what school children should be taught about how life on Earth began. The Kansas Board of Education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to begin on Thursday in the capitol Topeka. More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution.

Many prominent U.S. scientific groups have denounced the debate as founded on fallacy and have promised to boycott the hearings, which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government. "I feel like I'm in a time warp here," said Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray who has agreed to defend evolution as valid science. "To debate evolution is similar to debating whether the Earth is round. It is an absurd proposition."

Irigonegaray's opponent will be attorney John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, a Kansas organization that argues the Earth was created through intentional design rather than random organism evolution.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1895&e=4&u=/nm/20050502/us_nm/life_evolution_dc

How can you debate a fictional character and story like Genesis against a real person like Darwin and the real evidence of evolution?

Isn't that like trying to scientize Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

(Shaking head wryly)

Sue

"Don't know much about history,
Don't know much biology,
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took"

Sam Cooke and the Kansas Department of Education, I mean Superstition

"If students... do not understand the weaknesses of evolutionary theory as well as the strengths, a grave injustice is being done to them"

How about all the holes in the "creationist" theory ? There is no way to test it, to replicate it, to prove it, etc. If this should be taught, then so should the creation of the earth as believed by the ancient egyptians, the norse mythologies, etc. All should be given equal credence, simply b/c the people who believed in said deities are dead doesn't make them wrong. Their views on the creation of life are no more unproven than the christian view.

It sickens me that science is under attack in this nation, at most these people cannot disprove it. A scientific theory is given credence until it has been proven invalid, though there may be questions as to HOW, there are no "smoking guns" that invalidate it.

I believe this is a collective litmus test of our overall intelligence as a nation. One which I truly fear we will fail.

I completely agree with the absurdity of the quote: "If students... do not understand the weaknesses of evolutionary theory as well as the strengths, a grave injustice is being done to them". I attend a public 4 year university, and was shocked at the way evolution was taught in my general biology course. This wasn't just gen ed biology, but a required biology class for science majors and students in pre-med/pre vet programs. The professor spent almost a whole day preparing us all for the topic by stressing the differences between science and religion (in an apparent attempt to cover herself from conservative attacks). We received hand-outs explaining that religion answers the question "why?" while science answers "what?'; and that the two disciplines didn't have to be in conflict and were completely separate, etc, etc. It is as if those who believe and understand in the scientific concept of evolution feel the need to state their viewpoints defenseively, as if expecting attack, and as a result appear weak and unsure. I was amazed that to keep a few loudmouths from spouting off about creationism in class, a highly qualified college professor spent an entire lecture whitewashing the information and apologetically defending herself for teaching it. This approach to educating future scientists is terrifying, but something that I fear is becoming more and more common.

To think that a highly trained professor in a public university would fear the ramblings of a fundie.

Welcome to DU, SouthDakota! We're still mourning the loss of Tom Daschle here in Iowa.

Well for one thing it isn't a "theory". Not even hypothosis. It is nothing but religious belief. Formulate a hypothosis and let us test it time and time again until we come to the conclusion that we can not discredit it and then it becomes theory. It is quite easy to discredit Creationism and very difficult (impossible) to verify it. So Carbon Test that.....

intelligent design theory. Many ID theorists acknowledge descent with modification (all species share common ancestors), and all ID theorists acknowledge deep geological time. But ID theorists argue that chance and necessity (variation and natural selection) cannot explain the origins and complexity of life. Many ID theorists do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture and are not arguing for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Darwinists sometimes try to refute ID by pointing to the abundant evidence for descent with modification and deep geological time. Since ID theorists acknowledge these, this doesn't accomplish much. Darwinists often lump ID with young-earth creationism, occasionally claiming that ID is merely a ploy by the same creationists behind the "scientific creationism" of the 1970s (which argued for a young earth and for a literal interpretation of Genesis). Their confusion is no doubt the result of the observation that ID theorists and young earth creationists often break bread together (as conservative Christians), and the fact that the current attention to ID is largely the result of a well-funded campaign by conservative interests; the ID movement is as much about politics as it is science.

A particularly good book arguing against intelligent design theory (especially the "irreducible complexity" arguments of Michael Behe) is Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller. Miller is a Roman Catholic as well as a leading biologist and biology textbook writer.

test of acceptable logical arguments. It may not be young earth creatinism but it IS creationism and thus it is religion and NOT science.

Or that Darwinism can account for how Consciousness supposedly arises from Physical Matter?

Because ID essentially says that the Natural World has an innate, inherent capacity for Intelligence and evolves ever more complex
ways of expressing this Intelligence/Consciousness.

Darwinism is Materialism. It is not just a theory. It's a theory based in a Philosophy that posits a world where physical matter can give rise to Consciousness despite the glaring lack of evidence to support this.

It is just as valid to posit a world where Consciousness/Intelligence gives rise to physical matter. And there is abundant evidence to support this.

of mathematical methods for detecting intelligent design in nature, as developed in particular by William Dembski. The ID theorists are therefore trying to advance the idea that ID is testable, not an appeal to authority (they do not quote scripture). Whether that qualifies ID as science is another matter -- if it is science, it's not good science. Not yet, at any rate. (I happen to agree with those who argue that ID is poor theology as well as poor science.)

Send them a note and ask them to move the material.

The 'devil' is in the details. If TGAOTU (the Great Architect of the Universe) used evolution in order to create the universe He/She was wise enough to not force people to believe. Science deals with empirical verifiable facts. Darwin remained a believer in God, as did Galileo before him.

The beauty of the religion clause of the First Amendment is that nothing is compelled.

as Twiggy. Sheesh :crazy:

you have to dumb-down your populace. The last thing you want are people questioning the principles on which you govern...it's called blind faith.

Must get rid of the intellectuals for they pose the danger to your power...