University of Kansas chancellor Robert Hemenway told The Eagle editorial board this week that while there’s room for debate on evolution, he would like to see "a little more respect for people who have been trained as scientists."
In fact, one of America’s most respected scientists, E.O. Wilson, biology professor emeritus at Harvard University, this week slammed the Kansas State Board of Education’s vote on evolution, saying there is no evidence to support the theory of intelligent design.
"It (ID) hasn’t even begun to imagine how you would take a supernatural force and transcribe it to organic processes," he told The Kansas City Star.
But then, some ID proponents will probably ask, what does he know?
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
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- george on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- FORD1ST on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
77 Comments
Why rely on Science when everything you ever should know about the universe is in the Bible.
“Ingorance is bliss.” How true!
In my experience there’s very little respect for anyone even in the workplace. What passes for respect is fear. The workplace is like the ocean with predators of various sizes and ferocities cruising around. You’rer ‘respected’ if you’re a big mean predator.
I think there’s been a general coarsening of the culture to the point that no level of accomplishment or expertise counts for much.
“Oh the shark bites, with his teeth dear, and he keeps them, pearly white…”
Anyways, I have restless leg syndrome and suffer from bouts of insomnia. Why are the rest of you up so early??
My sister tells me we are the joke being passed around at the State of Alaska offices. Isnt’ it nice to be noticed so far away?
Once we’ve dumbed down the children of Kansas we can start teaching them many other stories out of the bible as truth. How will the science class discuss feeding all those people with just a few fish and a couple loaves of bread.I’m up this early every morning Brian.. it’s my stupid internal clock.
My problem regarding the evolution/creation/intelligent design controversy is the attempt by pro-evolution proponents to lump intelligent design and creation into one rather than two separate trains of thought. This was probably initiated by the old Scopes trial movie.
The proofs of the general principals of evolution, such as the sciences of geology, archeology, genetics, even geneology, and the fossil record are available for all to consider.
For creationists, their story is valid, a stunning verbal narrative to explain how life started. A hang-up is the calender of creation, an ancient writers technique.
“Intelligent design,” is a separate legitimate attempt to explain what happened before the so-called “big bang,” generally said by scientists to have taken place some 13 billion years ago. Most likely there was a previous universe which for some unexplained reason was destroyed in the big bang. Perhaps this universe was drawn into an enormous black hole or destroyed by its inhabitants. Thankfully, prior to that occurance, an “intelligent designer” was able to pass along the seeds of life in a way they would be distributed throughout our present universe … to reach a protective environment and then EVOLVE slowly into life again over millions and billions of years.
So, Sunday morning, pray to your INTELLIGENT DESIGNER for your opportunity to live your life and help others do the same.
Joe W. must live in a really small universe that obviously revolves around him.
Brian, I’m up early because today is “Second Saturday Computer Sale”. Great sale to pick up computer parts reasonably priced.
The biggest problem with ID is that it is just Christianity with another name. It does not address religious views other than Christianity, and thus is dangerous for a government entity to be endorsing. How does the BoE deal with the Shinto origin of earth, for example? The Shinto religion is vastly different than that of the Bible.
Of course, the zealots can explain that away, saying anyone not agreeing with them is wrong.
JWink, your argument just doesn’t make sense. That is not what ID teaches. ID argues with the dicipline of Developmental Biology. What you described is Astrophysics.ID IS simply just re-packaged Creationism.This is what ID is…a handful of people have come up with a criticism of a biological system (the theory of Evolution), without any tested imperical data, and say “your theory is wrong because I believe it to be so.” Science questions itself with hundreds of scientists running test after test. If everyone comes up with the same results, it is statistically a fact. ID proponents have yet to do any scientific experiments to prove their theories. Why? Because they can’t be proven…so they aren’t science.
Tracy! I was being sarcastic!
The ID’rs tend to find intelligence in their fairytales. Someday intelligent purpose may come into play, but not from them or “their deal.”
We’re not the end result of evolution, and the ID’rs are lagging far behind or more likely one of evolution’s dead-ends.
Joe I suspected that. You’ve always put more thought into your posts than I was giving you credit for.Every now and then we’ll get a newby that would make the same statement without the disclaimer.
It’s all good Tracy. ;)
JWink
Gravity always wins. The fact that matter is attracted to matter means the universe { time, space and matter } will eventually contract to a single point.
Apparently, there is another law of physics which dictates that with enough compression, gravity will reverse itself, thus the “big bang.”
If we could fast-forward this compression, then expansion, { big bang } there’s no telling how many times that may have happened, and it would resemble a heartbeat.
Lets say the this entire cycle, from compression to expansion happens every 300 billions years { our perceived time }.
Life would have enough time to evolve into an existence which did not require time, space or matter and another heartbeat of “big bang” would set a new process into motion.
From that higher plane of existence, we could actually be the ones setting this cycle into motion.
I see something much larger than our current level of understanding offers.
Current theories are based on our present ability to perceive and understand.
I have incorporated this theory into my paper. ” The Universe is a Caludren of Instruction “
Ed,
The most recemnt results seem to indicate that the things are accelerating away from one another..in other words collapse will not occur…the universe will continue expanding forever.
In order to account for this there appears to be a need for an undiscovered ‘repulsive’ force between particles of matter.
Proves again that science is self-critical and attempts to incorporate what is newly discovered while simultaneously retaining what does work.
Brain
I’m aware of that so-called theory, studied the data and have discounted it as nothing more than grandstanding by the same type of “scientists” that presented “cold fusion.” Most of them are just after Grants { money }.
Uh-huh…Okee dokee
Brain
This is an oversimplification but stand behind your shotgun as the pellets race away. Do you suppose that gravity will eventually bring then back to earth?
Now imagines riding on one of those pellets and see how the others move away from you.
More power to those “scientists” if they can turn that “crap” into money.
Ed,
The problem with your experimet is twofold. First you have assumed that gravitation is the only force acting in your scenario. Second, experiments have shown the unknown force is a long range force, not a short range one. It acts on the distance of light years not on the distance of fee or miles.
One must accept the evidence for what it is. Scientists have been making increasingly sophisticated and accurate measurements of the red shifts of distant objects and they have a pretty good distance scale set up from other data. The combination of the two shows that objects are accelerating away from us. You can believe it or not, but data are data. People didn’t believe quantum mechanics either because of its ‘bizarre’ predictions but every one of them has turned out to be correct.
Dammit that last post was from me..I typed the salutation (again) in the name space.
Brain
I respectfully disagree.
BTW, Einstein entertained that “theory” and said: “That was the worst mistake I ever made.”
I agree.
Brain
I prefaced that analogy with “oversimplification.”
I did not offer that as theory.
And physics doesn’t change to suit some cockamamie idea, distance or not.
Ed,The accelleration of everything else away from us may just be the effect of our fundamentalists on the rest of the universe!
Jed
And the faster the better!
Ed, well that sort of shoots down you theory of us all ever getting back together!
Ed,
Physics changes every minute. Newton discovered the laws of universal gravitation and they were “right” until Einstein came along and showed they were only limiting results for speeds much below the speed of light. When one gets close to the speed of light, Newton breaks down and Einstein’s modifications come into play.
100 years ago scientists thought they had all of thermal physics wrapped up..except for one small problem..they couldn’t come up with a model to explain the distribution of wavelengths from a heated object..like a red hot or white hot piece of metal. Enter Max Planck who makes what appears to be a stupid assumption, that energy is radiated in little packets, and voila, everything is explained, quantum mechanics is born.
Science is NEVER complete and it is a mistake to think that anything we know now is the ‘truth’. Science isn’t about truth..it’s about explaining observations to an increasingly accurate degree.
Brain
Interesting. But factor in greed, money, recognition, ego and numbers arriving from instruments looking at very distant objects tent to get “funny.”
One problem: Looking at distant objects is also looking back in time. A “young” universe was expanding and probably accelerating. Closer object might be different, and probably are.
If gravity had an unruly friend, then a singularity would have difficulty forming. The fact that it did tends to rule-out an unruly friend.
Let me quality this “experiment” or “theory” with oversimplification again, before I get into trouble.
Einstein died in 1955. Back then I was in my 20s.
Best, Ed
Ed–stick to Israeli politics. Brian’s got ya on science. Gravitation is not a very strong force on a cosmic scale.
The universe is not going to contract in a “big crunch.” That theory was pretty much shot twenty years ago.
The idea of infinity and an infinity of galaxies is not very intuitive, but there it is.
“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dream’d of . . .” Hamlet.
Should be “qualify” not “quality”
Galahad
I don’t see that.
Gravitation is the strongest force in the universe. Right now our galaxy in revolving around condensed gravity { a black hole }{ which is when matter becomes so dense not even light cannot escape } as is every other galaxy in the universe.
Our sun’s gravity is holding all the planets in our solar system.
Gravity pulled all the matter in this universe into a single point { a singularity }.Nothing is stronger than gravity when condensed.
Ed,
Gravity is one of the weaker of the fundamental forces…electrical forces are orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational ones. For example, gravity hold you to the surface of planet earth, but electrical repulsion is what keeps you from penetrating all the way to the center of the planet.
Time to pull out the old physics book and brush up a bit.
Gravity is the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces. But when you get a large amount of mass in one spot the sum can get very strong (but still weaker than the other three). It is a long range force so its influence can extend millions of lightyears and keep galaxies and clusters of galaxies together. But there is something forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. The universe is a dynamic place and Einstein ignored his calculations because he didn’t think this was possible. Hubble proved him wrong and Einstein said it was his greatest mistake, believing in a static (steady state) universe.
You two have no idea what you’re talking about.
Where is all this junk science coming from?
And we see that the title of this thread is accurate…no matter how many knowledgeable people inform and no matter how many books and references there are on the subject, someone always seems to think they know better.
Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_forceshttp://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/Forces.htmlhttp://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/forces.html
as just a small sample, easily found.
K and Brian
Here’s some more crap you might enjoy.
{ Google can be a dangerous thing for the untrained mind }
http://www.netowne.com/naziufos/boblee/gravity.htm
Hey Ed,
If you’ll note my results referenced universities and astrophysical websites, not “junk” science sites like you apparently frequent. Go to a university bookstore, pick up a book on astronomy or particle physics and try reading it.
Out of the mouth of one of the untrained comes a statement about training..LOLOL
Brian
The first link: You’re not interpreting that data correctly.
The Second link is a primer on physics.
The third link is loosely offered astrophysics. Again without a background in physics, sorting out meanings is very difficult.
I think you’d like to offer an informed judgment, and I believe when you say that receive uninformed criticism.
But you’re interpretations are far afield and I’m not trying to insult you.
Ed,
So all those courses in physis I took on my way to an advanced degree in engineering and all those books on my shelf that I’m looking at now that talk about gravity being the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces of nature are wrong, huh? I guess I misunderstood the information in those courses even though graduate students must pass courses with a minimum B grade.
By the way, how do you misinterpret statements like…
“Gravity is by far the weakest interaction, but it is the interaction that has the largest range.”
Brian, Gravity depends are the amount of mass in its grasp. Yes, it does start-out a weak force, which gives validity to that statement, but that is a qualified statement.Brian, Let me offer you this: The universe contains enough mass to produce enough gravity to form a singularity.
Distant observations confirm that the universe is condensing { forming galaxies around compacted mass or black holes }.
Not all scientists are in agreement about the big crunch, but it makes sense to me from the data, that a singularity will form, not in the same place but somewhere, as gravity becomes stronger by collecting mass.
Black holes or compressed matter are forming right now, capturing mass { stars } and holding them in observable spiraling galaxies. { I smell a big crunch coming }
As I said, there is disagreement even at the top-levels of physics. Nothing new there. But much of science is being rushed or driven by grant money, university politics, and claims to fame.
That taints results.
Ed,
Of course quantity of material affects the size of the gravitational force just like the amount of charge affects the size of an electrostatic force. That’s not the point..the point is comparing forces on an equal footing.
So, take two protons and calculate the gravitational interactuion between them…Now calculate the electrostatic interaction between those same two particles…
The ratio is
electrostatic force to gravitational force: 8.08 x 10^(-37)
The gravitational force is 36 orders of magnitude smaller than the electrostatic force.
Electrostatic forces aren’t noticed because matter is generally electrically neutral. Gravity is noticed because it acts in the realm of our experience of huge clumps of matter like the sun and the earth.
That doesn’t make it any less true that gravity is inherently the weakest force of the 4: weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravitational.
oops..backwards…should be gravitational force to electrostatic force
Brian
Looks like you got help, that’s nice.
All those degrees in physics and you can’t spell it. Hmmm.
Brian
Here’s one: Hawking said that time travel was not possible, because if it was, we’d be covered-up with tourists.
Time travelers would have to intersect us at our precise moment in time, not one half-second off or we would know there were there.
Hawking finally reversed himself on a bet and had to pay-off.
Not know
Sorry, if I don’t spell check as a matter od course.
You’re right. I’m an American dupe recruited by the Mossad to spread misinformation among the American people about “junk” science to advance Sharon’s goal of a Zionist empire in the Middle East. Gravity was discovered by that good WASP Newton and Zionist scientists have been trying to overthrow it for centuries in favor of “Jew” forces like the strong nuclear force. America will then be enslaved on all fronts by the Zionist cabal controlling the White House, Congress, and the courts. Is that about right???
BrianWith all those “degrees in physics” and all those books you shouldn’t need to spell check.
Now you’re getting frustrated, so it’s back to the Zionist thing.
Somewhere on this blog I linked to Haaretz about Clinton in Israel and the peace movement.
Ed,
Let me be blunt. You’re a loon. You and esod really need to seek medical attention…quickly. Of course, that’s just a layman’s opinion.
Excuse me..Ariel’s on the phone.
Throwing insults, the last resort of a loser.
Ed,One way I heard it explained is if you believe gravity is stronger than the elecromagnetic force, jump off a tall building. Gravity will certainly pull you down, but the elecromagnetic force holding the atoms of concrete together will most likely stop you, and rather suddenly! Try it- you’ll see!
After you, dear friend.
Okay, this is a good illustration of the entire problem. Some people spend their entire lives studying these issues. And then there’s Ed.
I don’t have the background to know all the arguments and how they were concluded. But I do know that there are people who DO know, to the extent that anything IS knowable.
They have a process that science agrees upon, and they follow it or they become part of “junk” science.
The experts really are experts. We’re so used to being lied to and mislead by people with an agenda, we’re starting to mistrust everyone. But researchers just want to find the truth as far as the truth is knowable. When an exception occurs and somebody fakes data (like the ‘cold fusion’ debacle), their reputations are shot and they retire in disgrace.
The experts are the people I listen to. Not the Ed’s.
Sorry, Ed.
Galahad
Here’s one of your “experts” so hard at work.
Sorry Galahad, get in line.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Galahad
You’re doing the very thing you’re condemning. Only you’re setting yourself up as an expert. Sorry Galahad, but you’re no expert. You’re a Galahad.
You are aware that The Onion is a humorous / satirical newspaper, right?
Of course.
Galahad
You are saying that you rely on experts and you have the expertise to determine who an expert and who is not.
That makes you a self-appointed expert.
I offered an opinion about gravity’s effect on the universe.
And within those confines gravity is the strongest force. Period.
If you don’t like that theory, that’s fine by me.
But notice how the rebuttal was reduced to Zionism. Which is really the heart of the matter { no pun intended }.
Ed, the links Brian listed my not be publications from the American Physical Society but they are correct none the less. Your link however, is total BS. Not interpreting the data correctly? Your not interpreting the data at all. Primer on physics. So what? The laws of physics don’t change with the level you study it at. And (my favorite) without a background in physics sorting out the meaning is difficult. I have an advanced degree in physics and you are full of crap (or yourself). It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to interpert something as simple as the links Brian posted, it takes a little brain power (possible some effort). If you read (and understood what you read) as much as you shoot off your mouth about things you know nothing about you might actually be able to formulate a half way intelligent arguement.
Ed,
Are you saying there’s no way to determine who knows what? I guess you’ve put a lot of human resources departments out of commission in one stroke.
You can know an expert by his pedigree – where he went to school, the reputation of the school, who he worked for, the reputation of who he worked for, his record of accomplishments, including peer reviewed papers, patents, membership in professional organizations, etc.
Now, on that basis, what is your physics pedigree – Where did you study physics, who did you work for, what publications do you have, what professional organizations do you belong to, where do you work and what work do you do?
I’ll bet the only pedigree you have is a can of dog food in the cupboard.
Thanks k…:))
nonsense
Thank for finally admitting it !!
Ed, you never answered Brians question. What is your educational background? What gives you the ability to reject what most scientist (and even an engineer and physicist on this blog) consider to be fact? What has given you such keen insight in to the universe? The rest of the scientific community could benefit from your answers here.
And what the hell is with all of the freaking Zionist references? Every freaking post you have makes some reference to something zionist and how they are trying to take over the world. Your posts remind me of the pinky and the brain cartoon.
“pinky and the brain cartoon.”
Good to see you improving your mind. Might help you grow-up.
Does mommy let you watch cartoons.
“Throwing insults, the last resort of a loser.” -Ed Friedemann
Need I say more?? Hmmmm??
NO
And I bet it went over your head, or you’re too ignorant to get it.
Thank you all, that was fun…..Ed
So, the strongest three forces are joined together, correct? Any ideas to reconcile gravity and quantum physics?
Roo
Find the answer to that and you will win the “prize.”
Hawking said he receives about three a week { none even close}.
Roo
Just guessing, but the “grand unified theory” may have a systemic problem in measuring the exact movements gravity creates.
I.E. Planets are not “round” nor their paths “straight.” Everything seems to wobble.
In the cosmos, gravity influences just about everything, and not exactly in same way with changing distances.
As I said, just guessing, I really don’t have a clue.
K, do you enjoy Hawking’s lectures as much as I do?Most of the time when I quote him or refer to one of his lectures people don’t even respond.Isn’t he the foremost expert?Not a self appointed egg-spurt.I’m pretty sure he’s not appointed and propped up by the evil zionists.
So, it’s not just some perturbations caused by unaccounted masses, like the Mercury/Vulcan problem about 100 years ago. Oh well, I’ll just wait for the undisputed detections of gravitons to show up in WE.
Tracy, the only Hawking book I have read (many years ago) was “A Brief History of Time”. Lately (last 5-7 years) I have read Kip Thorne (ecxellent), Novotny, Binney (advanced), and Bernstein. And even though I love astrophysics and cosmology I really enjoy anything by Feynman. He has earned his distinction as being one of the greatest physicists and teachers ever.
Ed, by any chance are you talking about the precession of the planets?
As for the planets not being round, that is because of their spinning. As they formed from the disk around the sun they spun as they cooled and this caused the middle (equator) diameter to be larger than the north-south pole diameter.
The paths of the planets are not round as you stated but they can be accurately predicted using the current theory of gravity. An error comes in because in solving the equations it is a (very) many bodied problem and they are hard to solve because of the complexity. And even though we cannot see (Kipper objects) beyond Pluto very well there appears to be a lot of mass there.
Mass is the property that something will have weight in a gravitational field. So anything with mass will be affected by gravity. And everything we see has a mass (some times very little) and it is therefore influenced by gravity (even light). It is a confusing argument but it is accurate.