Re: Kansas hearings

I've also read some of the transcripts of the hearings. Now I know why they
kept begging off on the question of when things were designed for fear of
offending the YECs on the board. Out came the unknown god of Acts 17. Note
the following exchanges:
  
> Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the
> 22 human species came into existence if you do not
> 23 accept common descent?
> 24 A. Design.
> 25 Q. When did that design occur?
> 0103
> 1 A. I don't know.
> 2 Q. Who was the designer?
> 3 A. Science cannot answer that. When I'm teaching
> 4 my class I do not answer that.
>
> 15 Q. What is your alternative explanation for how
> 16 the human species came into being if not from a
> 17 common descent from prehominids?
> Page 10
> Science Hearing May 07 2005.txt
> 18 A. From science, I have no alternative
> 19 explanation.
> 20 Q. In your personal opinion?
> 21 A. In my personal opinion, I believe there was an
> 22 intelligent designer.
> 23 Q. And when did that intelligent designer create
> 24 the human species?
> 25 A. I'm not sure.
> 0025
> 1 Q. Now, that opinion that you have about
> 2 intelligent design, that's not based on
> 3 science, correct?
> 4 A. Correct.
> 5 Q. That's based upon your theistic views?
> 6 A. Correct.
>
 The other thing I noticed is the ID folk arrogated to themselves the
ability to believe in design because of their faith but apparently won't
allow that for others who resolve their faith with science differently than
them. Some believe more about the "designer" should be in purview in the
public schools and some less. What makes Harris' via media right? Note
Harris' testimony:

 Q. Who is the designer?
> 7 A. That, I don't know.
> 8 Q. Would the designer imply a supernatural being?
> 9 A. If you could define supernatural for me.
> Page 29
> Science Hearing May 5 2005.txt
> 10 Q. Something other than human. 09:57AM
> 11 A. Other than human?
> 12 Q. Something other than the biological processes.
> 13 A. Something— I think that it's conceivable that
> 14 something like that could exist.
> 15 Q. When you talk about an intelligent designer, to 09:57AM
> 16 you personally what does that mean?
> 17 A. To me personally I— because I hold the
> 18 Christian faith I believe that we be guided by
> 19 the Bible. That's a faith position, that's not
> 20 a scientific position. 09:57AM
> 21 Q. So the designer, according to you, would be a
> 22 Christian type designer?
> 23 A. Well— and if I was a Muslim I would say the
> 24 designer is Alah. If I was any other faith I
> 25 might say— you know, that's— again, that's a 09:58AM
> 0071
> 1 faith position, that's not science. That's my
> 2 opinion outside of the science classroom.
>
  
So, if I believe not only in a designer but also in the Christian God as
describe in the Bible according to Harris it is outside the classroom. All
this gets inside the classroom is a "god" that I don't really care about. If
the stakes were as described by ID advocates I might get more worked up.
But, this is definitely not a battle worth dying over. If you want your
children to have a more Christian worldview then this is not going to help.
 *Keith, I have a question for you. Was a question like the following asked?
*
 Does Intelligent Design assume that evolution is basically wrong or does
Intelligent Design assume evolution is basically right but that our
understanding of how evolution works needs to be improved?
 YECs like Ms. Morris probably think it is the former, but I get the
impression if you press for candor that at least part of the ID folk hold to
the latter. For example, both Behe and Dembski admit to common descent.
Received on Tue Jun 14 12:18:26 2005