Kansas Evolution Hearings

My search of the science literature -

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/idlit.html

From this search one can easily calculate the appropriate ratio of evolutionary scientists to IDers. The committee should be informed of (hammered with) the ratio.

For those who don't know science literature, if they bring in a single ID speaker, the hearing should include several months worth of testimony from evolutionary biologists.

I think we might be missing the point here. The ID people are looking to win. The evolutionists want to be proven right. Both might get their wish, which is scary as hell. The ID people recognize that they can't argue on scientific grounds (I think the Soviets were the last society that attempted to legislate scientific truth) so they appeal to "fairness", a fundamental American value. I personally think that spending a lot of time trying to refute these people in a classic scientific contest of ideas in front of school boards will eventually grant the ID crowd the one critical victory it needs to claim a precedent and really start steamrolling reason. Far better it might seem to use the fairness argument against ID. After all, if it's only fair to claim that evolution is a theory then it's equally fair to ask the ID people to produce their evidence. Where is their data?

The ID movement has staked its claim to legitimacy (suspend your disbelief please) on the idea that they are not pushing a theological agenda but are in fact, serious scientists. Point taken. And that makes their claim open to charges of being patently "unfair" in terms of it concentrating its energies on casting doubt on evolution without offering any evidence in return.

Remember that Scopes was made immortal because Clarence Darrow openly debated William Jennings Bryan in a public trial. Notwithstanding the final decision of the court, Darrow's performance ensured for that time at least, the anti-evolution forces were localized and not a national force. Unfortunately, times have changed and the ID movement is trying and to extent succeeding in going national.

Perhaps it would do well for a progressive philanthropist teamed with a conservative philanthropist to fund a nationally televised series of debates. I'd like Dawkins or Dennett to represent Darwinians. Think about it. Darwinism is being attacked under the blanket of fairness, which when you think about it is a selective pressure. What better way to adapt to a new environment than to challenge the opposition to a good old fashioned debate, perhaps in Dayton Tennessee. After all, it's only *fair*.

I think there are some fires that are best left to burning themselves out, but this in not one of them. The amount of media attention already given to this debacle requires (forces, obligates, whatever) a presence of some kind. The issue here is the national spotlight rather than Kansas Board of Education decision, which seems to be a lost cause at this stage. The IDers are going to get the media coverage they want anyway, whether the scientific community is present or not. We ought to be focusing our attention on the inevitable media onslaught, and strategically place those who can present a strong, cogent, and convincing case for science in the face of every reporter there, and contact the national media outlets (Nightline, The Today Show, Good Morning America, etc.) and offer our expertise -- a preemptive strike.

then it's equally fair to ask the ID people to produce their evidence. Where is their data?

— John Gauntt

For those who don't know science literature, if they bring in a single ID speaker, the hearing should include several months worth of testimony from evolutionary biologists.

— Les Lane

For those who don't know science literature, if they bring in a single ID speaker, the hearing should include several months years worth of testimony from evolutionary biologists.

I apologize careless estimate.

I like Buridan's idea about a pre-emptive strike but if we've learned anything from last year, it's that people in this country at least, want to see the two sides together on one stage. Otherwise, they discount or amplify whichever side is talking at a given point. That's why I think making a public appeal to scientific "fairness" might do the trick. Basically, call the Discovery Institute's bluff and invite the BBC along with those major news outlets to cover it. There's plenty of people out there who, I'm sure, are uncomfortable with the idea of an ID/Darwin smack-down. But the fundamental fact is that the right wing has perfected the art of feigned victimhood that it broadcasts through well oiled media outlets. What people need to see is the hollowness of ID's underpinnings when subjected to true scientific inquiry --- IN REAL TIME. That would be my dream. Ah well.

We ought to be focusing our attention on the inevitable media onslaught, and strategically place those who can present a strong, cogent, and convincing case for science in the face of every reporter there, and contact the national media outlets (Nightline, The Today Show, Good Morning America, etc.) and offer our expertise -- a preemptive strike.

— Buridan

That very good to hear. Thanks Jeremy. If there's anything I can do to help please let me know.

On the other hand, the well-funded Discovery Institute could easily pay to send its team to Kansas. Unfortunately, because of the Board's resolution, the ID folks will get to visit the great state of Kansas on taxpayer money.

You'll never convince someone who is anti-science--who thinks it's all a liberal plot to undermine the sanctity of the Bible, basically--with a 'cogent and convincing case.' People who respond to cogent and convincing already understand the shortcomings of ID.

What I'd like to see, instead of -that- national media campain, is -this- national media campaign: "Intelligent Design says that some otherworldly intelligence designed life, but they don't claim God created the universe--so this is a just a backdoor ... for Satan! Unless they're willing to say God is the Creator, they're demon-worshippers, and do you want your children learning -that-???"

(Yes, the national media campaign should include three question marks.)

From this search one can easily calculate the appropriate ratio of evolutionary scientists to IDers. The committee should be informed of (hammered with) the ratio.

— Les Lane

Someone ought to sue:

— Ed Darrell

What people need to see is the hollowness of ID's underpinnings when subjected to true scientific inquiry

— John Gaunt

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

— Doctor Michael Crichton

No one has ever observed mutation/selection to create a 1) novel body type 2) novel tissue type 3) novel organ

— DaveScot

Reed,

Thanks for your invitation. I did a comprehensive survey and found no reproducible observations of mutation/selection creating a

1) novel body type
2) novel tissue type
3) novel organ

I did, however, find much agreement about the reason for the absolute dearth of observations - mutation/selection works too slowly to observe these things in real time.

I question that thinking as the punctuated equilibrium theory says that mutation/selection can act very quickly. Moreover, dogs have been bred by humans for 20,000 years for unique traits that would never survive the natural selection process, thus dramatically increasing the odds of a creative mutation event, and not a single instance of a novel body type, novel tissue type, or novel organ has appeared in any dog.

The alternative explanation for the complete lack of empirical evidence in support of mutation/selection's power to create novel body types, tissue types, and organs is, of course, that it doesn't have that power. I feel that, at the least, the possibility that mutation/selection does not have this imagined creative power, should be presented in any discussion of evolution. Honesty requires such a disclosure.

Feel free to expose any reproduceable observations of mutation/selection creating a novel body type, novel tissue type, or novel origin that I may have missed in my comprehensive survey.

Guys don't take this wrong....

But if any of the speakers argue like the evolutionists on PT you will lose.

There are real issues with evolution that any credible agnostic will acknoledge.

Its only the athiests that claim BS like its a fact, never been wrong etc etc etc.

If you overstate you case and get caught you lose...

Most of you have an image of the opposition in your head of some hillbilly with a gradeschool education.

There are real weaknesses in evolution, real unexplained, open perplexing weaknesses. If you sell the image that there are not all that needs to be done is clearly show in a way the comman man can see that you are lying, either our of ignorance or malice.

Argueing from a fairness aspect due to evolution not being strong enough to preclude any other form of reasoning on the matter of creation a fair to average debater with a biology background could bring you all to your knees.

Exibit 1
What are the odds of a human self assembling....4^4300000000:1 against.

Exibit 2
How many times has speciation been observed? 0,1,2,3 you are still in trouble with small numbers that are contested.

Exibit 3
False claims of evolution in textbooks from the 70s. Surely you know that this is a killer.

Exibit 4
Evolution/SETI claims regarding the likelyhood of life on other planets. Again proven largely false and currently discredited by better reasoned science.

Exibit 5
What percentage of evolutionists are athiests? Is there or is there not a evolution site called nogod?

Come on you guys have to see this comming by this point...

Reed A., No one has ever observed DaveScot
1) Reading the relevant literature (or even related literature)
2) Admitting a mistake (although many, many have been pointed out at him)
3) Answering perfectly easy challenges to his hopeful hypothesis

It is only a pity that we can't really conclude that he doesn't exist. Say what you will about creationism (I usually do ::grin:: ) but think of how wonderful is a world in which anything that bothers you can be concluded to not exist without needing to use logic, proof or even common sense!

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

I did a comprehensive survey

— DaveScot

Reed,

I almost forgot about your request for a definition of terms.

observed

If you don't know what an observation in science is you can glean an understanding from the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#The_role_of_Observation_in_the_Scientific_Method

novel

This one is a little more involved. I'm an accomplished inventor and am using "novel" in that sense. Some background of that context can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Novelty

However, examples work even better.

Examples of novel body types can be found at the root of this tree:

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/

Novel tissue types would include the array of known types that descend from stem cells during ontogeny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cells

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_tissue

Novel organ typew would include the array of known types that are formed during ontogeny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_%28anatomy%29

I hope this helps. I sometimes overestimate my audience and assume that when I use terms such as novel, body, tissue, and organ that the reader will have an immediate and unambiguous understanding of these terms in an anatomical context.

Care to show us your methods and results?

— Reed

To observe is the process of filtering sensory information through the thought process. Input is received via hearing, sight, smell, taste, or touch and then analyzed through either rational or irrational thought. You see a man beat his wife; you observe that such an action is either right or wrong. The defining characteristic of observation is that it involves drawing conclusions, as opposed to simply registering that something has happened.

Nope, I don't care to. But feel free to give me one example

— DaveScot

This isn't about science. It's about religion. Specifically atheist scientists against theist parents. Science should be agnostic but it has been hijacked by a bunch of lying atheists. It's disgusting.

— davescot

This isn't about science. It's about religion. Specifically atheist scientists against theist parents. Science should be agnostic but it has been hijacked by a bunch of lying atheists. It's disgusting.

Nope, I don't care to. But feel free to give me one example of mutation/selection being observed creating a 1) novel body type 2) novel tissue type 3) novel organ

— DaveScot

But feel free to give me one example of mutation/selection being observed creating a 1) novel body type 2) novel tissue type 3) novel organ

Dear Panda's Thumb contributors*,

After a great deal of thread-reading and even the occasional posting, I have come to the conclusion that there is a plague of trolls here. In the fashion of rabbit-fox population curves, it is clear that they must be getting a lot of good food at the moment.

It is a well-established practice that one should not feed trolls (and as Ian Musgrave can attest, I've certainly learned that the hard way on another list). In general, the purpose of not feeding trolls is simply to improve the SN ratio and reduce blood pressure.

In this case, however, I feel it goes beyond maintaining the integrity of the comments tracking on PT. The trolls here cannot be motivated by a desire to learn, because they refuse to. They cannot be here to persuade anyone else, because they are clearly not successful in such regard. They can't be here for any other reason than causing irritation to people they dislike, and one can only wonder if they are not partly motivated by a desire to cause as much time-wasting as possible among people whom they see as enemies of the state.

I strongly advise a non-troll-feeding strategy. It's not just good for Panda's Thumb. It frees up time to do something useful. Don't waste time answering questions that were never asked with the intention of communicating or learning. Stop breeding bunnies and the troll population will crash.

regards,
Chris

*I use the term advisedly.

This isn't about science. It's about religion. Specifically atheist scientists against theist parents. Science should be agnostic but it has been hijacked by a bunch of lying atheists. It's disgusting.

— davescot

Somebody ought to check the IP's of these posts to see if it isn't DaveScot feeding on himself.

Please, someone moderate these threads.

On one of the other threads a Slashdot-style moderation system of comments was proposed. Being an avid addict of Slashdot myself, I think that's a great idea, that's a win-win situation for all parties involved. The Creationists can feel free to rant and rave without being given the opportunity to claim themselves as ideological martyrs and the signal-to-noise ratio can finally increase, and we can get rid of the stupid comment spam that I've been seeing here.

Reading the posts here and on some of the other threads, I'm come to the somewhat delayed conclusion that the Creationist trolls really aren't posting here for any reason other than to assuage their egos that they're right and that hundreds of years of solid, steady scientific progress is wrong.

Thanks for the examples of novel body types, tissue types, organs, etc., Reed and company! I almost always pick up a new one in such a list.

I work at a school with a program for pregnant teens. It seems the probability that a human will self-assemble is much higher than most of them thought! One of the problems is that many of our schools around here use "abstinence" as the curriculum for sexual and mental health. Denying the kids information that could stop pregnancies and save lives produces an immediate result in more unplanned babies.

Kansas' efforts to keep kids from learning about evolution may not produce such an immediate effect anywhere, but neither will it help us in two key areas: Health care and agriculture.

To the extent that the Kansas State Board wishes to conduct hearings, it would be useful for the people of the state to get a full sense of what evolution means to people there. Surely there is a cancer clinic of some reknown, and surely there is research into crops at one of the state universities that form one of the keystones of the Kansas economy. That stuff needs to be highlighted repeatedly.

Dickens' portrait of Ebenezer Scrooge provides a lot of grist for the careful reader. It shows us what not to be, through most of the story, as well as presenting a model for behavior at the end. One of the lines in the book that most affects me is early on, when Scrooge gets to his house and starts up the stairs, after having seen his dead partner Marley's face on the door knocker. Dickens wrote, "The stairs were dark. But darkness was cheap, and Scrooge liked it."

By the end of the story, Scrooge has repented of cheapness and darkness. Kansas may yet be so lucky (though dealing with several Scrooges at once can be frustrating).

I agree with Chris Lawson that we're feeding trolls.

I'm in the midst of trying to teach my own children aged 9 and 5 about natural selection, both the process and the ramifications. There's some decent lesson plans out there:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/Lessons/index.shtml

I want to find out from any of the teachers if there are some other sites that contain solid, scientific pedagological material for teaching evolution. I mean we can argue till we're blue in the face, but the bottom line is that we have entered the Biological Century and if we don't equip the children scientifically AND ethically to make decisions affecting our world, it doesn't matter a tinker's damn what happens in Kansas. Indeed, it might be time to ponder what might be the equivalent of a biology-oriented Kaplan Learning Center or Score!

Science should be agnostic but it has been hijacked by a bunch of lying atheists. It's disgusting.

— DaveScot

A couple of questions/comments:

For DaveScot - since you're so well-read and informed, I am curious as to your take on the work of Doebley and coworkers. I think many would consider his body of work (and that of his predecessors, going back many decades) to be an excellent example of RM/NS giving rise to novel body plans and organs.

For no one in particular - would it be appropriate to ask the school board for some accountability here? If they are going to bother a bunch of working scientists to "defend" evolution (or whatever is supposed to happen), might it not be wise to ask - no, demand - that the board listen to and understand the responses and presentations at the hearings? Perhaps require, as a part of the hearings, that the board take, and pass, a test of the presented material? And that they agree to resign their position if they fail the test? (Not an unreasonable request - they are working for the voters and parents of the state, and a failure in this regard is a blatant shirking of the job they promised to do when they ran for office.) Of course, this would be asked of the anti-ID as well the pro-ID members of the committee.

DaveScot wrote: "Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%."

That's cute Dave. Now let's look at the ratio of Evangelical Christians among the ID crowd. I'm guessing somewhere around 100%. Certainly no bias there!

And I've asked this question before, without a response. Who/what created your creator?

Your seeming unwillingness/inability to answer this simple question illustrates that your cosmology is just a dodge. Saying some intelligent agent created everything still begs the question, "Who created the intelligent agent?"

I agree with Chris Lawson. Please stop feeding the trolls. There are some relevant, really interesting comments at the beginning of the thread. I'd like to hear more of what people have to say about them. Sparring with DaveScot and his ilk only wastes bandwidth.

"Without divulging too much information, I can assure you that a counter strategy is already in the works. Right now, it looks like funding will be one of the biggest issues. Because of the boycott, the science defenders will be working for free."

So why not set up a foundation or something to fund it via donations? Hell, aren't there standing organizations that could do this sort of thing whenever needed?

Question 1:
Can we (the pro-evolution crowd) afford NOT to send anyone to this debacle? Is it only me who thinks that the ignorant, IDist, right-wing faction of the Kansas Bd of Education (and the media / anyone else who's watching) will take a legitimate scientist no-show as proof that we don't have enough evidence to defend evolution? I understand the thought that we're giving their arguments weight just by showing up, but isn't this also about the public relations campaign for the entire US/world community, not only about whether Kansas decides what to teach in their schools?

Question 2: Who would get sent? Are there scientists amongst us that could argue like a lawyer, sift through 150 years worth of scientific evidence, and present it in a way that is convincing and easy to understand to laypeople?

Question 3: Are there any PR firms for science?

The board is paying for us scientists to show up, eh? I got a great idea that will really hammer home the point: let's ALL go. Every one of us. A few hundred thousand scientists supporting evolution, and we'll send them the bill. You'll never see this crap happen again.

"Atheism means that no reasonable evidence of the supernatural has been shown to exist, and thus a reasonable person concludes that no god exists, unless later shown evidence for a god. You see the difference?"

This is bad logic. If one lacks evidence one shold simply not believe, not believe not. The latter is a totally unecessary overshoot. In symbolic logic, ~BX is sufficient, and since it is a statement simply about ones own lack of belief, it demands no special burden of proof. B~X is a claim in itself, demanding its own burden of proof. Do you really want to bother with that burden of proof, when skepticism is perfectly sufficient to deal with theist demands and claims?

Interesting too that the ratio of atheists is lower for biology than for physics. Doesn't lend much credibility to the idea that evolution is an atheist plot. What does that make physics?

Dear PT:

Hree is my case against moderating out the trolls.

Responding to these people is annoying, and it derails threads. It certainly bears its cost. But look at what it does provide:

1) hands on, constant practice in actually engaging creationist arguments, whenever you want it. A 24-hour debate service!
2) people trying to explain evolutionary biology again and again often find creative new ways to explain things that are instructive and insightful to all.

The fact is, something like the "tissue-type/organ-type" claim is an interesting one. Explaining why it doesn't disprove evolution is complicated and time-consuming, forcing us to run back through the whole shebang of the evidence for common descent all over again (personally, I don't think that's such a bad thing anyway, keeps people fresh). But thinking about the issue more seriously might also lead us to more immediately convincing rejoinders: examples of research we might have overlooked or been unaware of, and so forth. We should never stop building and outfitting ourselves with knowledge, and the trolls, while harmful in some respects, force us to do that in other respects.

"Interesting too that the ratio of atheists is lower for biology than for physics. Doesn't lend much credibility to the idea that evolution is an atheist plot. What does that make physics?"

Well, everyone knows that physicists tried to cover up and deny the Big Bang because of the quite obvious theistic implications of a near totally chaotic inflationary scenario with a boundary of pure chaos that we can't see past to ever see any sort of beginning.

Right? Doesn't everyone know that?

Question 1: Can we (the pro-evolution crowd) afford NOT to send anyone to this debacle? Question 2: Who would get sent?

— E

Question 3: Are there any PR firms for science?

There ya go. The last bastion of failed atheist theories. When the empirical evidence is overwhelmingly against you, resort to the establishment clause to censor the evidence. Truly disgusting.

"As has been noted, the absurdity that the public took away, of course, was that this ratio was in some way reflective of real science."

At lesat Ken and Lawrence were savvy enough to explicitly point this out in the debate, and I hope the guys who end up representing science this time around do as well.

"Sad to say, it's not such a funny question as it was a few years ago."

It's not funny at all. When do you need lawyers? When the other guy's got one.

Here's something to ponder:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1323202.htm

Over at Muppet Labs, certainly Dr. Bunsen and Beaker could come up with some joke to add some levity.

But where are the ID researchers on this issue? Why aren't they out beating the bushes trying to track down the malevolent Intelligent Designer (who I usually call the Wilber Force), in order to make it stop?

Are there any chickens in Kansas?

the Kansas Board of Education (which gained a 6-4 conservative majority last November) has settled on a plan to have six days of hearings...

— Reed A. Cartwright

In a golden age of agricultural research, Chumley said future possibilities are practically endless. Biotechnology, the catch-all term for many aspects of modern biological research, is on the forefront of genetic advancement of crops and livestock. The potential for value-added commodities with less inputs is also coming to age. Facing the challenge of supplying the world with an abundant, plentiful and cheap food market is another goal.

Intelligent Design

Can we call it biblical science and push for seperate classes (elective) for those interested in studying it?

Taking a page from the creationists book it's all about controlling the language.

I'm really getting tired of ignorgant, insulting individuals like DaveScot parrotting the same dishonest nonsense over and over and over and over on this site. Dave in particular is dragging the dialogue at PT down sharply. I have no use for his coarse manner, his shameless arrogance, and his habit of flinging irrelevant slurs and outrageous falsehoods in rapid succession. I know it's tempting to respond to the likes of Dave with scathing insults--thereby descending to his level--or with counterpoints--thereby attempting to raise him to ours--but it's a futile exercise.

Please, I appeal to the Buddha nature in all of you. The next time DaveScot posts, don't get angry. Don't even respond with a well-crafted argument. Recognize him for what he is: a pitiable, benighted human being, so mired in his ignorance that he is a lost cause. He is no longer worthy of one speck of your attention or one second of your time. Life is too short. Leave him to his blindness, for he has deluded himself into a kind of miserable bliss in that darkness.

Addressing such a debate:

I'm with PZ on the idea that it does science no real good to show up, because any "equal time" forum simply gives the anti-evolution side plenty of time to spit out lies upon lies and have the scientific side waste their time just trying to clear up *one* of them, while the others left unchallanged simply get treated by the audience as fact.

This is a credulous audience; they *want* to see things that support their already conditioned view, so simply pointing out that one thing the other side says is wrong isn't enough to break their confidence.

Plus, its impossible to crack matters of faith. The simple (and sadly far too common) argument that "it is inconceivable that X, therefore Y" can not be countered. It is in itself an utterly unscientific statement that can not be countered by reason, evidence, or science.

So any allocated time spent at these kinds of equal-time sessions will be wasted trying to point out a lack of reason in statements made to those who may already be unreasonable, literally.

The courtroom becomes the only place where this should be argued. It is the one place where "equal time" isn't some artificially contrived limitation that gives an unfair advantage to the liar and deceiver.

Addressing such a debate:

I'm with PZ on the idea that it does science no real good to show up, because any "equal time" forum simply gives the anti-evolution side plenty of time to spit out lies upon lies and have the scientific side waste their time just trying to clear up *one* of them, while the others left unchallanged simply get treated by the audience as fact.

This is a credulous audience; they *want* to see things that support their already conditioned view, so simply pointing out that one thing the other side says is wrong isn't enough to break their confidence.

Plus, its impossible to crack matters of faith. The simple (and sadly far too common) argument that "it is inconceivable that X, therefore Y" can not be countered. It is in itself an utterly unscientific statement that can not be countered by reason, evidence, or science.

So any allocated time spent at these kinds of equal-time sessions will be wasted trying to point out a lack of reason in statements made to those who may already be unreasonable, literally.

The courtroom becomes the only place where this should be argued. It is the one place where "equal time" isn't some artificially contrived limitation that gives an unfair advantage to the liar and deceiver.

The simple (and sadly far too common) argument that "it is inconceivable that X, therefore Y" can not be countered

The driving force of the anti-evolution controversy is and has been control of children, their education, and, through these means, controlling the future of society. This central theme of controlling children to control the future was splendidly stated by the southern Methodist weekly paper, the Nashville ( Tenn.) Christian Advocate, in 1880 when it warned: "Those who educate the present generation of children in these United States will hold the reins of power when they are grown. Therefore if we turn over the education of our children to others, we renounce our hold upon the future."

— Charles A. Israel

Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, and maybe I'm stating something someone has already said (I skipped over all the DaveScot BS), but isn't it obvious what the Board is doing?

The Science Standards Committee didn't go their way; the independent review didn't go their way; the public meeting looked more like a relgious debate than anything else.

And we have to keep in mind, these people aren't going to do what they did in 1999. Their agenda is to "teach the controversy". In light of all the earlier events, the next best thing for them to do is stage a controversy. So they invite a dozen IDists and a dozen "evolutionists" and have them duke it out for all to see. Voila! There's your controversy! Once they've established that it exists, how can anyone argue that it shouldn't be taught to our children?

Whether the "evolutionists" show up or not, the point will be made all the same. People with the requisite letters after their names don't agree with "Darwinism", therefore there is a controversy.

I think you might as well show up and make as good a case as you can, because the Board's goal will be achieved regardless. And I would make it a two-pronged attack. Have some people point out the errors in ID, but have others provide some quotes from the IDists where they describe their ultimate Christian agenda.

Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, and maybe I'm stating something someone has already said (I skipped over all the DaveScot BS), but isn't it obvious what the Board is doing?

The Science Standards Committee didn't go their way; the independent review didn't go their way; the public meeting looked more like a relgious debate than anything else.

And we have to keep in mind, these people aren't going to do what they did in 1999. Their agenda is to "teach the controversy". In light of all the earlier events, the next best thing for them to do is stage a controversy. So they invite a dozen IDists and a dozen "evolutionists" and have them duke it out for all to see. Voila! There's your controversy! Once they've established that it exists, how can anyone argue that it shouldn't be taught to our children?

Whether the "evolutionists" show up or not, the point will be made all the same. People with the requisite letters after their names don't agree with "Darwinism", therefore there is a controversy.

I think you might as well show up and make as good a case as you can, because the Board's goal will be achieved regardless. And I would make it a two-pronged attack. Have some people point out the errors in ID, but have others provide some quotes from the IDists where they describe their ultimate Christian agenda.

stage a controversy

Dang! Jason, I think that you just drilled the KSBE right between their IDC eyes.

They can't "teach" a controversy until they fake one. Brilliant, I think I'll have a beer in your honor.

"Nope, I don't care to. "

Finally, DaveScott admits to his close-mindedness. Ya don't say you're dealing in science and then refuse to disclose methodology and sources.

Dishonest to say the least.....

I find the entire charade in Kansas to be mystifying. Public bodies most places follow large bodies of rules and procedures to ensure that the body gets appropriate advice and no minority party with a personal agenda can co-opt the system and hijack the process. Yet, that seems to be what has happened. The Kansas BOE is ignoring its lawfully appointed advisory board, has run rough shod over its own rules, has violated what I gather are the opening meeting laws in Kansas, and in general behaved just like a provincial Communist party committee in the old Soviet Union. They've chosen the results in advance, stacked the deck to achieve the results they seek, and will shortly crow how their "open and democratic" process has achieved success for the children of Kansas. Surely they must have transgressed one or more Kansas laws and violated whatever oath they took upon assuming their seats on the state BOE. I would hope the Kansas Citizens for Science are now planning a PR assault throughout the state to be followed by legal action to seek redress. The entire episode is a travesty on a open society.

Hi all. I have a slightly different type of observation to make. If you read the proposed standards you will note how the standars attempt to hijack modern epistemological debates to deconstruct evolutionary theory. Some of this is downright disengenuous-such as citing Ken Miller, Michael Ruse to support the concept of design and teleology in nature, and Ernst Mayr to support the premise that evolution isn't real science because it constructs narratives and deals with the past. The units on earth sciences do the same thing.

Boycotting these panels has some attraction, but in two cases (Ruse and Miller) perhaps their showing up and pointing out their views are being misreprsented (even if subtly) could be quite powerful.

The strategy seems designed to be twofold: 1) convince students that evolution and earth science aren't real sciences;
2) convince students that there might be an alternative called "design".

By the standards of modern debates on epistemology, the standards interestingly, get it about 80% right. The 20% they omit however is significant.

What they omit is that the narratives historical sciences construct can be put at risk and discredited. Even if you can't perform controlled experiments you can still discredit a theory. Evolution and earth science have not been discredited, but in fact, continue to be well supported.

That should be in the standards.

A third point should be in the standards. Even if we cannot prove historical sciences "true" (or any science for that matter) we still have to judge theories that are well supported and predict novel facts against theories that fail. Students should be taught that the design research program was the research program that dominated science in Darwin's day. That research program was discarded, along with other teleological based theories of evolution for any number of reasons. Today, people are trying to revive it but have yet to offer any credible body of scientific research.

Finally, in spite of the long rant I can't help but make a last final point. The interpretation they offer of historical narratives is similar in many respects to soft versions of post modernism (reference Hayden White for example). Perhaps students should be taught to distinguish between science and literary criticism?

I really would like to address the troll-posting on this site. I think that the creationists posting here misunderstand just how off-base they are. They truly are not interacting in a commensurable manner with the evolutionists/scientists here on the comment board. There is really no point to it at all. This is not to say that an entrenched, successful, and immenently verified consensus such as contemporary evolution is not amenable to drastic new research or internal and external queries; but it is to say that such challenges to the currently accepted wisdom would have to appeal to the tradition in a way that would compel attention. Science, like history and philosophy, requires a certain amount of conservatism in order to establish such impressive explanatory power as evolutionary theory. One doesn't jump around considering wildly off-base explanations when a research plan is working, and working incredibly well. So, I would ask the creationists here to just bugger off. There may be radical challenges ahead for evolutionary theory, but they are assuredly not coming from the religious quarter. The battle the creationists want so badly cannot be met on the field of science; if they want war, it will have to be over funding and free speach...or else brute force, for they've nothing to offer science, and actually cannot have anything to offer science. (Which does not, of course, preclude religious fundamentalists or moderate Episcopalians, or even psychopathic sexual predators from making significant contributions to science.)

I agree with Gary Hurd that Jason hit the nail squarely on the head. It seems like a no-win situation no matter how you stack it. If we show, there is a controversy and the kangaroo court goes forward. If we don't, then they deride evolution for not having the guts to show up. The problem lies in scientists having the play by their rules as they set them up. IDists have already done a magnificent job in co-opting certain language (taking a page from Republicans who made "liberal" a dirty word) and we have really been playing catch-up here. We have to catch up when they offer up their lies and correct the mistakes. By that point, they've offered up 3 more at least.

I'm very interested in Jeremy Mohn's ominous sounding "counter-strategy" but it must be pro-active and take the fight to them, as well as start to frame terms, arguments, and venues on our terms in order to be effective.

Clearly, an event is being organized whose outcome has nothing to do with anything scientific. An old friend of mine was DA in a little rural town with one stoplight and one gas station. At the height of the energy crisis, with long lines everywhere, someone from out of town pulled into this gas station just as they were closing. The owner/operator of the station was by that hour quite drunk, was saving his gas for the locals, and refused to serve this customer. There was a heated argument, and the gas station owner waved a tire iron around in a threatening manner. The stranger left.

The next day, the stranger returned to file assault charges against the station owner. There was a jury trial. The gas station owner, by now sober, admitted he did everything he was accused of and apologized. But the penalty was a month in jail, during which the gas station would be closed! And the nearest gas station was 60 miles up the road. So the jury (of local residents) deliberated for a minute or two, decided the gas station owner was lying and that the event never happened, and that was the end of the case.

The Kansas BOE is engineering the equivalent of that case, anticipating the same results. Do we really think people will behave any different when their faith is threatened, as when their gasoline supply is threatened? Do the facts matter? Why are we discussing body types? The majority of the BOE are creationists because the majority of the electorate are creationists. USE them!

The idiots at the Board of Education in Kansas that are writing these standards were elected by even more dim-witted idiots. They are in these positions based on their popularity and not by academic qualification. To even raise this issue is reflective of the need for some serious remedial education in the scientific method on the part of those Board members who are even remotely considering putting intelligent design in the science classroom.

Science has nothing to say about the supernatural or God or an intelligent designer one way or another. Most of the experts on the intelligent design (religious) side of the issue did not even bother reading the material they were testifying on. I would bet that absolutely none of them have ever read Darwin's Origin of the Species or Descent of Man. And those that did probably haven't figured out that a lot has happened since the 1800's.