Evolution on trial as Kansas debates Adam vs Darwin

[thefriendlytipster]

Eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in Tennessee pitted religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of British scientist Charles Darwin, Kansas is holding its own hearings on what school children should be taught about how life on Earth began.

The Kansas Board of Education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to begin on Thursday in the capitol Topeka. More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution.

Many prominent U.S. scientific groups have denounced the debate as founded on fallacy and have promised to boycott the hearings, which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government.

"I feel like I'm in a time warp here," said Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray who has agreed to defend evolution as valid science. "To debate evolution is similar to debating whether the Earth is round. It is an absurd proposition."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050502/lf_nm/life_evolution_col_1

[maddezmom]

1. please edit your link

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050502/lf_nm/life_evolution_col_1

[Montauk6]

2. Look, I really don't see why this is so difficult!

JADEDSARDONICISM

The evolutionists with their scientific nonsense, BOSH! PSHAW!!

It's OBVIOUS. Gawd made Adam, got him drunk, yanked out his rib and made Eve. OK, you with me so far? Adam and Eve had sex and had Cain and Abel. Then, Eve had sex with Cain and Abel, so that they could have some wives to fool around with.

Why are we still debaiting thiss?

/JADEDSARDONICISM

[MuseRider]

3. This is going to be interesting.

I am going to try to attend as many as possible of these six days. It is interesting because the scientific community is boycotting it as they should and Pedro is going to debate the issue in a different way. I spoke with him last week and he would like as many people as possible to attend so anyone reading this who is interested please come when you can.

[rocktivity]

27. Oh, great, we're going to have a DU correspondent!

We expect a full report every day. Mods--could you put this on the front page or something?

:bounce:
rocknation

[iam]

4. If the bible is true...

why do men have nipples?

[ret5hd]

5. cause if men had breasts...

we (men) wouldn't get anything done.

[hlthe2b]

7. or ever come out of the bathroom...

I'd guess....:evilgrin:

[Daphne08]

8. I've seen a few men who could use

a Manzier.

:rofl:

(How are they going to explain that one in Kansas?)

[ret5hd]

10. it's called a "bro", dammit!

[atommom]

22. God put nipples on men to test our faith.

By questioning their origin, I think we all just flunked! ;)

[yellowcanine]

41. Those large canine buttresses are a puzzle also. Feel above your canine

teeth. Why do we need such massive bone support for our dinky little canine teeth?

[atommom]

45. Those are there in case we get bitten by vampires, and develop big

sharp canines of our own.

[struggle4progress]

62. They don't. And if they did, we wouldn't mention it, would we? eom

[blindpig]

6. what is the point of debating established scientific fact

in a non-scientific forum? The scientific community is correct to ignore this dog and pony show, not that these morons will go away. It's like going on the O'Reilly show, if you deign to debate with idiots they'll beat you with experience every time.

edited for spelling

[KittyWampus]

31. Evolution Is Established Fact. Darwinism Is An Uproven Theory

patched together in an attempt to explain Evolution.

And as a theory, it has flaws.

[HereSince1628]

36. Why accept the framing as Darwinism? Darwin's theory is obsolete.

Darwin was a great early contributor. But in light of the now discernible mistakes caused by misunderstanding in the mid 1800's and evidence assembled and reconsideredin the 150 years since the "Origin," I don't know any contemporary Zoologist that would want to defend Darwin's original theory.

The term "Darwinism" is a politically charged misnomer.

[yellowcanine]

40. "Natural selection" (Darwin's main contribution) is obsolete? Since when?

A rather broad brush you paint with there.

[HereSince1628]

51. I didn't say natural selection is obsolete. I said Darwinism is obsolete

I am actually painting with a very narrow brush, insisting that as a theory Darwin's theory is obsolete, and knowing that in the history of the develeopment of evolutionary understanding there have been many theories since Darwin's. This is perhaps too erudite an approach for this forum.

Darwin's theory didn't correctly explain the mechanisms of inheritance, and Darwin couldn't explain the origins of the variation upon. In Darwins theory the only mechanisms are differential survival and reproduction which are natural selection.

We are now aware of a number of other mechanisms influencing evolution. As they were discovered each either gave rise to a new theory of evolution or modified its predacessor in such a manner as to make it obsolete.

The discovery of mutations gave rise to the Hopeful Monster or Mutation theory. Genetic mutations (which couldn't exactly be explained) could result in changes in the form that were heritable.

Later the role of mutation in creating Darwins' concept of variations merged with natural selection to yeild up NeoDarwinism.

Other mechanisms were discovered such as genetic drift, random mating etc. were encountered

By the mid-20th century the durable parts of all the evolutionary theoretical conceptualizations were merged into what I studied as an undergraduate the "modern synthetic theory."

And since that time we have added to the mix neutral selection, horizontal gene flow between species and the like.

Consequently, Darwinism (Evolutionary explanation based soley on natural selection) has been shown to be _grossly_ inadequate to explain the range of known evolutionary phenomena.

I do not mean to disparage Darwin who was a tremendous contributor to evolutionary understanding, and one of my personal heroes of biological science. But the persistence of Darwinism is a cultural artifact that persists past that theories historical viability.

[yellowcanine]

52. Natural Selection IS Darwinism. True, Darwin didn't understand genes and

chromosomes, but saying that his understanding is "obsolete" is like saying Einstein's theory of relativity is obsolete because he didn't know about quarks.

[HereSince1628]

56. Look. Darwinism, the Mutation Theory of Evolution and NeoDarwinism

are ALL obsolete, just like the Ford Model T, The Ford Edsel, and the Ford Falcon are obsolete. Four wheels, the internal combustion engine, etc. are all still used but the cars are obsolete.

Newtonian physics works fine for many engineers, architects and designers, although it is obsolete in terms of theoretical physics. In a similar manner, selection is still an important phenomenon to breeders of Japanese pond fish, herdsmen, and flower cultivators although molecular manipulation makes other means of acquiring traits in a biotic product possible.

Natural selection is still invoked as an explanatory principle, but its application must now be justified against other possibly competing explanations. The overuse of natural selection to build "Just So" stories about evolution was one of Stephen Gould's pet peeves.

I am not a physicist so I cannot argue with authority about how physicists contemplate a physical theory's obsolesence, and the potential of quarks to undermine Einstein's theory of general relativity.

I can say with the authority of a PHD in Zoology and refereed publications in the field of theoretical populaltion biology, that the concepts of genetics and the implications of population/ecological phenomena have added so many dimensions to the explanatory power of evolutionary theory that natural selection just no longer is adeqaute as a self-standing theory. It is indeed an established principle within a much broader framework of evolutionary explanation, with an extraordinarily important place in the history of biology.

With respect to modern theories of physics, it is my understanding that physicists are aware of very real limits of general relativity to explain very small scale phenomenon. As a consequence there is much effort to end up with a single unifying theory that can explain things at a tremendously small scale and at the scale of dimensions that may reveal a reality of membranes larger than the universe (something with which I have great conceptual difficulty, but there it is). If these theoretical physicists succeed, they may make the theory of general relativity, which brought us an understanding of many amazing things, obsolete. And I would guess that general relativity would remain to be viewed as having had an extraordinarily important place in the development of modern physics.

[yellowcanine]

39. First of all, you are using "theory" in a non-scientific way. Scientific

theories ar not meant to be "proven". The notion has no meaning in science. A scientific theory is an explanation of the available data that can be used to make predictions. These predictions can be shown to be correct or incorrect. By this definition, there is nothing "patched together" about the theory of biological evolution and it has been a resounding success as theories go. There is a robust debate about different aspects of the theory but there is no debate that the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation of the available data. Darwin's major contribution was explaining how evolution could occur through natural selection. No evolutionary biologist of any stature disputes Darwin's ideas about natural selection. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know what they are talking about.

[Just a guy_withaVOTE]

66. please explain

If the function of a theory is to make predictions, what predictions has evolution produced?

If there have been no proven predictions, why is it treated as a valid theory?

[Imperialism Inc.]

74. Numerous predictions about the nature of new data.

Please see 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, The Scientific Case for Common Descent

In that article you will find many examples of predictions that the theory of evolution makes about the nature of data gathered by studying both living and extinct organisms. So far it is correct every time.That is what is meant by prediction in science. Predicting the nature and values of future data.

One really simple example is that bacteria should develop resistance to drugs after they have been "treated" with the same drugs for years. Another example would be that if we look at the genetic sequences of living species thought to share a common ancestor, then we should find that their DNA is very similar. Indeed we do. Chimps, for example, have DNA that differs from humans by only 2% which is modern research that confirms the predictions of evolutionary theory. Yet another is that based on the evolutionary theory we would predict that we would find creatures with "vestigial" organs that they inherited from their ancestors but that they no longer have any use for. And on and on.

Other examples are more technical , like those found in part 1 of the link I provided. It discusses how the "tree of life" which is based on cladistic classification (classifying based on physical characteristics) has the correct mathematical properties for a tree that was produced by an inheritance mechanism.

Rest assured, there are many predictions evolutionary theory makes and they have been confirmed by the data.

[blindpig]

42. not so

If by Darwinism you mean natural selection. There's a lot unsettled, as should be in active fields of enquiry, but all workers agree that Darwin was da bomb, be it Ernst Mayr or Stephen J Gould.

Have you got any better ideas?

[Toots]

46. Maybe you could explain the hypothosis used to create this theory?

Scientific theory is quite different from the common usage of theory. Scientific theory is based upon hypothosis. Researched and tried time and time aghain to get same results. what hypothosis was developed for Creation "Science"?

[Just a guy_withaVOTE]

67. False Dilemma

Creationism doesn't have to be right for Darwinism to be wrong.

They could both be wrong.
All the preaching of Darwinism may have prevented a better explanation from coming about.

[Toots]

70. Once something becomes "Scientific Theory" the onus is on you to disprove

It is theory and unless it gets disproved eventually it will become law. You never ever ever have to try and Prove Scientific Theory. You do that at the hypothosis level...You prove to me the Theory of Gravity is not valid, I don't have to prove to you there is gravity. Or how about the "Theory of Atomic Principle" You have to prove to me Atoms do not exist and that they can not be split...

[mogster]

9. LOL!

Is it the event where this person declined to appear?

"Thank you for your invitation to testify before the Kansas State Board of Education.

Unfortunately I cannot attend, as I shall be busy debating the Flat Earth Society.

I am sorry to be facetious but, as I am sure you are aware, the State of Kansas has made itself the laughing stock of the scientific world over this issue. The very idea of "representatives from both views" presupposes that there are two views to represent. In many fields of science there is indeed genuine controversy, and science thrives on genuine controversy. In the case of evolution, however, the only opposition comes from right outside science, and from people wholly ignorant of science.

For real scientists to share a platform with the biological equivalent of flat-earthers would be to give them the credibility, respectability, and above all publicity that they crave."

Sorry, no link. The quote was picked from here, though.

[atommom]

14. Yes, that was the illustrious Richard Dawkins. The wingnuts have

once again made us the laughingstock of scientists everywhere. Here's a link to other scientists' comments.

http://tinyurl.com/9xx3k

[Roland99]

76. Salon interview with Richard Dawkins from 4/30:

The atheist
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains why God is a delusion, religion is a virus, and America has slipped back into the Dark Ages.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/print.html

Once again, evolution is under attack. Are there any questions at all about its validity?

It's often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That of course is nonsense. It’s rather like a detective coming on the scene of a crime, obviously after the crime has been committed, and working out what must have happened by looking at the clues that remain. In the story of evolution, the clues are a billion-fold.

There are clues from the distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have here a simple branching tree. The distribution of species on islands and continents throughout the world is exactly what you’d expect if evolution was a fact. The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong direction.

[atommom]

11. There's a statement from Pedro Irigonegaray (counsel for mainstream

science) here, and he points out just what a farce (and waste of taxpayer dollars) this process has been. It really is an outrage.

[joefree1]

12. Kansas fundies are right, they did not evolve from apes

They evolved from asses. But not much.


Pagan DUers meet other Pagan DUers at:
Ancient Wisdom and Pagan Spirituality Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=262

[mimitabby]

73. you mean ass HOLES?

Asses are noble creatures, i can't say the same for fundys.

[Tux]

13. LOL

If this crap keeps up, what company would set up a factory or even tech-support in a state that teaches ID, Bible studies, and that all of science is bunk at best? I see their economy going to hell fast and I feel sorry for Kansas college grads, they'll be lumped into that bunch as well.

[AndyTiedye]

15. My Condolences To Anyone In Kansas Who Wants...

...a career in biology or anything related thereto.

Colleges are going to look at their applications for admission,
see "Kansas" and toss it in the dustbin. Understandable, if
Kansas schools are to be forbidden to teach them the science they
need to qualify.



Next time someone in KS "does a Dorothy", she'll STAY in Oz.

[Ian David]

18. The answer is not to buy any food grown or raised in Kansas

You can't produce good crops or cattle without a working knowledge of genetics and evolution.

Obviously, food from Kansas must be inferior or even un-safe.

And that also explains the sorry state of those Kansas "Puppy Mills," too.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. That would be kind of difficult

since KS farmers are responsible for most of the wheat used to make bread in your grocery store.

[Ian David]

57. I was being facetious

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. Good

I would hate to see you have to give up eating bread. :)

[heidler1]

37. BS view points are holding back US job seekers. Fundy Red states are

doing their students a great disservice in the job hunt game. They think that they are winning in finding a flaw in some science, but the changing truth is still the best that we can offer.

[smoogatz]

16. If the wingnuts win in the primary and secondary schools

public colleges and universities are next. Horowitz and his SAF brownshirts are already trying to make the case for "intellectual diversity" in the liberal arts and humanities (i.e., bad, rightwing ideas should be given equal time). Why shjouldn't we have "intellectual diversity" in the sciences, too? I mean, isn't it all really just a matter of opinion?

[Coastie for Truth]

32. Science needs a "balanced" view.

Take solid state physics - it's all based on Quantum Theory - the physicists aren't even sure enough of it to call it Quantum Law. Heck, I've been an engineer over 40 years - and I have never seen a "Quantum."

And then they ought to look at the Electrical Engineering curriculum.

1) Antenna's are all Theory - Maxwell's Theory - again, not Maxwell's Law - sheesh.

2) Maxwell's Theory is based on Imaginary numbers, you know, the square root of a negative number. There ain't no such thing!

3) But, then Maxwell's Theory (NOT Maxwell's Law) gets even stranger - with them GRADs and DIVs and CURLs - they shouldn't even be teaching that stuff.

4) Then they teach the works of the defrocked Benedictine Priest, Jean Baptiste Fourier - that evil man was killed in a duel over a prostitute.

5) And then there's them Field Effect Transistors? Sheesh.

6) I just don't think they should teach that Satanic stuff.

SARCASM OFF

[Just a guy_withaVOTE]

68. Some theories are provable, others should not be taught as science

Each of the theories you have mentioned can be tested and produce verifable results. In addition, they have provided the foundation for additional inquiry

I don't believe the same thing can be said for evolution.

(BTW, I am I the only person disturbed by the number of people who don't the difference between genetics and evolution? They are not at all the same.)

[Coastie for Truth]

72. Don't make assumptions on DU

1. You missed the "sarcasm off" legend on my append.

2. I have had my twelve credits of "Biochemistry and Human Genetics" and I do know the four nucleotides adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine and "hydrogen bonding" etc.

3. I am a "faith based" (raised by my clergy man grand father, went to a nominally Presbyterian college, know my Scripture) leftie, liberal, progressive - and I know in my heart and head that Jim Wallis and MLK Jr., and Michael Lerner and Father Charles Owens Rice are right.

[Imperialism Inc.]

75. You have zero idea what you are talking about.

Evolution has and does all the things you listed.

See above where I gave you a link where you can educate yourself.

I have to admit I don't get it. People think they just made this stuff up out of the thin blue sky? That it doesn't make predictions about data and that those predictions haven't been confirmed? That it isn't based on massive amounts of data like every other scientific pursuit?

It is disturbing to say the least, but then I suppose it does explain why people have such strange opinion on the teaching of evolution. They are simply uninformed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

50. Kansas is NOT the only state dealing with this

Didn't Georgia just start putting evolution stickers in their textbooks? I know I read recently that another state is dealing with this also. So it really isn't fair to blast just Kansas over this nonsense.

[daleo]

17. Parts of the U.S. may be ok with a new Dark Age.

But the rest of the world will carry on with science and technology.

[me b zola]

19. This crap makes me crazy

...so crazy that I even made a plea to conservatives on the message board.

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!!

[modrepub]

20. Iowa Quarter

"Foundation in Education" Picture of One-room schoolhouse with Female teacher with kids playing under nearby tree.

I noticed this this afternoon after reading seeing the post. What is this supposed to mean? Any Iowans, Iowites or Iowenies know out there?

[XemaSab]

23. It's a grant wood picture

Grant Wood is HUGE in Iowa.

You really can't avoid Grant Wood, as I learned during the primaries.

[earthboundmisfit]

21. I'm bracing myself for the same thing to happen here in Oklahoma.

You can be sure there are lots of Oklahoma fundies watching this spectacle in Kansas with there's a lot of lip-smackin' anticipation over this. I'm steeling myself for it, and was planning to heighten my participation in school administration affairs anyway (textbook selection committee, PTA etc.)

[karlrschneider]

28. Another worried Okie here too (Ft. Gibson lake community)

lots of idiot fundies around here...
:eyes:

[fasttense]

24. And this debate is suppose to prove what exactly?

No matter how it comes out, evolution will still happen, science will need it and use it. If I had a kid in public school who wasn't getting evolution, I'd sue the school.

[Just a guy_withaVOTE]

69. How does science use evolution?

As far as I'm concerned, the whole debate is about some 19th century theory based on a 19th century worldview.

It does not raise to the level of science because it is not testable or verifiable. (BTW, "creationism" falls in the same category). These things should be taught in religion classes, if they taught at all.

[geebensis]

71. I Know I Shouldn't Feed Trolls...

"As far as I'm concerned, the whole debate is about some 19th century theory based on a 19th century worldview."

This statement is absolute proof that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

Yes or no question for you: Are you in favor of teaching Intelligent Design along with evolution in public schools?

[Canuckistanian]

25. Is this a Topeka thing?

Does this have anything to do with Fred Phelps or is Topeka just loaded with fundagelical wingnuts?

How did they get so much power over Kansas' education system?

[skip fox]

26. For those who want to read the Bible literally:

Christ said, "Write thise words upon your heart."


Heck, what are you waiting for . . . ?

[rocktivity]

29. "Random" evolution?

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

Random? What makes evolution "random?" Indeed, what makes it less "intelligent" than intelligent design? It seems to me that evolution has made some VERY intelligent decisions about which species survives and which doesn't. It's "random" that some species need two parents to survive while others need only one, and some none at all? What's "dumb" about that?

:headbang:
rocknation

[KittyWampus]

33. Darwin's Theory Posits Evolution Occurs Thru Random Chance Coupled

with Natural Selection.

There is no capacity for Intelligence in this theory.

Darwism is:

Random Chance + Natural Selection= All the BILLIONS of Evolutionary changes that have happened throughout time as life becomes ever more complex, organized and capable of expressing Conscious Awareness.

That's right, according to Darwinism every single development in all the BILLIONS of developments that have lead to Life as we know it today was the result of random, blind chance and Natural Selection.

Of course, Occam's Razor would indicate this is totally untenable as a theory.

When there are close to an infinite amount of developments occuring over eons which lead to ever more complex forms... it seems highly unlikely that its just "random chance" and that some capacity for INTELLIGENCE must exist within all physical matter.

And Darwinism is totally unable to explain how Consciousness arises from inert, Physical Matter.

[rocktivity]

35. Maybe a higher intelligence concluded

that evolution was the most "intelligent" thing to do! I mean, who or what is DOING the "natural selection"--an intelligent entity, nature itself, or is nature itself the intelligent entity?

And I like your "some capacity for INTELLIGENCE must exist within all physical matter." Why are they assuming that there's only ONE central form of higher intelligence?

:headbang:
rocknation

[yellowcanine]

43. "Occam's Razor" does no such thing. Here is Occam's Razor

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.

What Occam's Razor does rule out is a worldwide flood as an explanation for the Grand Canyon.

[HereSince1628]

44. I think you are incorrect in your premises and conclusions.

Darwin didn't write about random variation. Darwin wrote about some individuals with favorable variations producing more offspring.

I am not sure if Darwin had any concept of statistical randomness as we have. When contemporary people communicate about random chance it isn't really Darwin, but rather Darwinism plus ultra. An intellectual decendant that incorporates the discovery of random genetic mutation. And _that_ arose in the early 20th century (after Darwin's death) as an understanding of classical genetics came into existance.

Natural selection, although imperfect, isn't really random, it is a consequence of differential survival and reproduction within the context of the demands of a contemporaneous environment. In this sense neo-Darwinism argued that genetic mutation is the mechanism (unknown to Darwin) that generates heritable variations in form and function more or less randomly and that some of these variations result in biased representation of those variations in the next generation. Contemporary biologists would say mutation creates new alleles whose frequency of occcurrence in a population from generation to generation can shift as a consequence of natural selection.

I think that your emphasis on billions of differences is an attempt to invoke improbability of a complex outcome by chance. I have found that many of my students fail to understand that life is _very_ conservative. Biological mechanisms that work aren't discarded, they represent the available shape of things to change. Too much change and the biotic processes no longer work. Biologists don't believe that complex life emerged by a random selection of atoms within a tiny space, in the same way that millions of components are selected from hardware bins to create a Saturn V rocket.

Contemporary evolution is not so much dominated by the amazing diversity of types on the planet, but on the _extraordinary similarities_ that exist. When pressed to find an explanation for both diversity and similarity evolution is very useful. It is even the simplist available explanation.

And speaking of the utility of simple explanations I don't understand your reference to the principle of parsimony Occam's Razor). Introducing an Intelligent Designer _ADDS_ a step to what appears to be a very simple explanation, and that addition of another step to the explanation, particularly done as you did without the advantage of being argued as a necessary step, is absolutely the classic violation of the principle of parsimony. Parsimony is not about explaining with hundreds vs billions of steps. It is about explaining in the fewest number of _required_ steps.


I would concede that billions of steps are probably difficult for anyone to concieve of in detail. But, the failure of any one person's conceptual abilities or the collective failure of many person's conceptual abilities to be able to work through how concsiousness and intelligence might evolve is NOT an argument in favor of an intelligent designer. It is only evidence of current human cognitive limitations. Moreover, what cannot be conceived of in detail can be concieved of in general type.

More importantly to underming your last argument, it is actually NOT THE CASE that humans cannot concieve of the emergence of consicousness and intellect by evolutionary processes. For your and other reader's edification on the topic I refer you to Nicholas Humphries' now somewhat dated (and I would say obviously imperfect) work "A history of the Mind: Evolution and the birth of consciousness" 1992 Simon and Schuster. In which Humphries argues for the evolution of conciousness as a consequence of life interacting with the physical environment.

[0rganism]

49. the evolution of life as we know it took billions of years

so yes, all the BILLIONS of Evolutionary changes that have happened through time could readily be explained by combinations of mutation (random) and natural selection (deterministic). Do you have any idea how fast these changes accumulate into measurable genetic drift when applied to microbes and insects? We're talking days or less, when significant mutagens and selective pressures are applied. Any working theory of life-as-we-know-it must be able to describe such phenomenon.

Theories of evolution must adequately explain the observed data while being capable of making accurate predictions. Occam's razor would indicate that assuming some inherent capacity for "intelligence" in "all physical matter" is above and beyond the scope of that which is necessary to support such a theory, and such assumptions should be discarded forthwith. Really, the very notion of "intelligence" as anything other than a gradually adapting set of survival-enhancing behaviors is a semantic one begging in the streets for adequate specification.

On the matter of untenability, those who dwell in stained-glass houses should be very careful when tossing about the stone known as Occam's Razor...

[yellowcanine]

53. Occam's Razor is a stone? Who knew? I thought it was at least one of

those straight razors that were sharpened with the leather strop. How primitive. And also "ouch!"

[0rganism]

61. it adapted to co-exist with a primitive metaphor

Let's call it "Occam's Rock" in this context. :)

[immoderate]

77. It's not random chance.

That's not part of Darwin's theory. To be random chance, all outcomes must be equally likely. the universe, as it's constituted, favors certain outcomes. These things are impied by studies of chaotic systems and complexity.

Life is not a random event, It is the likely result of concentrations of energy in our environment.

--IMM

[mmonk]

30. Oz has replaced Kansas.

[Slyder]

54. But Friends of Dorothy

are most unwelcome in Kansas, with the passage of the anti-same-sex marriage amendment. And the victors crying for queer blood. Us Kansas queers are feeling endangered. Between the sheer stupidity of the anti-intellectualism (which will destroy the world class ag program at Kansas State University) and the unbridled religious fanaticism, I am thinking of leaving Kansas for good and moving to a friendlier state or nation, and let Kansas go to hell.

Add to it the stupid spitting on Jane Fonda in Kansas City Missouri, midwesterners have no manners either. But I'm glad the incident gave me permission to spit on Republicans!

[Roland99]

34. Hell, the Bible contradicts itself! There are *two* Creation stories

edited together. Same with the Flood story.

There were multiple writers of the Torah and Moses wasn't one of them.



Morans.

[Dulcinea]

38. The mouth-breathers are at it again.

Gravity is a theory, too. Should Kansas schools stop teaching that?

[Larry in KC]

47. A short true story...

...about this idiocy. I live in Missouri (very little less red than Kansas these days, I'm afraid, but maybe still a little), but I teach just across the state line, in Kansas.

The last time the right wing had real control of the State Board of Education and did this sort of thing (it was 1999, I believe), their main focus was that evolution would not be on any of the science tests, for all of their usual reasons.

In my second-grade classroom, on Back to School Night shortly after this hit the news over the summer, I said to the assembled parents, "how many State Board members does it take to screw in a lightbulb? It doesn't matter, because it WON'T BE ON THE TEST". I got laughs; I'm not sure whom I might have offended (no one complained, although this had been in the news enough that most parents would know what the reference was to), and they certainly knew where I stood. Well, anyway, on a second-grade level, I kept right on teaching science with evolution as a given, and I still am.

I'm still relieved that I survived my little joke without a controversy, but I'd do it again, and next fall I'll probably have a similar comment to make. Wish me luck!

[slackmaster]

55. I was born in Kansas City, KS and salute you Larry!

Keep up the good work!

:toast:

[BadGimp]

58. the earth is flat society meets in Kanasas

[BoogDoc7]

60. My problem...

Is not, at the core, the teaching of evolution or creation, and I think that is where everyone is getting lost. I don't think that kids in just about ANY education system - public, private, or home - are being taught how to THINK scientifically, to question everything that is placed in front of them and HOW to question it. They are (we were) force-fed both theories, and not taught to question the validity of one or the other (or told that one was absolute and the other wrong), and were only told later the problems of either.

Until we have a system that promotes THINKING and QUESTIONING from the beginning, it doesn't matter WHAT is taught, it's doomed to fail except for those kids who figure out how to buck the system and really question things later in life - from BOTH ends.

[Shallah Kali]

63. Demand they teach other religions creation stories

from Baha 'i to Zoroastrianism and see how fast they decide it is better to keep religions out of schools.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

64. "Inherit the Wind" and "Galilieo" in Little Theatres immediately

Or street theatre projects or any venue anyway. I hope Kansas artists figure this out quickly.

[paineinthearse]

65. Does this mean that Kansas is

80 years behind Tennessee?