Antievolutionists asked to review draft standards in Texas

The National Center for Science Education ^ | October 16, 2008

[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..

[tpanther]

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?

---

Coyoteman is simply incapable from escaping his brainwashing. In his worldview, anyone that questions evolution, especially if they believe in a higher power, ARE witch doctors.

[Mojave]

I have yet to see the theory of evolution approached honestly by creationists.

State "the theory of evolution."

[Coyoteman]

Is there a way that a scientist can challenge evolution, and if so tell us how this could possibly happen.

Bring scientific evidence, not religious belief. Follow the scientific method, not religious apologetics. Publish in peer reviewed scientific journals, not in internet chat rooms.

And bring something better than that steaming pile that creationists have been parroting for so long that the claims have been numbered for easier reference: Index to Creationist Claims.

[metmom]

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.

Can you say *Jesus*?

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.

And on what basis do you make those assumptions?

[Coyoteman]

State "the theory of evolution."

See the following references, and thousands of others. That's where the theory of evolution is worked out, not internet chat rooms:

American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics

[tpanther]

The workd “inquisition’ appears in this thread 8 times.

All of them in your posts.

---

Uh-huh...with your keen observation skills, have you noticed “burned at the stake yet”? Or is this your first thread today? (My 3rd.)

Here’s a little hint...it wasn’t in my post the first time I read it.

And since we’re on the subject...how do you feel about humans being evolved from algae?

A new one on me today.

[Mojave]

See the following references

You're admitting that you can't state "the theory of evolution."

I'll give you another chance. Please state the belief you're so hysterically defending.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I propose that the Secular Humanist Worldview is the Philosophy behind TOE.

I was hoping more for a description of beliefs than a label. From a search, it also seems like most of the people who use the term "Secular Humanist Worldview" are using it to discredit people they disagree with. So if you would, exactly what do you see as the element(s) of this worldview that underlie the TOE?

As for every other ‘science’, you’d have to be more specific.

Pick one: geology, chemistry, biology. How do the elements of the SHW you cite above not also pertain to that field?

[Mojave]

Follow the scientific method

Predictions and testable experiments?

[tpanther]

Either it is or it isn’t. Which one do you want to complain about?

---

So “supernatural” is your only concern about the accuracy or even believability in science? See that’s what I thought.

Also reminds me of what was considered “supernatural” over the centuries.

[Mojave]

Supernatural = anything outside of current academic dogma

[allmendream]

That was for his disciples and those that were called to a higher service.

As the Bible says...

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Now how can one have “faith” in what is “proven”? Moreover in order to try to prove what they should have faith in, Creationists must distort Science and lie about what it says.

[Mojave]

You’ll notice that one of its apologists on this thread now contends that the theory is too complex to even state. Guess that means that it has to be accepted on faith, a mystery beyond description.

[tpanther]

So now evolution actually occurred? You feeling okay? Bump your head or something?

---

You might embarass yourself less by not ASSuming another’s position before you come up with your drivel.

Maybe you can ask someone in a more serious way someday (my estimation is waiting until AFTER puberty) where I’ve stood ALL along on evolution.

[tpanther]

You keep asking the same question that you yourself have not only answered,

I keep asking the above question

What could it be?????

Toddy wanna cracker?

[tacticalogic]

So “supernatural” is your only concern about the accuracy or even believability in science? See that’s what I thought.

I see you've recovered from the onslaught of accusations of "Inquisition!" sufficiently to handle both sides of the conversation now. Need anything else?

[allmendream]

Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.

Living systems make the active molecules that conduct living processes from information stored in DNA. DNA is subject to change (known as mutation). It is impossible for DNA to stay exactly the same from one generation to the next. This gives rise to genetic variation.

Some genetic variations are at a survival advantage in a particular environment, and they will have increased reproductive success.

Some genetic variations are at a survival disadvantage in a particular environment, and they will have decreased reproductive success.

Due to differential reproductive success the genetic make up of a population will change.

One would have to be a simpleton to think that this is a mystery beyond description.

[Mojave]

Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.

You define evolution as evolution? Nice bit of tail chasing.

Wanna try again?

[allmendream]

That was the title of the description to follow.

Evolution is the change in the genetic makeup (allelic frequency) of a population.

The theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation explains how this change in the genetic makeup of a population is accomplished.

Still mysteriously complex to you? Maybe you should try thinking again.

[metmom]

The greater blessing is for those who believe without having seen Jesus Himself and the miracles He did, but that in no way invalidates the faith of those who believed after having been shown proof. If God didn’t consider faith based on evidence valid, I doubt He would have gone to such great lengths to verify Himself to us.

We are all called to the same service, that is offering our bodies as living sacrifices and fulfilling the great commission, which is spreading the gospel. Some are more gifted for specific purposes, but we are all called to be witnesses of what we know.

Jesus Appears to Thomas
John 20:24- 31

24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.