Posted on 01/19/2009 9:42:35 PM PST by Coyoteman
The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.
Continues...
(Excerpt) Read more at texscience.org ...
Whether or not I'd move to impeach would depend on the amount of time before the next election; it might make more sense to run them out at the ballot box. As far as lawsuits go, only if they break the law. It's not illegal to be stupid, fortunately. Can you imagine how much we'd have to pay for prisons? I really can’t envisage you being content to shrug your shoulders and observe, “Well, it’s their decision, but that sure was dumb and they’ll come to regret it.”
[[You have been defending Behe, but if you read his books and articles you would know that he accepts evolution, common descent and an ancient earth.]]
Yeah? And you’r point? I don’t care what Behe beleive OUTSIDE the science- He can beleive little green frogs invented plutonium for all I care- the ONLY thing that matters is the science and whether it is sound or not.
[[For all the same reasons that convince mainstream biologists.]]
Lol- ‘convince’? You mean attempt to justify via assumptions their a priori bleeif
[[Behe doesn’t concern himself with complex structures like the bones of the inner ear, because the fossil evidence for gradual evolution is detailed and overwhelming.]]
Lol- Ah yes- the ‘inner ear evolution’ claim again0- Yep- it’s ‘ovwerwhelming’ - in fact, it’s such a sound evidentiary line that evolutionists had to DECEIVE the common reader by drawing the skull of a a rat sized animal the same size as the next species inline supposedly, A HIPPO SIZED ANIMAL, and claim the jawbone movement showed clear progression ‘toward the ear’
Wow0- if you’re tryign to use ear evolution as your defense fro macroevolution, then your hypothesis really is in serious trouble-
Let us also point out what Miller is trying to do by ‘explaining’ the suppsoed evolution of blood clotting- Yup- that’s right- He is cosntructing an itneligently designed scenario that ignores problems, oversimplifies the seriousness and complexities of hte issue, and protects and invents scenarios that do not exist but whould be absolutely necessary to even begin the long complicated process of ‘evolving’ complex clotting
[[JS- I don’t have the time to go through that site line by line
Get back to me when you have time for something better than name calling.]]
I called you a name? Or miller? Get back to me when you’re not willing to run from discussions that point out the rediculousness of macroevolutionary claims by Darwinian congregationalists who can’t fathom that anythign but nature could be the causation of life- Btw- the article I’m goign to be looking at is on Metainformation- somethign else Miller seems unaware of, or at least is tryign to downplay and hide from the public because it blows his mythical hypothesis out of hte water- Genetic information and changes all fall within species specific metainfo- trying to produce non species psecific info lies outside hte metainfo parameters, informaiton is useless in life without a controlling, directing metainfo controlling it within hte parameters and for which it was designed for- The evolution of blood clotting ignores this basic life fact.
Actually alot of scientists disagree.
It's a statement of opinion without any empirical evidence backing it up, but it seems fairly sound as far as it goes. It also does not undermine the theory of evolution. We know little about the origins of life, and evolutionary theory does not depend on any particular hypothesis on the subject.
You didn't at all answer the question. Perhaps you can show us what's particularly religious in his observations?
Because I keep hearing these ridiculous assertions that it's not science and it's just religion, yet this chemist speaks of the science with not one mention of religion, speaking of no empirical evidence to back your assertions up....!!!
Miller’s INTELLIGENT DESIGN creation for hte evolution of blood clotting:
Step One- invent a duplication for a slicer-
Step Two- innactivate it for a few million years
Step Three- Cause it to complexly change
Step 4- Add new instructions so these invented slicers can nick hteir way into cells that htey weren’t originally intended to
Step 5- splice EGF domain into the end of the protease gene
and “In a flash”, you have “the tissue surrouding a broken blood vessel is now teeming with receptors that bind to the new EGF sequence on our serum protease.”
Stir, protect, manipulate further, bind other elements together, and by golly, you’ve got the beginnings of a more complex bloodclotting system.
Oh, I forgot htis gem- once you’ve itnelligently constructed complex blood clotting- be sure to adamantly declare “Fibrinogen, the soluble protein that now is now the primary target of proteolysis in the clotting cascade, clearly arose in this way.”- and hten villify anyone that doesn’t beleive your incredible fairy tale
Woops- Forgot to add the following scenario of Miller’s INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED blood clotting evolution:
[[Gene duplications happen all the time, and they are generally of such little importance that they are known as “neutral” mutations, having no effect on an organism’s fittness. However, the original gene had a control region that switched it on only in the pancreas. During the duplication, the control region of the duplicate is damaged so that the new gene is switched on in both the pancreas and the liver. As a result, the inactive form of the enzyme, a zymogen, is relesased into the bloodstream.]]
Did ya catch that? you MUST make sure hte gene duplication that you invent isn’t harmful, AND that you create NEW non species specific information that turns it on ‘in the future sometime, in not just the one area it is designed to be turned on in, but now, it must turn on in another area where it was never designed to- after al l the OTHER invented components and mechanisms have miraculously assembled themselves in an intelligently self-assembly motivated manner
Yay science!
You're missing the point, you can't just take a collection of glass and wires inside a plastic cabinet and use the computer either.
You take the keystone out of a Roman arch, it falls down. That does not mean the arch was poofed into place in one step.
No, but you're obfuscating the fact that the arch was intelligently designed nevertheless.
It's a free country.
You didn't at all answer the question.
I answered it precisely and specifically. You asked if it was unscientific. It is not a work of science, but of opinion, so "unscientific" isn't really an applicable term.
Because I keep hearing these ridiculous assertions that it's not science and it's just religion, yet this chemist speaks of the science with not one mention of religion, speaking of no empirical evidence to back your assertions up....!!!
The quote you gave does not endorse intelligent design or creationism.
You’re hopeless. If it was a free country until the minority with God hang ups that have hijacked this country to turn it into a secular humanist nightmare.
Now normal people leave the disaster of public screwels, yet still pay for it.
You didn’t answer, science is subjective interpretation of the data, so show us what was particularly religious or unscientific as you asseerted.
Evolution can not be challenged without the challenge being attacked as religion.
How about if you start being civil?
Respect and civility are earned. We’re tiring of the same tired failed projections everyday, for instance every time evolution is challenged it’s met with “you’re trying to teach your religion in science class”, let’s start there.
Are you trying to teach your religion in science class, or trying to prevent science from teaching anything that might conflict with it?
Why do you think you deserve to be treated civilly when you obtusely attempt to undermine a conservative website with endless liberal lies like this?
An observation exhibiting rare good sense.
”It's not illegal to be stupid . . . ”
Yeah, but the first thing most people would do is to head for a district court, the idea of overturning a board decision through the use of the ballot box being the last thing that would occur to them. That’s how sovereignty comes to ultimately be concentrated in the hands of a few.
” I really can’t envisage you being content to shrug your shoulders . . . ”
My grandson is enrolled in a private school. I consider the money extorted from me to support the education establishment as irredeemable, that is, out of my control, therefore past recovery. Sometimes things have to get worse, much worse, before there is any possibility that they will become better.
Do you find it objectionable that I believe there are people that do this, or that I'm asking if you are one of them?
Jeez Cott. Will you at least get your "th" key fixed? You're killing me here! { 8^)
What I find objectionable is this whole idea of yours is no where near the issue, the real issue is that NEA liberals and their ilk cram their religious beliefs down the public’s throats.
And not just science class, but all realms of public.
What “idea” of mine is it exactly you find obejctionable? You butted into this while I was trying to talk to someone else about their ideas about what the problem was.
Your liberal agenda.
SHEESH!!!
Your entire premise about Christianity being the problem with science when most on this site understand the true problem with science, by the overwhelming amount of evidence, indicates it’s the secular humanist godless liberal NEA that’s what’s wrong with science, education and this entire country in general!
And playing the victim with this butting in doesn’t wear well either, don’t pretend like you haven’t “butted in” yourself.
I'll bet my account against yours you can't show where I have submitted any such premise.
The quote you posted isn’t particularly scientific. It isn’t unscientific, either. It’s an opinion. There was nothing of religion in the quote you offered. There was also not a endorsement of intelligent design or creationism, nor an attack on evolution.
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.