Emporia biologist John Richard Schrock argues in a commentary in today’s Eagle that scientists were wrong to boycott the Kansas State Board of Education hearings on evolution earlier this year. Although I supported that boycott, I now wonder if Schrock isn’t right.
As he argues, the boycott left the field to ID proponents and fed their claims that mainstream scientists couldn’t defend the theory — a ludicrous charge, but some Kansans believed it. Scientists, says Schrock, didn’t just appear arrogant — “we were arrogant.”
Scientists must be much more aggressive in explaining and defending evolution and basic scientific principles to the public. By sitting back, they’ve allowed ID proponents to score points in the court of public opinion.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Cynical on Death penalty review promised
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
48 Comments
Randy,Will have to disagree. The scientific community was correct to boycott that farce of a “hearing”.
To argue with the likes of Connie and Steve A. is to dignify their nonsense.
Actually, in head to head debates the ’scientists’ haven’t fared all that well! They were right to boycott!
Unfortuantely, not everyone reads the twisted and biased reporting and opinions of the WE. Some will actually read the new standards and wonder what teh big deal is!
I would add further that the creationists who are most loudly arguing the position of ID, are doing so:1) disingenuously (my dictionary defines as “giving a false impression of simple frankness” – my take on Steve Abrams,DVM), or2) out of ignorance, with no particular interest in being educated otherwise (my take on Connie Morris,B’nNPD – Borderline and Narcissistic Personality Disorder) – regrettably, I am not the first to give her such a designationsee – http://www.kansasmorons.com/Moron%20of%20the%20month.htm
“Actually, in head to head debates, the scientists haven’t fared all that well”.Now THAT’S a bunch of BS!!!!
WOW! I read the link, Steven. Did she come up with the title of her book all on her own? Now, that is diagnostic!!
Damoon,I would bet she came up with the title. As I understand it, the press that published her auto(erotic)biography, is more of a vanity (something Connie has so little of) press.
I think the book reviewer got her Dx correct. If she wasn’t so irritating, I could almost feel sorry for her.
Sorry Connie, but the first thing our Founding Fathers did was eliminate nobility. No such thing in the USofA! If you’ve risen to nobility, you need to get yourself to someplace where that term still has some meaning- Borneo comes to mind!
I think one or two appointed representatives from the Kansas University system should have been there…a couple of extremely knowledgeable developmental biologist who were good debaters.I had a biology teacher brag at the beginning of the semester about how a large group of professors got together and decided to boycott the hearings. They felt it wouldn’t matter what they said; that it wouldn’t change the mind of the board members.I raised my hand and said that they shouldn’t have done that. I told him that it doesn’t matter what that group of 9 thinks. The hearings had international press and the lack of participation by our scientific community looked very bad. What mattered is public opinion, not the opinion of those morons we elected.I also told him that if the scientific community stayed quiet, we might loose, by political pressures, our rights to scientific freedom of discovery. The manipulation of science by politics has happened many times throughout history. We cannot assume that we have come so far, that it would never happen again.
The Kansas scientific community is being naïve, ignorant and a little too smug. They should never just “let it go”.
A theory I have about Connie is that she is twisted enough that she might receive great gratification from the persecution that she so religously provokes from others.
If I am correct, it might be better to not mention her in newspaper articles, blogs, etc. Ignoring her may be the only effective way to deal with a woman who may be this sick; whereas our generous derision may only be encouraging her.
I wonder if I will be able to restrain myself . . .
Steven,The problem with ignoring an attention-seeker is that they are then provoked to more and more dangerous behavior to attract some notice (ever raise a two year-old?). Couple that with her position of power, and we may lose our educational system altogether! She needs to be gotten out of power before we ignore her!
Bush
Scroll down to picture of two turkeys.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/blogs/opinion/
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.
So Damoon,
I assume that you have read the new science standards that have resulted from the so-called-hearings that the exteemed scientists boycotted.
Would you care to specifically comment on exactly what it is about the new standards that you have your panties in a wad?
WARNING:
This might take more tought than your usual ‘bumper-sticker’ post!
Remember esod, bumper sticker slogans, even ones that are repeated over and over, do not an argument make.
Isn’t the 1st rule, scientifically speaking (which most of you do not do on this site) that order never comes out of choas? Darwinism in the macro sense breaks this rule not once but millions of times over in order to make the leap from stuff to life and then to a relatively stable diversity of life.
I’m afraid while Darwin’s theory works in the micro sense it has no scientific credibility in the macro sense. To say that all life sprang from one chance gathering of molecules requires such faith as to be a religion. Therefore it is Darwin’s Theory that forces the debate.
The cross species leap makes no sense if we look at the world around us. I shutter to think of the advances we could have already made if we allowed that perhaps the similarities are from a creator as are the differences. With that view whole new avenues of scientific research would open up.
This blog is not a scientific debate but more about ego, financing, and yes a secular form of religion than a civilized discusion of the issues.
The scientists chose not to debate because in the end they have no clue as to the beginning.
Let me give you a clue-In the beginning God…the rest is up to us to discover. And isn’t it great that the one who created us still loves you and gives you the gifts of questioning minds and the freedom to use them. Don’t blow it.
The changing of the definition of science to a search for LOGICAL explanations instead of NATURAL ones. That’s what has my panties in a wad.
For the life of me, I can’t remember who said this, but it’s a great example. Stand outside at daybreak and observe the sun chillin’ in the east. Go out again at noon and see it up in the sky. Go back out in te evening and see it creep away in the west. The most logical explanation is that the sun moves around the earth. That’s what we see, that seems like the simplest explanation.
Our senses and gut feelings aren’t that accurate all the time. That’s where scientific research comes in…a search for natural explanations.
Also, why bother to change the wording of the science definition? What’s the purpose of changing that one little word, natural, to “logical”? Did they think it sounded prettier? I think not…this new definition opens the door to supernatural explanations. If we let them get away with this (seemingly) negligible alteration, morealarming changes are sure to follow.
Tom,In the beginning, God: Created the heavens and earth and sat back and let them develop. He watched as the first protozoa evolved into lizards, dinosaurs, mammals, and finally man. When he saw man walking the earth, so said, “let him have reason,” and the first language was spoken.
Thus was born man as we know him today (all except the KBOE, whom are still mostly protozoa).
Tom,Ah, the old entropy argument! It’s already been answered to the satisfaction of everybody except creationists, who keep trotting it out as though it was viable, even though they know better, or should!
Tom,You say micro, you say macro, I say where is the border. Ain’t it simply a question of scale, or the positioning of the observer?As for LOGICAL vs. NATURAL, let’s say I throw a baseball up, it variably comes down. Logically I can say what goes up must come down. But the natural explanation is that I didn’t impart high enough initial velocity for the ball to overcome the Earth’s gravity well. Thus it shows that logic is often subjective. Since I can never throw it fast enough, I’ll never be able to show that the ball can actually hurtle toward the Moon. But we know that it is possible.
Tara,Sigh… once again I must add that the standards will allow for questioning, but any conclusions MUST be based on scientific rules of testing! Your argument does not hold water. Please read the standards.. not just the media exerpts.
Gentle people,
A scientific theory exists for one reason and one reason only. To be questioned and if possible disproved. Unless, it is evolution! You see my hysterical, secular friends, evolution has become the foundation for its very own religion, question it at your peril!
“A scientific theory exists for one reason and one reason only. To be questioned and if possible disproved.”
And I thought they form the backbone of the guide to the NATURAL explanations of the world around us. Of course, like any guides, they do come in the encyclopaedia edition, or pocket-sized, e.g., general relativity vs. Newton’s Laws.
As the Bible is the Ultimate Guide, I propose then to redefine “pi” to be equal to exactly 3, no more, no less. And if the buildings collapse, that’s just the will of God!
esod
You’re wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory, but disproves many religious beliefs.
There’s the problem….religion attacking the messenger.
“Gentle people,” — remember that salutation; now I’m sure that esod is Hank, who was begat by Nathan (was that his name – actually I am forgetting). The point being that it is pointless trying to reason with him about evolution – can’t be done, so don’t bother.
Steven, I caught that, too. I also remember how Hank derided other people for not using their real name. What a hypocrite. I find it hard to believe that 2 different people would use a drifty sounding salutation like “gentle people”. Like bad penny, Hank is back.
“once again I must add that the standards will allow for questioning, but any conclusions MUST be based on scientific rules of testing!”
I read the damn standards.
Supernatural explanations won’t be able to be based on the scientific method. It’s impossible, because supernatural explanations aren’t observable, testable or falsifiable.
So, Sam, if explanations have to be based on the “scientific rules of testing”, then ID or creationism won’t be mentioned in the classroom. It’s not even an issue.
So WHY change the standards in the first place? WHY WHY WHY???? Why replace those words “natural explanations” with “logical” and “more adequate explanations”?
Right now, the standards aren’t too scary, but they open a door to scary things. Otherwise, why bother reaming our state’s image with this nonsense?
Oh, and Hank…if you have doubts about the theory of evolution…why don’t you point out something specific that you believe contradicts the theory? I would be quite interested in these gaping holes in the theory that make it an “age old fairytale”.The only knowledge I have is from college bio classes, and those secular liberal professors–what do they know?So, Hank, throw me out one of those gaping holes. I’d love to be enlightened.What if we start with irreducible complexity? I know that one.
The KBOE slept next to the “pods.”
And there you have it.
Great post, Tara. When the theory of ID can be scientifically tested, then maybe I’ll give it respect. The “age old fairy tale” is the one about the earth being created in 6 days and that it’s only 7,000 years old. Try backing up that “theory” with some scientific evidence, I dare ya, “esod”!
If their “Book” is wrong, then what are they going to believe?
Damoon..If you had any scientific knowledge you would know that the origins of the universe cannot beproven with scientific evidence. There were no witnesses (other than God), and it happened only once.. which means it cannot and will not ever be subject to the rules of scientific testability.ID cannot do it, and neither can evolution.Roo..Your post makes no sense to me whatsoever… why would you redefine pi based on anything found in the Bible?Ed…No.. evolution does not disprove anything… God could us it any way He wanted.
The study of the origins of the universe (abiogenesis) is not the same as the study of evolution. It’s a common misconception in this sham of a debate.
The theory of evolution is observable and testable; we have observed natural selection in action many, many times. We haven’t observed one species transforming into another species because the process is so slow.
But let’s take the “sketchy” fossil record and see how we’ve applied the scientific method to it, in very, very simplified terms.Well after the publication of the origins of species, scientists thought “Ok, IF Darwin had the right idea and there are evolutionary transitions that create new species from old ones, THEN there should be fossils that look like this, in that layer of rock approximately x years old”.Well, they’ve found fossils of transitional forms that SUPPORT this hypothesis. Have they PROVEN evolution? No, they just see that things make sense when using this viewpoint, and can predict what types of transitional fossils should exist.
They can also use the Darwinian viewpoint to explain similarites between different species on different parts of the continent.
You can’t form educated hypothesis and expected results using an ID viewpoint. So to lump them together in the same category under “theories” is ludicrous.
But enough…why is all of this an affront to God? I can’t think of a more brilliant design.Happy Thanksgiving!
Oh, and I think this was what Roo was referring to…funny stuff, but a parody, nonetheless.http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm
Dear people,
I finally got curious enough to check the archives and read some of Hank’s stuff. He’s really a lot nicer than I am.
I’ve never argued against evolution from religious standpoint. In fact, I’ve never argued against evolution.
This evolution,ID argument is simply; Do the people that pay property taxes and vote have the right to have a say in what is taught in the schools.
Most Kansans don’t believe they have evolved. The conservative school board members have ‘hijacked’ nothing. They ran on their beliefs and the people of Kansas elected them.
The curiculum in schools around the country is decided by politics. Sorry. Vote ‘em out, I don’t care. But if you do argue against me at least try and figure out the point I am making. Don’t assume I am Hank or someone else or assume I don’t even believe in evolution.
And, my God, get a life!
Gentle Hank, AKA Nathan,
You disengenuously state:”I finally got curious enough to check the archives and read some of Hank’s stuff. He’s really a lot nicer than I am.
I’ve never argued against evolution from religious standpoint. In fact, I’ve never argued against evolution.”
Come ‘on, Hake/Nathan, you know this claim is B.S. on the face of it. Therefore, anything else following it, is B.S. as well.
Anything you have to say about evolution is B.S. Sorry.
After all the crap Esod/Hank gave people for using a psuedonym, he can’t now admit he’s doing it too.
“To say that all life sprang from one chance gathering of molecules requires such faith as to be a religion.” Actually, Darwinism doesn’t have that much to say about the BEGINNING of life–he was only talking about the progression of it once it started.
Also, one of the laws of thermodynamics does claim that order inexorably becomes more chaotic, BUT ONLY IN A CLOSED SYSTEM.
The earth is not a closed system because of the tremendous energy we receive everyday from the sun (and to a much lesser extent from geothermal and tidal energy).
The fetal record clearly shows evolution at work–the lizard brain first develops, then the mammel brain, and finally the distinctively human brain.
The fossil record shows evolution.
The genetic record–that Darwin had no idea of when he postulated his theory–fits perfectly with evolution.
The scientists don’t need a public debate because they don’t debate in public–they debate in academic journals. And when the ID people come up with something that’s worth considering, the journals will print it.
What drives the reactionaries nuts is that science is one “reality based” community that can’t be spun with swift boats and Fox news.
Sucks to be you.
Also, anybody else notice that “Esod” is “dose” spelled backwards?
Like what Rush Limbaugh wishes he had these days, what with Bush down to 34 percent approval–HALF of Clinton’s when he was getting impeached.
“Do the people that pay property taxes and vote have the right to have a say in what is taught in the schools.”
The answer is very often, “Not really.” Imagine the confusions if curricula are changed every year. Also, by this argument, we need a system to decide how the votes are weighted, one person each, or based on the tax paid. Also, this would mean that the old segregation would have been practised, since it had been the prevailing sentiment of the populace (at that moment). This sentiment could have been passed on to students in school, thus perpetuating the idea.
So, in the interest of educating the children, schools often must present materials that may unsettle some constituents.
THe liberal nitwits in their refusal to accept reality make up arguments and names for poor esod. What to do? What to do? Where is Hank when we need him?
Fact:
The school board members ran on an agenda. Kansans in six districts voted them in.
Fact:
They had a hearing on the science standards. The ’scientists’ boycotted the hearings.
Fact:
Unlike aguing their point in the media, both sides were to be heard at the hearings. The scientists chose to fight in a friendlier more biased arena.
Fact:
No matter which side you are on, the new science standards are what the people of Kansas deserve. Maybe not what they want, but what they deserve.
Fact:
The liberals lost at the ballot box. They were a no-show at the hearings. They are only winning in the editorial room of the WE, which isn’t much of a victory!
So when we liberals start winning at the ballot box, that will entitle us to do anything we want.
Okay, good, I’ll remember that.
It has in the past, but don’t hold your breath on ever winning again at the ballot box.
Sam, What proof do you have that God was only witness to the creation of the universe? And how do you know your beliefs have more validity than mine? It’s true, I’m not a scientist, but from reading your posts, I’d say I have a little more knowlege of science than you do.
The original subject was the notion the the science community defaulted in the hearings by not sending scientists. Actually, they sent a quite capable, knowedgeable attorney who cross-examined every witness, and quite well. He made them look quite foolish. I read the transcripts.
Here’s a relevant pre-sponse from Richard Dawkins, “Why I Won’t Debate Creationists”:http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/
I agree with his suggestion that the case for evolution be entrusted to “a local undergraduate majoring in biology.” Otherwise, these people get undeserved credibility. They desperately want their position to regarded as of equal validity!
Scientific heavy-hitters should definitely weigh in when government bodies are pondering doing something stupid–and they have (how many more scientists, how many more scientific organizations, how many more Nobel laureates, need to speak up about this?–I mean, geez!). But participating in the slanted show trial would have only been propaganda for their side. Schrock is wrong.
Damoon… as I said before… noone can prove what happened in the beginning. I never claimed to be a scientist.. but I do have the right to an opinion. If you want to play belief games then what proof do you have that God was NOT a witness to creation? none.. it is all about what you choose to believe..
True Sam, but if you’re a creationist (and I don’t know if you are or not), there is more scientific evidence for what I believe. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the earth was created in 6 days and that it is only around 7,000 yrs old. And no, I can’t prove that God didn’t create the universe, but you can’t prove that the Flying Spagetti Monster didn’t, either. Arguments like that are worthless, because religion is a matter of faith, not science. Of course you have the right to believe as you do, that has nothing to do with my arguement for the separation of church and state and keeping religion out of science classes.
If those of you trying to debunk evolution are so enlightened then why do you keep citing Darwin? If you had half a brain then you would know about Gould. You are all a bunch of idiots.
Damoon…I have my own ideas about the creation.. but as far as separation of church and state is concerned.. that gets back to the original question I think. The new standards do NOT endorse ID, and the new standards do NOT introduce religion into the classroom. That is just media spin. Believe me.. I do not want creation taught in the science classroom either… and I don’t see it happening as the standards are written, IMHO. If someone can show me where the new standards allow the teaching of creationism.. please show me.. I’m not seeing it.
The language opens the doors to discussion of ID in Science classes. I can see it now, when a Christian student insists on talking about the “alternate theory” of how man came to be and the teacher won’t allow it to be discussed, some fundamentalist parent will file a law suit because the new standards allow for the discussion. If it wasn’t meant to change anything in the science classroom, why did the fundamentalists push so hard for new standards? Because it’s the fundamentalist hidden agenda to decry evolution and bring God into the public schools. They were VERY careful to choose the language so it wouldn’t be obvious.
So God is a MERE witness to the Creation? Did Satan then create this world? LOL