Letters of rejection from scientists who were invited to "debate" ID

[atommom]

here in Kansas. Here's a sample:

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.

http://tinyurl.com/9xx3k

[smoogatz]

1. Understandable, but

I wish they would debate them, in public, fully televised. I think failing to do so only reinforces the religious right's propaganda--that somehow the scientific mainstream is "afraid" to confront ID.

[atommom]

2. It's a tough call. They've already gone through a long, drawn-out

process ... public hearings, written statements, etc., and the conservatives on the school board simply don't pay any attention to the scientists. It's hard to make established scientific principles into bite-sized phrases, but ID lends itself to that very well. People who have little knowledge of (or curiousity about) science will often accept the ID arguments because they just seem simpler. They keep hearing the memes about "teaching the controversy" and wonder "why not?", never realizing that in the scientific world, there IS no controversy.

Add the religious angle, with powerful religious groups pushing ID as a step toward more religion in public schools, and it gets even more muddled. People are used to accepting religious teachings on faith, and the Right has successfully framed the teaching of science as an attack on that faith.

I'm afraid we're screwed this time ... again. We can only hope that moderates return to the BOE eventually and clean up the mess.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. You're right about the sound bite problem...

and that is the biggest problem that any scientist or professional has in these ridiculous "debates." Without a basic science education, the eyes of the populace just glaze over at molecular biology and scientific methodology.

The opposition doesn't have to prove a thing-- merely sow the seeds of doubt at real science.

[smoogatz]

5. Evolution needs a Carl Sagan

Someone who can explain complicated research and ideas in lay terms, and be a popularizing voice for real science. I can understand why no one wants to take on that role--you'd spend your whole life arguing with idiots, while your "real" work languished. But I really think the wingnuts are going to succeed in dumbing-down the public schools unless the scientific community can actively engage here. State-funded colleges and universities are next.

[Dudley_DUright]

6. It does, his name is Richard Dawkins

His latest book "The Ancestor's Tale" is a tour de force in popular science writing (and he takes some great shots at BushCo and the fundies for good measure).

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1306169,00.html

[smoogatz]

7. Thanks--I'll pick up a copy.

Looks great.

[spooky3]

9. yes, and there is no reward, and a huge opportunity cost, to do this

Universities don't pay scientists to debate idiots. Even the best "community service" is valued very little by universities (as it should be--what other organization REALLY pays people to do more than a small amount) and this certainly doesn't qualify. Being insulted by idiots is mere icing on the cake.

So, If you take time away from teaching, research or service to do so, your productivity suffers. If you keep your productivity up, then the time and mental energy comes from your personal and/or family time, which is very limited. So there are disincentives to the individual who is goodhearted enough and skillful enough to take it on.

[sandnsea]

10. Is the sky blue or green?

Let's let the Kansas School Board call a hearing to debate it. How do you argue that the sky's not green? Why should anybody be required to?

That's how stupid this is.

[GOPFighter]

3. Thanks for the link

Excellent responses from scientists who refuse to be part of a sham hearing. As Dr. Lamoureux, Assistant Professor of Science & Religion at the University of Alberta wrote: "However, it came to my attention on April 11 that I was the only person who had agreed to appear before the subcommittee to defend "the mainstream scientific view." I was not told that leading scholars in the origins debate (eg, Ken Miller, Eugenie Scott, Keith Miller) and scientists from Kansas Citizens for Science had refused to appear at the hearings. Needless to say, I was shocked! I was also told that the "minority" opinion had 24 expert witnesses. The following day I discovered that the subcommittee was made up of three anti-evolutionists, none of whom were trained professionally in the historical sciences.

Recommended for Greatest Page.

[troubleinwinter]

8. Kick for a scientist that won't be drawn into

a stupid kindergarten bullshit debate over whether or not demons swallow the sun during an eclipse.

[w4rma]

11. Intelligent Design = Aliens designed life on Earth

It's just as easy to prove that as it is to prove that a greater being designed life on earth.

[ComerPerro]

13. Exactly. Someone a few weeks ago pointed out

that the only way you can use Intelligent Design without going to religion or some sort of diety is to say that the Universe (or our galaxy, whatever) was created by space aliens.

And, as you mentioned, its just as easy to "prove" as the Christian version.

[Robeysays]

12. hhahahahahahaahahaha n/t