Why no scientists at evolution hearings??

[SkepticalScience]

I've been following the evolution v.s. ID case a bit, and every news article I read says that scientists are boycotting the case.

For example, on this link: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/11603998.htm

it says:

"THE BOYCOTT: National and state science groups have refused to participate in the hearings, meaning their side will call no scientists as witnesses Thursday."

I understand that the reason scientists don't want to participate is because it would be "elevating" ID as if it were a competing theory to evolution.

While I understand the sentiment behind their decision, is it really the right way to go?? Why not use it as a forum to defend evolution? To publicize what it’s all about?? (I often find that IDers don’t really have a concrete understanding of how evolution works. . . they always seem to think it’s completely random)

When I was in school, I had a fantastic teacher who explained evolution in a real simple straightforward way - in a way, that would make the ID hypothesis look absurd. I'm sure there are tons of others just like him. . .people that have the power to explain evolution convincingly.

Wouldn’t it be sad if as a result of this court case, that kids growing up in Kansas would think that there was some kind of debate in science about whether or not evolution was a fact?

That being said, why doesn’t sciences best explainers go out and defend evolution?? Where’s “Bill Nye The Science Guy” when you need him??


SS

 

[Bikewer]

According to a couple of reports I've listened to, the scientific educators are trying a new tack.

They've been beating their collective heads against the wall for many years, (having just fought this fight a few years ago) and think that perhaps a boycott might be appropriate.

They did bring in an attorney to argue the evolution "side", a latter day Darrow, if you will.

 

[crimresearch]

I guess they felt as though it would be a kangaroo court.

Either way, you give the other side ammunition.

Now, when is an academic organization going to hold a widely publicized conference on the matter, and invite the fundies to come defend their views at a public panel chaired by biologists, physicists, and astronomers?

 

[SkepticalScience]

Hmm. . . I dunno Bikewer.

It just seems like they are ignoring the problem, rather than confronting it head on.

Sure having a lawyer argue the case is fine - but would it really be better than having, say, Richard Dawkins showing pictures of flounders with their messed up eyes and comparing them with skates. You would expect a flounder to look the way it does because of evolution, with it's eyes all messed up - but you wouldn't expect a flounder to look the way it does if it had been intellegently designed.

http://www.myfishingpictures.com/showphoto.php?photo=36199&sort=7&thecat=555&password=

I remember seeing Dawkins do this type of demonstration before - and don't understand why science doesn't take a firmer stance with all this nonsense.

I'm reminded of one of Carl Sagan's Cosmos videos where none of the academics did anything to protect the Library at Alexandria - and as a result, it was lost forever.

 

[Dr. Imago]

Well, the position of scientists (generally speaking) is that the whole "Intelligent Designer" concept is a philosophical one, and not a scientific one. Therefore, this is not really a scientific debate, except for the fact that the proponents of ID want to limit or disclaim evolution in the science classroom, a place where such discussions don't really belong.

So, what we have is two issue here, really: a scientific one and a philosophical one. It might be that scientists are not equipped to "take on" the philosophical debate, and therefore boycott rendering an opinion on the validity of the ID concept. However, they do, on the other hand, have a legitimate argument for not teaching this in a sciece classroom. The latter is where the debate should be focused, not on the individual merits of each theory.

Of course, my simple philosophical retort which I would ask back to the schoolboard members and which, I believe, frames the ridiculousness of the ID concept being a "scientific" theory is this:

"If an 'intelligent designer' played a hand in creating the complexity of the human being, then who or what designed that intelligent designer?"

This would completely underscore the philosophical, non-scientific nature of the debate, that is if the schoolboard members could actually grasp the true ramifications of attempting to answer that question.

-TT

 

[SkepticalScience]

ThirdTwin said:

"Well, the position of scientists (generally speaking) is that the whole "Intelligent Designer" concept is a philosophical one, and not a scientific one."

But this philosophical position is threatning the advancement of science. These kids are now at a disadvantage - which means, we will most likely have less scientists from Kansas. (Insert Joke here!)

I just feel badly for kids that are born there. If I was born in Kansas - and had ID crammed down my throat at every turn - I might have very different views about science.

As Sally Struthers might say, "What about all the children??"

 

[Quasi]

The reason is that the panel is almost entirely comprised of true beleivers in ID. No evidence will change their minds. One of their own actually stated this and is also boycotting the hearings. Second, the hearings are not being held in a court. This means the IDers get to talk for a while, then step down without answering any questions. This has already happened with Meyer (fellow at the Discovery Institute,) who even teleconferenced in. This hit and run tactic was "designed" from the beginning. Then the evolution crowd is forced on the defensive and looks weak to the public.

 

[RichardR]

Science is not decided in a courtroom setting where lawyers interrogate scientists on their theories. I believe they were quite right to refuse to participate on those grounds.

The result seems to be that it is ID, not evolution, that is on trial. Read this detailed coverage of the hearings. For possibly the first time ever, ID proponents are having to defend their so-called “theory”, and answer questions designed to expose its weaknesses. Scientists are there to comment on the testimony of the IDiots, and the press are starting to get it.