Texas Evolution Lobby Making Power Grabs to Promote Their Censorship Agenda

Discovery Institute ^ | May 28, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[GodGunsGuts]

Texas Evolution Lobby Making Power Grabs to Promote Their Censorship Agenda

A Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article from last month, “Education Board in Texas Faces Curbs,” revealed how the Texas evolution-lobby has been seeking to use both censorship and power grabs to promote their agenda. First, they sought to censor from Texas students any instruction on scientific weaknesses in evolution. Having lost that fight before the Texas State Board of Education (TSBOE), they have tried to use other tactics to punish the board for adopting science standards that teach evolution objectively, or to grab power away from the democratically elected board.

In a move that can only be attributed to political retribution, today Texas evolutionists successfully blocked the reappointment of Dr. Don McLeroy as chair of the TSBOE. Practically speaking, this move will change little, as it is almost guaranteed that a like-minded conservative will be appointed in McLeroy’s place to chair the TSBOE. The travesty here is that, to my knowledge, no one has put forth any legitimate charges that McLeroy was not fair-minded in how he chaired TSBOE meetings. If this move will have little practical impact and Dr. McLeroy is a competent chair, why did the Texas evolution lobby push so hard for this ephemeral and pyrrhic media victory? The answer is simple: it's political retribution from evolutionists who like to expel people whose politics don’t advance their pro-Darwin-only agenda.

The attack on McLeroy hasn’t been the only power-grab sought by the Texas evolution-lobby in recent weeks. A number of bills submitted this session have sought to strip the Texas State Board of Education of its power to do things like set the curriculum or approve textbooks, or alternatively, to make the Board non-elected. As the WSJ reported:

Some lawmakers -- mostly Democrats -- say they have had enough.

The most far-reaching proposals would strip the Texas board of its authority to set curricula and approve textbooks. Depending on the bill, that power would be transferred to the state education agency, a legislative board or the commissioner of education. Other bills would transform the board to an appointed rather than elected body, require Webcasting of meetings, and take away the board's control of a vast pot of school funding.

A Texas political commentary blog offered a keen observation about what is going on here:

A lot of politicians -- all too many of them Republicans -- love to campaign on socially-conservative themes like pro-life and family values but then behind the scenes in Austin treat the social right like a bunch of lepers. This session, these politicians see an opportunity because of the change in House leadership and board's recent highly publicized debate over the role of evolution in the science curriculum. So we've had a lot more hearings on bills to strip the board of its powers.

The Texas evolution-lobby has been cheering on these bills, which they call “bipartisan,” stating the following: “Senate Bill 2275 by Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, would strip the state board of authority over approving curriculum standards and textbooks (among other things).” According to the bill itself, it would result in “transferring authority from the State Board of Education to the commissioner of education.” Thankfully, SB 2275 – a pure power-grab bill – does not seem to be going anywhere.

What makes evolutionists so scared that they must resort to these tactics? Contrary to the WSJ’s article, Texas students will not learn about “creationist objections” to evolution, but scientific challenges found in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature. Teaching students about real science that challenges evolution is what the Texas evolution lobby fears the most. Thus, they are willing to resort to extreme tactics to enforce their agenda—even when it sharply contravenes the will of the people.

All this amounts to an attempt to take control of the public school curriculum out of the hands of qualified elected officials and taxpaying and voting parents and put it into the hands of bureaucrats. Once the Texas evolution lobby has total vertical control of the curriculum, they hope to then also control—through indoctrination—the minds of the next generation of voters. Perhaps then Texas evolutionists will feel safe returning power to the people.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[MrB]

How is Texas going to purge these people after the “divorce”?

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

[GodGunsGuts]

Also, see what the Temple of Darwin is doing to ICR in Texas:

Censorship in Texas: Fighting Academic and Religious Discrimination

http://www.icr.org/article/censorship-texas-fighting-academic/

[MrB]

Seriously, removing the gov’t benes and welfare isn’t going to affect some of them.

I guess we’ll just have to remove any means of power from them - that’ll do it.

[qam1]

The Texas evolution-lobby

LOL!

Let me guess, there's also a Texas Gravity Lobby?

[a fool in paradise]

There’s a global warming lobby, a fetus isn’t human lobby, and a homosexuality is genetic lobby.

All are theories.

[Westbrook]

> Let me guess, there’s also a Texas Gravity Lobby?

Unlike the effects of gravity, which can be empirically observed, evolution relies on drawings and conjectures about what may have, could have, might have, probably have, happened.

Everybody has watched an object fall to the ground.

Nobody has seen a shrew turn into a bat.

[Alamo-Girl]

Actually I would imagine the majority of Texans find the attempt by any group to run roughshod over their collective will to be rather amusing ... at first.

To try to convince by debate is one thing, but to get pushy with Texans is well .... not very smart.

Remember Goliad, the Alamo and San Jacinto!

[GunRunner]

My home state is doing so well in these bad times. It would be a shame if this was clouded by pseudoscientists trying to teach kids biblical literalism in science class.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Let me guess, there’s also a Texas Gravity Lobby?

Yes. It was originally started by Sir Isaac Newton way back in 18th century England. He was of course a biblical creationist.

[allmendream]

And yet it was only Newton’s scientific theories that posited natural causes for natural phenomena that accomplished anything.

As a theologian Newton was a heretic.

As an alchemist Newton was a quack.

It was only where he found MATERIAL causes to explain MATERIAL phenomena that he made any progress in science.

[sticker]

Where as the theory of creationism depends on ?

[varmintman]

Pretty obvious which side of this thing has stuff to hide, isn’t it?

[Westbrook]

> Where as the theory of creationism depends on ?

Who said anything about creationism?

We were talking about evolutionism.

In any event, they are both theories employed to explain the same evidence based on different world views.

However, given the endless frauds in evolutionism, e.g. Haekel, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, Ntional Geographic’s “Dino Bird”, etc, and the fact that no explanation exists for organs that would be “vestigial” until wholly functioning, e.g. the eye, I would say that Intelligent Design is the more intelligent explanation.

However, if you want to believe...

* Everything came from nowhere out of nothing for no apparent reason.

* Life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing, uncaring cosmos.

* A man is a dog is a bear is a pig.

* When you die you are just so much compost.

* Ergo, the best you can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction.

... I certainly won’t try to stop you.

Just don’t expect me to gladly furnish moneys by the threat of lethal force to propagate your silly, even dangerous, notions.

[BJClinton]

the Texas evolution-lobby

Those guys are pikers! The Texas Round Earth lobby actually got our textbooks changed!

[BJClinton]

Let me guess, there's also a Texas Gravity Lobby?

Yeah, they're really holding our kids down!

[BJClinton]

Remember Goliad, the Alamo and San Jacinto!

We went 1 - 2.

[The_Repugnant_Conservative]

There’s a global warming lobby, a fetus isn’t human lobby, and a homosexuality is genetic lobby. All are theories.

Actually no, they are Hypothesis. It would take much more evidence to lead the scientific community to advance them to the level of a theory.

[Alamo-Girl]

Yep, it was the dishonorable treatment of Texan P.O.W.s at Goliad followed by the profound heroism at the Alamo to an 18 minute victory at San Jacinto.

That's what I mean about it is not smart to get pushy with Texans.

[a fool in paradise]

According to Al Gore, non-scientist, there is “consensus”.

And I find it odd that with millions of human births around the world we cannot monitor the process and determine WHEN life begins but we can establish HOW life began millions of years ago.

[sticker]

Either you believe in evolution or you believe in “intelligent design”, creationism by another name. Guess, you have no problem wanting to for us to fund your THEORY as fact

[The_Repugnant_Conservative]

A scientist will tell you that from a scientific perspoective life began millions of years ago and is a continuous process with parts dying off and parts living on. Any other definitions is a matter for Lawyers, Politicians and Philosophers not scientists.

[GodGunsGuts]

==As an alchemist Newton was a quack.

Many of the practices and discoveries pioneered by alchemists led to modern chemistry. And as it turns out, the Alchemists like Newton were onto something, as lead really can be turned into gold.

[ExTxMarine]

Duh! And if you don’t believe that or the consensus - shut UP! /Sarc (kinda)

[ExTxMarine]

The “kinda” wasn’t at YOU it was at the sarcasm tag, since that is how most of the evolutionists would actually like to handle your question!

[baclava]

Every civilization has it's own creation myth. They all borrow from the same general theme - sky gods come down to edumacate us. Every religion incorporates a myth of how the world was created. This illustration depicts the creation myths of Hindism, Navaho, Aztec, Egyptian, Christian, Aboriginal, Jewish and Islam.

[GodGunsGuts]

==As a theologian Newton was a heretic.

It’s possible, but everything I’m reading says “he was almost certainly this” or “almost certainly that.” That suggests nobody knows for sure. So until I see something definitive, I will give Newton the benefit of the doubt. Having said that, everything I have read about him suggests he believed in the biblical account of creation.

==And yet it was only Newton’s scientific theories that posited natural causes for natural phenomena that accomplished anything.

‘Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton’s best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the Universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”

...

‘Thus, the ordered and dynamically informed Universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason. In his correspondence, Newton claimed that in writing the Principia “I had an eye upon such Principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity”.[46] He saw evidence of design in the system of the world: “Such a wonderful uniformity in the planetary system must be allowed the effect of choice”.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_views

[Westbrook]

> Guess, you have no problem wanting to for us to fund your
> THEORY as fact

It is your theory that is funded as fact.

All we want is the following.

1. The theory of evolution would be presented as just that, a theory, and for the weaknesses therein, discovered and reported in scientific journals acceptable even to most evolutionists, to be openly presented.

2. The theory of creationism, or intelligent design, would also be presented as an alternative explanation.

After all, both of these theories are interpretations of the same evidence but based on different world views. All we asking for is equal time.

But we understand that might be too much for the poor evolutionists to bear after the holes in their theory and all the frauds employed since its inception to perpetuate it are exposed.

What I would like even more is for the government to stop taxing me to pay for the union-run indoctrination collectives they call “Public Schools”.

Thomas Jefferson, the misunderstood, misinterpreted darling of the Left, once said that to “compel a man to furnish moneys for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is tyranny and a great sin.”

If the Left were unable to torture this man’s words into what they want to believe about him, they would openly vilify him.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Every civilization has it's own creation myth.

[allmendream]

Newton was most certainly a heretic who denied the Trinity of God.

I agree with Newton and would paraphrase him to say...

‘Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation explains the history of living species on earth, but it cannot explain what set reality and life in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.’

Notice please that the ONLY scientific contribution of Newton was through his materialistic theory that explained how natural forces could accomplish celestial movement.

Nobody has ever accomplished anything scientifically assuming direct supernatural causation of natural phenomena.

[GodGunsGuts]

You don’t agree with Newton. Newton believed in the biblical creation account in Genesis. You believe that random processes plus survival somehow created super-sophisticated bio-nano machines that merely give off the illusion of having been designed for a purpose.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Newton was most certainly a heretic who denied the Trinity of God.

Like I said, I have never read anything that proves that Newton was a heretic. I have heard people say he was “almost certainly” a heretic, but I have never seen any conclusive proof of the same.

[allmendream]

Don't try to tell me what I believe GGG.

Newton was a heretic. I wouldn't go around claiming him as an authority on the Bible.

I agree with Newton on the passage you quoted completely in that discovering the PHYSICAL realities that govern planetary motion in no way removes God as the creator of that reality and the creator of the planets.

Just as discovering the PHYSCIAL realities that govern descent with modification of living systems in no way removes God as the creator of those living systems.

See, I agree with Newton. It is you who would condemn him for reliance upon “materialism” in his scientific theories; yes how DARE he rely upon physical causes to explain physical phenomena.

Or is it only “materialism” when a biologist does it?

[allmendream]

Is denial of the Trinity nature of God a heresy GGG?

If so then Newton was a heretic.

Unless you are so ignorant that you will attempt to deny that Newton rejected the notion of the Trinity.

[GodGunsGuts]

Too bad there isn’t a shred of evidence for common descent, and mountains of evidence against the same. But you are free to believe what you want to believe. Just don’t try and pretend that your unfounded Evo-beliefs accord with Newton.

[allmendream]

There are mountains of evidence for common descent in any science library you go into (not that you ever would).

And my philosophy on how physical causes as explanation for physical phenomena in no way removes God as their originator is EXACTLY in accord with Newton.

So have you thought of a scientific theory yet that attempts to explain physical phenomena by appeal to supernatural forces?

Why is it “materialism” when biologists do it but not Newton? What is the difference?

[GodGunsGuts]

Like I said, I have heard people go as far as to say Newton almost certainly was an heritic, but I have never seen any primary evidence of the same. If you have any evidence that will conclusively resolve this issue, I would be more than happy to read it. But regardless, Newton believed that the Genesis (read: YEC) account of creation was accurate.

[allmendream]

Newton never was exposed to contrary data. Hard to accept Darwin’s theory when Darwin had not formulated it.

Nor would the explanation of the realities the govern heredity and descent with modification have, to Newton, removed God as their creator; any more than the explanation of the realities the govern planetary motion removed God as their creator.

Newton denied the Trinity, this is a matter of historic record. Do you think this is a heretical view?

[GodGunsGuts]

Just saying it doesn’t make it so, Allmendream. I repeat, there is not a shred of evidence that would suggest that Darwin’s materialist creation myth is true, and there is ever-increasing evidence against it. But hey, like I said, you are entitled to your unfounded Evo-beliefs, just don’t pretend they accord with Newton (or the Bible).

[allmendream]

Still no explanation of any scientific theory that attempts to explain physical phenomena by appealing to supernatural forces.

Newton didn’t do it. Why wasn’t it “materialism” when Newton used physical causes to explain physical phenomena, but somehow it is when biologists use physical causes to explain physical phenomena?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Newton never was exposed to contrary data. Hard to accept Darwin’s theory when Darwin had not formulated it.

I merely pointed out that he believed in biblical/young earth creation. It was you who said “I agree with Newton and would paraphrase him to say...‘Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation explains the history of living species on earth, but it cannot explain what set reality and life in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.’”

And yes, to deny the Trinity is clearly heretical.

[GodGunsGuts]

Newton used science to explain how gravity behaves, and he used the Bible to say that gravity (and indeed all physical laws) were created by God. Why you can’t distinguish between the two is beyond me.

[allmendream]

I use the science of evolution to explain how living systems behave, and I use the Bible to say that living systems were created by God.

Why you cannot see that this is exactly the same position as Newton took with respect to gravity is not at all beyond me, because I know the depths of self enforced ignorance you will subject yourself to.

[allmendream]

So if to deny the Trinity is heresy, then Newton was a heretic.

Or are you going to pretend that Newton never denied the Trinity?

Have you thought of a scientific theory that attempts to explain physical phenomena by appealing to supernatural forces yet?

Why is it “materialism” when biologists appeal to physical causes to explain physical phenomena, but not when Newton did the same?

[GodGunsGuts]

Newton did not believe in evolution, he believed in biblical/young earth creation. How you could twist his belief in biblical creation into agreeing with Darwin’s atheist creation myth is beyond me.

[GodGunsGuts]

I have read and heard it said that he may have denied the Trinity, but I have never had it conclusively proved to me.

==Have you thought of a scientific theory that attempts to explain physical phenomena by appealing to supernatural forces yet?

Every law that governs the Universe was created by God’s Word, and are therefore of supernatural origin. The only reason science can study them is because God created them to be regular. Although, even God’s regular laws are occasionall interrupted by his irregular laws, otherwise known as miracles (such as when Jesus raised from the dead).

[allmendream]

Are you delusional?

I said Newton was in agreement with me over the basic philosophy that deriving a physical cause for something doesn’t remove God as its creator.

I never attempted to claim Newton agreed with Darwin, and I would have to be as ignorant as you to attempt such, as Newton lived long before Darwin was even born.

For the reality impaired....

Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727)

Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)

So, have you thought of a scientific theory that appeals to supernatural causation to explain physical phenomena yet?

Why is it “materialism” when biologists explain physical phenomena by appeal to physical causes, yet somehow not when Newton does it?