Science debate avoided

Lance Erickson’s letter (4/3) stated that “science welcomes debates of controversial ideas that are supported by well-reasoned, objective data.”

In May 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education held hearings in Topeka to do just that.

Some of what was discussed: DNA, the complexity of the human cell, experimental evolution, amino acids, pre-biotic soup, RNA, PNA, pre-cellular life, direct panspermia, materialistic naturalism, operational science vs. historical science, the Y chromosome, SRY gene, bacterial flagellum and many, many other scientific areas that relate to the study of evolution.

What happened was that every single one of the pro-evolution scientists boycotted the hearings. Why?

Those scientists did not welcome debate on the controversial idea of evolution. They are totally closed-minded on this subject, and accept evolution on the basis of faith, not science.

Brian Barkley
Overland Park

Comments

[JUNGLEJACK]

"How do you debate anything with a person who believes that the fact we exist is all the "proof" he needs?"

...obviously the opinion of someone who has never listened to a view that differs from his own. Do you really think that rational people can base their grasp of reality upon Bible stories and their own existence with no other evidence whatsoever?

Try visiting a website like: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
or attending a conference that challenges your point of view. I guarentee you will not so easily dismiss their arguments.

"It sounds as if you are doubting it yourself. To call the stories and tales in the Bible a science, you will need to scientifically explain a lot. Like Noah's ark and 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Or how Moses parted the red sea. Or a dozen other miracle-related tales. Good Luck proving that."

What you call "doubting" I call an objective view of the discussion. Both sides should expect to have to deliver universally accepted scientific facts to back their theories and opinions.

As for it being necessary for me to prove every word of The Bible to be true - I may feel the need if the entirety of the Scripture was being needlessly belittled in the schools today - let's keep the discussion focussed on creation/evolution for now, o.k.?.

[Engineer]

Evolution is suggested by the discovery evidenve of differnt life forms in different periods. However, there is no experimentally testable theory as to how organic life was originally generated or how unicellular entities "evolved' to multiple cellular entities, or how one species changed to another. One part of evolution theory is a factul record of what has been found to have existed. The other part, the belief that this is the result of random change, is just that, a belief. I have a text book on invertabrate zoology that was said to explain the change from one species to another. Its explaination is :"and in the next layer of sediment the fossils changed". As to the record of the existence of different species we know a great deal, as to the how or why, we know very little.

[nosheepleallowed]

We live in a society of ignorance and "glass half empty or half full" mental masturbators.
I always tell the phony evangilical over the top phony bologna Bible thumpers to go jump of the AT&T Pavilion, then have faith that gravity is an illusion.

[jack]

The purpose of the "hearings" was not to debate anything. IT was a stage for the creationists to scream, "Evolution is wrong and here is why" from.

What proof do the creationists present that their belief is reality based? They don't. They just say that the very complexity of things "proves" they are correct.

How do you debate anything with a person who believes that the fact we exist is all the "proof" he needs?

[Stifled Freedom]

"Creation is not a faith-based belief."

Then what is it and were did it come from...other than the Bible???

"Are the Sun, Moon, stars and seas mentioned in The Bible? Yes"

It doesn't require science to prove the existence of the sun, moon and stars. Just go outside and look up. The first rule of science is to distinguish between thoery and observation. You dont need a thoery to prove an observation.

"If creation is true, it should be as scientifically sound as the existence of anything we observe in nature. It should not require "faith" to believe it - merely an acceptance of applied scientific principles."

It sounds as if you are doubting it yourself. To call the stories and tales in the Bible a science, you will need to scientifically explain a lot. Like Noah's ark and 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Or how Moses parted the red sea. Or a dozen other miracle-related tales. Good Luck proving that.

[JUNGLEJACK]

Creation is not a faith-based belief.

Is creation mentioned in The Bible? Yes.

Are the Sun, Moon, stars and seas mentioned in The Bible? Yes.

If creation is true, it should be as scientifically sound as the existence of anything we observe in nature. It should not require "faith" to believe it - merely an acceptance of applied scientific principles.

If I were an evolutionist, I would jump at the chance to point out how science is being manipulated to discredit evolution - not slink away from a debate on an issue this crucial because I was afraid I wouldn't be treated with all the respect I felt I deserved.

[Mike4Freedom]

I agree with the commenters. The Board of Education hearings were not a debate and any pro-evolution scientist would not have been given a fair shake there.

The debate has been going on for decades and everyone's position is abundantly clear. Does anyone have any new evidence to add?

From my point of view, it is an insoluble dispute. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. We just need to ensure that the government does not spend any money furthering either side.

The issue of what to teach in public school biology classes is also insoluble and casts a big vote for the separation of school and state. I know that is a large paradigm shift for most but it will solve this and many other problems. It would put individual control of kids education in the hands of the parents and save a lot of money in the bargain.

[katman]

Brian, for once I agree with the comment of viet-vet. Science & evolution are considered a rational debate while creationism comes from a faith-based direction. Although I don't concur with creationists, I respect their opinions. But, I wouldn't show up for a debate on the subject, anymore than I would for a group espousing that the world is flat.

KATMAN

[viet-vet1970]

Having a scientific debate with people who think their beliefs are facts is as pointless as discussing airplanes with somebody who thinks they fly by magic.