A couple blog entries on the whole Kansas evolution fiasco.
What could be a better metaphor for the ID crowd in general than a group of experts who admit they have not read the currently proposed, majority approved, science standards but testify in the hearing that they believe the minority standards are better.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001013.htmlThe dog ate my homework--snip--
Then, out of the blue, under a withering cross-examination by Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray the hearing room was electrified by Edward Peltzer’s admission that he had not read the science standards draft written by the pro-evolution majority of curriculum committee. Peltzer, a Scripps Institution oceanographer and intelligent design witness was flown in from California to share his expert evaluation of the competing science standards drafts, and is currently enjoying the hospitality of Kansas taxpayers.
As the day wore on, each witness in turn was forced to fess up – to an increasingly scornful Irigonegaray — that they too hadn’t bothered to read the majority draft before giving their testimony. This despite the fact that each had earlier testified – in response to questions from intelligent design attorney John Calvert – that the minority draft was superior to the pro-science majority draft.
“I’ve not read it word for word myself,” confessed board member Kathy Martin in an ill-fated attempt to salvage the credibility of the witnesses.
As groans erupted through the hearing room in response to Martin’s admission – and AP reporter Josh Funk ran for the exit to phone the story in – a new feeling that the intelligent design showcase was turning into a failure began to seep into the room
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/The Score Card So FarDuring cross-examination, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray has forced each intelligent design witness to go on record about their opinion on the age of the earth, common descent, and whether human beings have evolved from pre-hominids.
So far, not one witness has said they believe the evidence supports a belief that all living things share a common ancestor or that they believe that human have evolved from pre-hominids.
This is interesting because one of the hero's of ID is Michael Behe. He is the author of
Darwin's Black Box where he describes the much ID touted "irreducible complexity" argument. Here is what Behe has to say about common descent (i'm sorry but I forget what web page I grabbed these quotes from, but most of it is from his book so you can find them there):
"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. (p. 5
Darwin's Black Box)
“I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent.” (p.176
Darwin's Black Box)
“I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent.” (in Reply to My Critics,
Biology and Philosophy 16, p697, 2001.)
Darwin’s Black Box, Reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller
(as published in Creation / Evolution Volume 16: pp, 36-40 <1996>)
Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe’s “Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,” is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, “scientific creationists” should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had “much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1),” that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a “common ancestor.” In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation,
I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution -
he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.
--
I just find it amusing that these people don't even know what their own guys say, let alone what the theory of evolution says. Anyway, continuing with the 2nd blog entry.
yesterday, cracks began to emerge in that consensus as one witness Bryan Leonard, a high school biology teacher from Ohio, categorically refused to answer, and two others, Daniel Ely and John Sanford said the earth might be less than 10 thousand years old.
"Less than 100 thousand years old," said Sanford. "Conceivably less than 10 thousand years old."
Ahhh. Letting their true nuttiness shine through.