Posted on 07/03/2008 9:19:24 PM PDT by Soliton
The Advocate newspaper in Baton Rouge Louisiana today published a front page story about Louisiana’s new law regarding teaching of evolution that contains a completely false statement in the lead.
The paper reported an unnamed official stated that “Louisiana is the only state in the nation that has enacted a law that could change the way evolution is taught in public schools.” Louisiana recently enacted the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) which protects teachers that encourage critical thinking and objective discussion about evolution and other scientific topics.
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
The fight over evolution, intelligent design, and creationism is merely one of likely **thousands** of way that the most powerful political gets to tyrannize and trample conscience of the other.
Get rid of government schooling! They are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience nightmare!
I cut and pasted this from another article that was just posted about the same topic. It is the same issue and deserves the same response.
And teaching evolution is nothing more than ATHEISM.
Only a fool would take evolution seriously.
THe entire premise of evolution is there is NO GOD.
Many of us believe it God and see Him as the Designer of all we see and don’t see. Mentioning Him should get people so upset UNLESS you have a personal problem with Him as evolutionists DO.
To mention God, is not poison. Those that object to Him try to frame the argument around “relgion”. Creation is NOT about “religion”. It’s all about common sense. OTOH, evolution is all about hypotheisis that don’t add up nor is there evidence to support it. You might as well watch a SCI-FI flick since that is really all it is. You will not learn objective science in evolution.
The new law is an open invitation for anyone (and any group or organization) with an agenda to "game" the system and ideologically infect the curricula. It will inevitably be used far more often and more effectively to push algoristic environmental hype, and other leftist crap, than to peddle antievolutionary pseudoscience.
Most good teachers probably already had the ability, and the inclination, to use select supplementary materials. The difference, with this law, is that now official "policies" must be created encouraging and facilitating the use of supplementary materials. I guarantee you that this will shift much control to outside groups (very few with any genuine interest in quality science education) trying to push material INTO the classroom, as opposed to good teachers reaching out for useful heuristic aids.
Antievolutionists celebrating this law should enjoy themselves while it still remains possible to indulge their happy delusions, 'cause this law, if seriously implemented, promises many unintended consequences.
“THe entire premise of evolution is there is NO GOD.”
Show your work, please.
The entire evolution theory is based on false information. Therefore the newspaper is not conducting itself any differently than the peddlers of this erroneous notion.
Well, I gotta hand it to you. Even in light of the fact that your position is insanely delusional, it's still far preferable IMHO to the wishy-washy intellectual relativism (or cynical posturing) that whinely insists on teaching "both sides".
If you genuinely believe that an idea is clearly and demonstrably wrong, and/or fails spectacularly on intellectual merit, then you OUGHT to advocate against it's being taught.
This is certainly why I oppose teaching any of the current antievolutionary schemes.
Of course science itself is always open to new ideas -- provided they actually work and prove useful in advancing knowledge. And if some non-evolutionary idea manages to suceed, on merit, to the point of supplanting evolutionary theory, then it ought to be taught and evolution excluded.
IOW curricular content ought to reflect, with at least approximate accuracy, the degree to which various ideas have objectively succeeded or failed in professional scholarship. This has always seemed pretty simple to me.
However since evolution has objectively succeeded in science, and antievolutionary ideas objectively failed, antievolutionists are forced to make things more complicated than that.
Again, crazy as you are, I admire your simplicity.
Sorry, that's fundamentalist nonsense.
Wouldn’t it be better to ignore such oversimplifications? Or even better, request clarification and force the speaker to justify his or her position?
But if you are going to teach ID whose version are you going to teach?
Fundamentalist Christian 6 days of creation and one day of rest.
Native American Great creator spirit, Buddhist warring gods?
How about the Islamic view?
This needs to be thought out very carefully
Its' like discussing the letter "m" in the alphabet....forgetting about all others.
Sorry folks. Even if Genesis were real history, it would not make dishonest arguments honest, nor make slander morally acceptable.
Yeah, I like the facts that they are mandating that you teach both facts for evolution and against evolution as if they don’t already. Darwin did it himself.
I like to call it the “Lying for God Movement.” It’s okay to claim falsely (lie) that ID isn’t just Creationism in disguise in an effort to break the law. They love the Bible’s creation story, but don’t care for the “Thou shalt not bear false witness” part.
I’ve also noticed that Ben Stein hasn’t been very visible since he made that flop of a movie.
Why do you emphasize the word theory? And why would a theory about biological change need to explain anything about the structure of the universe?
Also, I would disagree with your assertion that the process has ended with man. No scientist would argue that evolution has stopped with man.
"And teaching evolution is nothing more than ATHEISM.But it requires basic intelligence and a rational worldview to realize and comprehend that.
Only a fool would take evolution seriously.
THe entire premise of evolution is there is NO GOD."
[excerpt]
Although I admit it's hard to tell for sure, since this claim seems always to be presented here as bald assertion, with the reasoning (if any) behind it stubbornly withheld.
If there was a substantive response hidden there somewhere behind that arm waving, I trust you’ll extract and present it. In any case, Happy Independence Day!
Theories are simply theories until "proven” by physical observations associated with scientific tests that validate theory.
And so, given sufficient validation, intelligent beings now accept such things as Ohm’s law and Einstein’s relativity as validated theories based on a preponderance of evidence.
With respect to Darwin's theory of evolution, there is far more validating evidence available today than Darwin presented in his 1859 "Origin of the Species"; and a great deal of that evidence can be found in the 1999 book "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones.
It is fascinating reading.
Go in peace.
"Theories are simply theories until "proven” by physical observations associated with scientific tests that validate theory." [excerpt]There is a difference between the colloquial use of the word theory and the scientific use.
Theory
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena . In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed . A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
"And so, given sufficient validation, intelligent beings now accept such things as Ohm’s law and Einstein’s relativity as validated theories based on a preponderance of evidence." [excerpt]There is a difference between a scientific law like Ohm's law and scientific theory like Einstein's theory of relativity.
"With respect to Darwin's theory of evolution, there is far more validating evidence available today than Darwin presented in his 1859 "Origin of the Species"; and a great deal of that evidence can be found in the 1999 book "Darwin's Ghost" by Steve Jones." [excerpt]Darwin's hypothesis is only a theory in the colloquial sense.
"It is fascinating reading." [excerpt]When I feel like reading something written by an Evolutionist who has history of using ridiculing and derogatory attacks on Creationists(Such as calling them stupid and/or liars), I just hang out here on FR.
Difference? ... Given theoretical validation of Ohm's "law" and Einstein's "theory", I see only a semantic difference.
More than validating evidence is required for a hypothesis to become a theory.
If validating evidence isn't enough, what more is needed?
There must be an absolute lack of invalidating evidence.
Would you say that radioactive half-life data telling us that that the Earth came into existence about 4,500,000,000 years ago (the half-life of uranium-238) might invalidate your position?
The sudo (sic) -scientific methodology used for Evolution systematically discards all invalidating evidence.
Where might we find evidence that invalidates the theory of evolution?
Professor Jones really needs to learn some civility.
Go in peace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.