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 ...
Get together a group of like-minded individuals and press for a Constituional amendment to allow the establishment of a government religion.
The Catholic Church, the Anglicans, the Methodists, and several Jewish denominations have all said they see no conflict between faith and evolution. I don't see why you would be insulted as a religionist if they are not. Science tells us that things occur for natural reasons. Supernatural things can only be appreciated through faith. If you argue based on science, I will debate you. If you argu based on faith, I will support you.
That's not science; and it doesn't matter how many degrees one has, it still isn't science. Its apologetics.
Exactly what *scientists* do with their naturalistic, no intelligence allowed belief system. Then they take it a step further and use the assumed no intelligence caused processes to *prove* that no intelligence was needed to explain the complexity and order and intelligence we find on this planet and in the universe.
So they say that because there's no way of determining if intelligence was the cause of everything we see and know, we have to assume that there was no intelligence behind it until proved otherwise. Then, in their blinding brilliance, they use examples of crystal formation (that is assumed to have no intelligence behind it) as *proof*/evidence/whatever that no intelligence is necessary for order and complexity to arise on its own.
If you argue based on science, I will debate you. If you argu based on faith, I will support you.
But you don't have a good solid rational handle on either. Any honest inquiriy into the cult of evo is met with a flurry of "Inquisition... Inquisition... Inquisition"!
Nor does truth come from science. I guess that puts science in the "false beliefs" category. I guess you never got the memo, either.
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.
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Get together a group of like-minded individuals and press for a Constituional amendment to allow the establishment of a government religion.
Not my burden, I know my rights.
And frankly you should get used to this:
www.thomasmore.org
www.aclj.org
If you want God removed from our coins, our science classes, our schools, our culture, that would be YOUR burden, not ours.
Your frustration is that more and more normal people are onto people like you and Michael Newdow.
Not so at all.
Jesus provided plenty of proof of His existence both before His death while He lived and taught on the Earth, and after He arose from the dead, to His disciples.
Your lack of understanding of Scripture is astounding.
All of them in your posts.
I’m in the same boat. I post stuff here and there, but I’m not defending anything with any real vigor until after the election. Yet more proof that great minds think alike ;o)
Then why did Jesus spent so much time verifying who He was to those He talked to. He used fulfilled Scripture and miracles to establish and confirm who He was before He died, and then after His resurrection, He appeared to many people and proved to them that He was who He said He was.
Acts 1:3 After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
If providing proof of His existence makes faith unnecessary or destroys the faith of believers, I guess someone forgot to tell Jesus that.
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?
Seems to work pretty damned easily for the cultists of evolution! I mean we’re just great apes, that (one person today said on these threads) evolved from algae, with no intelligent purpose, all by itself, against fantastical odds, under perfect conditons, after a big accidental bang.
I mean it’s not supernatural but it’s mind boggling in it’s “falsifiability” or whatever catchword is used lately.
Moreover we keep hearing things like “just wait a couple of MORE billion years...”
And like I said many times before, I think the “life on earth came from little pink mushrooms in a faraway galaxy” theories will take care of themselves.
Unless of course Obama appoints Dennis Kucinich education czar.
That seems to apply nicely to the cult of evo’s. They are the ones trying to exclude any other viewpoint.
That’s the real beauty with hardcore cultist evos, they seriously don’t know they throw around their projections in virtually every single post.
I mean it’s not supernatural
Either it is or it isn't. Which one do you want to complain about?
Someone could come up with a new theory that better fits the scientific evidence.
You yourself mentioned God could have very well created man through evolution from algae.
Ummmm....again that’s technically called ID Toddster.
You keep asking the same question that you yourself have not only answered, but meanwhile you continually prove that you don’t have a good grasp on these defintions,
the science,
religion,
the ability to communicate,
the ability to debate,
the ability to reason,
the ability to understand posts...
But you go right on ahead and continue to convince us you have the genes of a parrot again Toddster.
This is all anyone will ultimately be able to identify that you have to offer here and elsewhere.
(Assuming of course that point isn’t already waaaay behind you.)
Technically, I agree. So how is ID falsifiable?
You keep asking the same question that you yourself have not only answered,
I keep asking the above question. You continue to avoid the subject. What are you afraid of?
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.
Is there a way that a scientist can challenge evolution, and if so tell us how this could possibly happen.
And some of us (I’ll only speak for myself and a few other who have expressed explicit agreeement) believe that being created in God’s own image doesn’t mean that God has two arms and two legs, ten fingers and toes, etc. We believe that evolution, by God’s Plan, made us homo sapiens. Our souls are what make us men, and that is what is in His image.
Good, so you agree evolution itself is actually ID.
So now evolution actually occurred? You feeling okay? Bump your head or something?
So why aren’t they livid about the inaccuracies of public school science textbooks as they stand.
Search me...some are so angry at God or people who believe in a higher power, the “little things” like algoreacle’s cult of global warming just don’t matter.
I can seriously see a day when children are led to believe they’re indeed just somewhat smarter great apes and continue to devolve academically to the point they’re literally fitting little squares into square slots on a board in the 10th grade,
but the professors would just sigh in relief...
“Well at least GOD wasn’t allowed in here”!
If we continue to allow the liberal NEA free reign with their psychotic worldview, it’s exactly where we’re headed!
I have yet to see the theory of evolution approached honestly by creationists.
What I see instead are distortions, misrepresentations and lies.
And the biggest lie of all is that the theory of evolution is not science, but religion.
And who tells this whopper? Only creationists. Hmmmmm.
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.