Posted on 10/17/2008 7:59:18 AM PDT by Soliton
Three antievolutionists have been appointed to a six-member committee to review the draft set of Texas state science standards, and defenders of the integrity of science education in the Lone Star state are livid. "The committee was chosen by 12 of the 15 members of the board of education, with each panel member receiving the support of two board members," as the Dallas Morning News (October 16, 2008) explains. Six members of the board "aligned with social conservative groups" chose Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Ralph Seelke, a biology professor at the University of Wiconsin, Superior, and Charles Garner, a chemistry professor at Baylor University.
Meyer, Seelke, and Garner are all signatories of the Discovery Institute-sponsored "Dissent from Darwinism" statement. Meyer and Seelke are also coauthors of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House, 2008), which, like Of Pandas and People, is a supplementary textbook that is intended to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution. A recent review by biologist John Timmer summarized, "But the book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book." Garner reportedly told the Houston Press (December 14, 2000) that he "criticizes evolutionary theory in class."
Meyer and Seelke also testified in the 2005 "kangaroo court" hearings held by three antievolutionist members of the Kansas state board of education, in which a parade of antievolutionist witnesses expressed their support for the so-called minority report version of the state science standards (written with the aid of a local "intelligent design" organization), complained of repression by a dogmatic evolutionary establishment, and claimed to have detected atheism lurking "between the lines" of the standards..
(Excerpt) Read more at ncseweb.org ...
Somebody already did that. It's called "creationism".
Regardless, what you have just provided is NOT a means of falsifying evolution. Evolution is a philosophy, which makes it precious difficult to falsify, certainly to the satisfaction of its adherents. Finding new evidence forces a modification of the explanation of how the philosophy defines the evidence, but "evolution", per se, is not falsified because it still remains, as it always did, the underlying assumptive axiom through which the matter is filtered.
How is Creationism falsifiable?
You could prove that God (or a "higher being", or whatever) doesn't exist. That would decisively falsify any strain of creationism/ID from possibility.
You just don't like the results of those scientific investigations, so are determined to believe it is not science.
That doesn't make it true.
That may be your assertion (again, one made relying implicitly upon your worldview), but that means nothing other than that it's your opinion on the matter. Scientific evidences, such as we have, only "support" evolution in the sense that evolution's adherents determine beforehand than any evidences discovered must be filtered through the lens of evolutionism, therefore becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You wanna take over? I’ve got election-related posting to attend to. All this crevo stuff can wait till 5 Nov.
How do you test for that? For that matter, how do you prove the absence of any supernatural force?
If supernatural explanations must be accepted as scientifically valid until explicitly disproven, then what's to prevent anyone from submitting any number of theories that posit supernatural causes, no matter how implausible, and demand that they be accepted without any supporting evidence?
How would a person in the Iron Age test for the presence or absence of electrons? As evolutionists are so fond of saying when their theories just don't quite reconcile, "Wait until science advances". Until then, the argument from (present) inability doesn't negate this route for falsifiability of "non-materialistic" origins.
So until science comes up with a test for supernatural causes, it has to let itself be buried in any and all supernatural explanations anyone cares to come up with?
” It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.
Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100 (1953)”
That seems to apply nicely to the cult of evo’s. They are the ones trying to exclude any other viewpoint.
“Since The Enlightenment, people living in western civilizations don’t have to kowtow to the shamans any longer; science and man are free to explore their potential without being controlled, or burned at the stake, by the shamans and witch doctors. This, unfortunately, is not the case in many other areas of the world.
From your post it seems you want to reverse The Enlightenment.”
Um...no, I don’t. I was making a point. I’m not asking you or anybody to cowtow to shamans, or be controlled by anyone. God gave all of us Freewill. Please, please by all means search for The Truth.
The point I was making is that here is The Truth, and anything that opposes The Truth is, by definition, not true.
Witch Doctors and Shamans have nothing to do with what I was saying...what’s the point of even mentioning them?
“Evolution is about philosophy used to justify a particular worldview.
False.
You just don’t like the results of those scientific investigations, so are determined to believe it is not science.
That doesn’t make it true.”
Titus is absolutely 100% correct is his assertion.
What is the “philosophy used to justify a particular worldview” that lies behind evolution that does not also lie behind every other science?
I propose that the Secular Humanist Worldview is the Philosophy behind TOE.
As for every other ‘science’, you’d have to be more specific.
Scientific theory, not religious mythology.
Regardless, what you have just provided is NOT a means of falsifying evolution.
Sure it is. Scientific theories are falsified with new scientific evidence all the time.
How is Creationism falsifiable?
You could prove that God (or a "higher being", or whatever) doesn't exist.
I'd like to see the scientific experiment you'd conduct to do that.
Let me know when you dream one up. LOL!
Send in the clowns. LOL!
I wonder which method works better?
So why aren't they livid about the inaccuracies of public school science textbooks as they stand.
They'd come out much further ahead in their quest to provide an accurate, science education if they'd simply correct all the scientific errors that exist in them now.
More than can be said for most scientists. They would never admit to such a serious shortcoming.
Look up "conservative" and get back to me
Apparently it's all good. Unless you can prove it wasn't the magic beaker that did it, that's as good an explation as any.
On the contrary, we are interested in science. We just aren't interested in propaganda and brainwashing and thought control.
"No replies."
As usual.....
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.