Evolutionists Ignore Kansas Hearings. WHY?

May 16, 2005

Dr. Philip Skell – a chemist of some renown at Penn State – wrote an open letter (May 12, 2005) to Dr. Steve Abrams, Chair of the Kansas State Board of Education, saying in part, “I am writing – as a member of the National Academy of Sciences – to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory. . . . None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution – it provided no support.”

In a puzzling development in the confrontational Kansas School Board hearing regarding the teaching of alternatives to evolutionism, it was announced that some secular science organizations would snub the proceedings.

This is strange because if evolutionism (i.e. macroevolution, or the “particles-to-people” theory) was as sound as its proponents maintain, it would seem Darwinists would embrace the opportunity to use the Kansas hearings as a sounding board to list evolution’s scientific facts.

Secular science groups such as the evolution-based American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) declined to enter into the Kansas deliberations, while the anti-creation group, Kansas Citizens for Science called for a boycott, claiming the hearing was “rigged.”

CNN.com reports that board members were quite rightly frustrated because the Kansas Board of Education hearings were to be seen “as an educational forum.” Indeed, what better way to expose students to the topic of origins, as well as the democratic process?

CNN quoted Connie Morris, a Kansas board member as saying, “I would have enjoyed hearing what they [the evolutionists] have to say in a professional, ethical manner.”

Both creation scientists and those skeptical of macroevolution’s claims are suspicious regarding this development.

Could it be that when macroevolution is critically viewed, it will be seen only as minor changes greatly extrapolated beyond what science can observe?

~ http://tinyurl.com/c7r8u

~ http://tinyurl.com/7ap9t

~ http://tinyurl.com/auyvc

i heard about something similar in the netherlands (i think) on the radio on my way home from work today.. have you heard anything about this?

I'm still tripping a bit, so some of that isn't clicking right, but the bastards seem arrogant. Like, if they're proven wrong (in some way), they'd lose a lot of face in the science community, I presume. They're most likely too arrogant to even risk defeat, so they ignore the challenge and act as if nothing has happened.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i heard about something similar in the netherlands (i think) on the radio on my way home from work today.. have you heard anything about this?

i remembered that it was breakpoint:

http://www .pfm.org/A M/Template .cfm?Secti on=BreakPo int1&Templ ate=/CM/Co ntentDispl ay.cfm&ContentID=16230

Too bad:

1. The article is over a month old. Which conveniently neglects to mention the arguments that HAVE come since then.

2. The CNN article paints a completely different picture. A quick read already answers why the scientists didn't speak, but of course, dishonest creationists aren't going to provide the truth. I mean, that would be something Jesus would do...

The CNN article:

"

Scientists snub Kansas evolution hearings

Education hearings rigged, say science organizations



TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) — Scientists have refused to participate in state Board of Education hearings this past week on how the theory of evolution should be treated in public schools, but they haven’t exactly been silent.

About a dozen scientists, most from Kansas universities, spoke each day at news conferences after evolution critics testified before a board subcommittee. They expect to continue speaking out as the hearings wrap up on Thursday.

“They’re in, they do their shtick, and they’re out,” said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist. “I’m going to be here, and I’m not going to be quiet. We’ll have the rest of our lives to make our points.”

The scientists’ boycott was led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, which believe the hearings are rigged against the teaching of evolution.

Scientists said they don’t see the need to cram their arguments into a few days of testimony, like out-of-state witnesses who were called by advocates of the “intelligent design” theory.

But the boycott has frustrated board members who viewed their hearings as an educational forum.

“I am profoundly disappointed that they’ve chosen to present their case in the shadows,” board member Connie Morris said. “I would have enjoyed hearing what they have to say in a professional, ethical manner.”

The theory of evolution says that changes in species can lead to new species, and that different species, including man and apes, have common ancestors. Intelligent design advocates contend the universe is so complex it must have been created by a higher power.

In 1999, the board deleted most references to evolution in the science standards. But standards were adopted later to include evolution as a key education concept.

The state board’s standards determine what is on statewide tests, but local school boards decide what is actually taught and which textbooks are used. The state board plans to consider changes to its standards this summer.

Leaders of the science groups said the three subcommittee members already have decided to support language backed by intelligent design advocates. All three are part of a conservative board majority receptive to criticism of evolution."



---

The committee they are supposed to testify in front is is made almost entirely by admitted anti-evolutionist Republicans!

Fair, just like Jesus demands... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

A bit of insight on how biased and overall crappy the hearings are:

http://tinyurl.com/78coy

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-28-2005).]

What Rust said.

nah, this is the only way evolution can win, by claiming the hearings are rigged lol

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

nah, this is the only way evolution can win, by claiming the hearings are rigged lol

How are they not rigged?

The fact that the board are known creationists sort of sets up the educational forum leaning towards one side of the argument.

How many creationists protest things that are ran by "evolutionists"? Same thing with this.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

nah, this is the only way evolution can win, by claiming the hearings are rigged lol



Hopefully, you were being facetious.

...

The comittee is so biased that they have admitted, in their own words, with their own mouths, in front of the public, to not having even read the proposed standards completely.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Hopefully, you were being facetious.



only partly

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



only partly



Then you're partially an idiot.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Then you're partially an idiot.



well, then i partially thank you

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



well, then i partially thank you



No problem. |I welcome you to explain why you could be, reasonably, partially not facetious.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



No problem. |I welcome you to explain why you could be, reasonably, partially not facetious.

Both sides are bias and both sides feel that there is something at stake. Media coverage is seldom, if ever, unbias.

My not being there to know, first-hand, which side is reporting the story most accurately, makes it difficult for me to be openminded as to whether it is "rigged" or "not rigged". So, aside from me staying nuetral, (since my bias is that they can not win), my other option is falling back on my bias and voicing my opinion... it's the american way lol

I'm using the same CNN article used by the ICR. So if the CNN article is a good source for them, it either means it is not biased, or biased towards them.

That very article points out the inherent bias of the comittee.

To claim that the very article the ICR uses is biased towards evolutionism is unreasonable, to the point of being laughable.

Who cares? In hs biology they didn't say anything for/aginst evolution. Evolution=theory which is not 100% fact. Creationisum=The real thing for some to others complete bs.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

i heard about something similar in the netherlands (i think) on the radio on my way home from work today.. have you heard anything about this?

No, I'm sorry, I haven't. Can you find a link on it ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, I'm sorry, I haven't. Can you find a link on it ?

i did but i was too lazy to use the tinyurl.

here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/74v46

Even if the committee wasn't so obviously biased, I can see why scientists wouldn't want to attend the hearing. Creationists have decided that since they can't provide any scientific support for their "theory", they can go the political route and side step proper science. Fighting this is important, but there comes a point where scientists need to boycott this attitude, trying to fight people like this only validates the idea that science can be "proved" through politics and not the scientific method.

If creationists (oh sorry, IDists) want to get their theory taught in science class, maybe they can do what all the other scientists do and show their theories to be proper science. Oh sorry, I forget the giant scientific conspiracy against them (just like the hallow earth nuts) LoL.

I wonder when Digital_Savior is going to respond to the clearly misleading and dishonest tactic used by the ICR.

Since she hasn't responded, this leads me to ask, why? What is she afraid of?

Could it be that when her beliefs are critically viewed, they will be seen only as dishonest propaganda, greatly extrapolated beyond what is really true?

P.S. I like irony.

Yes rust you OWNED her, makes your e-p3n0r .1' longer.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I wonder when Digital_Savior is going to respond to the clearly misleading and dishonest tactic used by the ICR.

Since she hasn't responded, this leads me to ask, why? What is she afraid of?

Could it be that when her beliefs are critically viewed, they will be seen only as dishonest propaganda, greatly extrapolated beyond what is really true?

P.S. I like irony.

Well, arguing with you is like taking LSD and riding a carousel for 24 hours straight.

It never ends, and often doesn't make any sense.

I am not afraid of ANYTHING you spit out, however, I do not always have the time necessary to post something significant.

The one thread that I haven't responded to you on will take an enormous amount of my time, and frankly, I am not looking forward to it.

Why ?

Because no matter how valid the data is, you will just claim it is irrelevant, pathetic, and circular.

That doesn't really give me much motivation to do it, now does it ?

You want me to dissect your crappy links from Talk Origins, but you have rarely, if ever, done that with the links I post. I would venture to say that I have spent MUCH more time tracking down data and offering possible refutations to the stuff you have posted, than vice a versa.

I honestly went back to that thread, and took in the daunting task ahead. I just haven't been able to motivate myself to work that hard, just so you can pee on it (which is very easy to do, as opposed to actually refuting something I post).

You like hairsplitting, and I do, too...to an extent.

Mostly you just resort to namecalling, and "claiming" that things aren't legit (without really explaining why...sometimes you just give links, as though I am going to read 8 of them at one time to get your point ! Unrealistic, at best.) from a Creationist standpoint.

That gets old.

Sometimes, I just don't wanna.

It would be very nice if I wasn't the only Christian on here providing such arguments. It's a heavy load.

Me against 8-50 other people.

So, shoot me.

(by the way, I am not male, so trying to bait me with pissing contest's isn't going to work.)

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Even if the committee wasn't so obviously biased, I can see why scientists wouldn't want to attend the hearing.

Yes...the old, "play dead, and maybe they will go away" tactic.

How terribly clever...and expected !

quote:Creationists have decided that since they can't provide any scientific support for their "theory", they can go the political route and side step proper science.

First of all, I have posted examples of papers published in peer journals. I have posted debates between Creationist's and Evolutionist's.

I have done this many times. If I can find the information on it, SO CAN YOU.

But, hey...go ahead and keep your head in the sand. It makes my case all that much stronger.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Fighting this is important, but there comes a point where scientists need to boycott this attitude, trying to fight people like this only validates the idea that science can be "proved" through politics and not the scientific method.

Again, why don't you go research this before you make yourself look like an azz.

And please explain to me why ICR has been granted federal accreditation of their science program, if it is not legit ?

You do not gain "accredited" status if your programs are below national requirements.

These creationist's are wicked smart, and they have the exact same curriculum as non-religious universities.

If their science was so bogus, they wouldn't be considered a college worthy of "accredidation".

quote:If creationists (oh sorry, IDists) want to get their theory taught in science class, maybe they can do what all the other scientists do and show their theories to be proper science.

*clears throat*

They DO.

Bias is a beautiful thing...for atheist's.

quote:Oh sorry, I forget the giant scientific conspiracy against them (just like the hallow earth nuts) LoL.

I don't know nuttin' 'bout no hallow earth nuts...

But what I DO know is that if one theory can be shoved down our kids' throats, every other theory ought to have the same chance, within reason.

Otherwise, take out the theory, and just teach science. How about that ?

If God wasn't involved in Creation Science, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

All this is: atheist's running from God.

DON'T BRING HIM INTO OUR COURTS, OUR SCHOOLS, OR OUR HOMES !!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

It's the boogie man ! (even though we all believe he doesn't exist !)

Pffft.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

This is addressed to everyone.

I would like to add something to what Digital said here:



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have done this many times. If I can find the information on it, SO CAN YOU.

I know i am not defending Christianity for the sake of finding answers to prove God to myself.

I'm pretty sure, neither are you, right Digital?

LSD > all of you shitheads.

Finally, some intellect in this thread.

quote:The one thread that I haven't responded to you on will take an enormous amount of my time, and frankly, I am not looking forward to it.

Your self-martyr complex never ends. I was talking about, THIS thread, not the one about thermodynamics, though I thank for you for admitting that you've run from the debate.

I was talking about THIS thread because you have the gall to ask "What are they afraid of?" and then post a clearly misleading and dishonest article to prove your point, and when I prove how misleading and dishonest the creationists were, you are nowhere to be found. So what are you afraid of?



quote:Because no matter how valid the data is, you will just claim it is irrelevant, pathetic, and circular.

That doesn't really give me much motivation to do it, now does it ?

You want me to dissect your crappy links from Talk Origins, but you have rarely, if ever, done that with the links I post. I would venture to say that I have spent MUCH more time tracking down data and offering possible refutations to the stuff you have posted, than vice a versa.

You're a bold face liar.

While I may call your links, or what is contained in them, "pathetic, irrelevant and/or circular logic", I also refute them. I explain why it is irrelevant, why it is pathetic, why it is circular logic and most importantly why it is wrong. That's the only thing that matters, that I explain why it is wrong.

Sometimes, yes, I will post a link and not my words. Why? Because my words will consist exactly of what they said since agree with it!

But look at the thermodynamics thread. Your reply consisted of a massive copy and paste job, with a couple of sentences on your part, not explaining what they said, but merely an inane commentary. Inane commentary such as "As a side note, how can a universe with a tendency towards order and sublime complex patterning be "meaningless" ? Is mathematics meaningless ? Either way, Evolutionist's prove God with their theories...whether they like it, or not.)"

I, on the other hand, only copied and pasted one section from one of the many links I provided, and refuted the rest of your allegations with my own words.

Anyone the bothers to read that thread will see how much of a liar you are. (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004156-2.html)

quote:That gets old.

Sometimes, I just don't wanna.

Great. Then don't go claiming you're not going to back down from the debate. You clearly are.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First of all, I have posted examples of papers published in peer journals. I have posted debates between Creationist's and Evolutionist's.

I have done this many times. If I can find the information on it, SO CAN YOU.

But, hey...go ahead and keep your head in the sand. It makes my case all that much stronger.

Nice bending of the truth. Every paper that I have seen you post, fails for one of two reasons.

1) It didn't contain any creationists or IDist claim in it's conclusion. This includes papers that creationists have used to support their claims but don't come to a creationist conclusion. It would be like saying cold fusion has been peer reviewed because people have published papers on fusion. It also includes papers by creationists that don't come to creationist conclusions. Just because a creationist has published papers, doesn't mean their belief in creationism is correct.

2) They weren't actually peer reviewed and slipped into the journal by mistake. They were then retracted and post retraction reviews ripped them apart (I swear a high schooler could have written a better paper).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Again, why don't you go research this before you make yourself look like an azz.

And please explain to me why ICR has been granted federal accreditation of their science program, if it is not legit ?

You do not gain "accredited" status if your programs are below national requirements.

These creationist's are wicked smart, and they have the exact same curriculum as non-religious universities.

If their science was so bogus, they wouldn't be considered a college worthy of "accredidation".

Haha, that is just awesome.

I complain that creationists are trying to use politics to get their way because they know trying to prove their science will fail. So what do you do? Call me an azz because I didn't do "research" and then try to say that because the government (politics) accepts it, it must be scientifically true.

Do you even read what you write?

I think it is you who needs to do research. The government doesn't directly accredit schools. The job is given to private organizations the government thinks they can trust. The fact that every year accreditation for diploma mills slips through, shows that not all accreditation are created equal. ICR is accredited through TRACS (Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools) a christian education based accreditation program. They are the ones who have decided creation science is acceptable for accreditation, not the government.

More research into TRACS shows that besides making sure the college is structured right with faculty, etc. It also checks to make sure they are teaching christianity "correctly" which includes an inerrant bible and creationism.

So, to make it simple for you, accreditation of a creationist college, especially by a creationist accreditation group, means absolutely Shit when discussing the scientific validity of creationism in the real world.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*clears throat*

They DO.

Bias is a beautiful thing...for atheist's.

Yep, thats why you have to bend the truth.

I'll have to tell the evolutionist Christian geologists, biologists, and physicists that I know that they aren't biased, Sweet.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

But what I DO know is that if one theory can be shoved down our kids' throats, every other theory ought to have the same chance, within reason.

Otherwise, take out the theory, and just teach science. How about that ?

Sure thing. When creationism becomes a scientific theory (you do know what a scientific theory is right?) I will be right there with you suggesting it be taught in science. Until then, you are right, lets just teach science in science class, that means teaching evolution and not creationism or IDism.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

All this is: atheist's running from God.



You need to look up the term, "strawman"

Not all evolutionists are atheist. But I'm sure you know this and are happy with making strawmen instead of confronting the truth.

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

I'm still tripping a bit, so some of that isn't clicking right, but the bastards seem arrogant. Like, if they're proven wrong (in some way), they'd lose a lot of face in the science community, I presume. They're most likely too arrogant to even risk defeat, so they ignore the challenge and act as if nothing has happened.

Avoidance is a common tactic, yes.

But in this case, I don't think it was avoidance, rather slander, that should turn our warning lights on.

They didn't just ignore the offers to attend the hearings/meetings, they claimed that they would be "rigged".

What evidence did they have, in order to make such outlandish accusations ?

It was defamatory, and in one single unprovable statement, they raped the meeting of any merit it could have held.

They are afraid...afraid of God and truth.

It's that simple.

See the vehement reaction this article got from the atheist's here on the board ?

It must be absurd, outlandish, unfounded, and untrue !!

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



What evidence did they have, in order to make such outlandish accusations ?

It was defamatory, and in one single unprovable statement, they raped the meeting of any merit it could have held.

They are afraid...afraid of God and truth.

It's that simple.

See the vehement reaction this article got from the atheist's here on the board ?

It must be absurd, outlandish, unfounded, and untrue !!

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

More dishonesty for Digital_Savior! What a surprise!

How do they know the committee would be unfair? How about the simple fact that the majority of the panel has admitted to being creationists or Intelligent Designers and Republicans?

Or how about the fact that some have admitted to not even reading the new rules they are about to vote in? If that doesn't show bias, it clearly shows incompetence which is reason enough not to entertain this poor excuse for an assembly.