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 ...
You are confused, individuals pay those taxes, not Churches. Churches don't pay taxes, they are tax exempt.
Well, considering that the evo side has well established that it thinks that the non-evo side is ignorant beyond words, that's quite an admission on your part.
One I'm not going to argue with.
What a joke. Evo hobbyists passing themselves off as experts in the discussion; passing judgment on who is or is not a scientist and what is or is not science, when they aren't even ones themselves.
So once equals always, by your logic.
[snicker]
If your stance is that new genetic material cannot be produced, then this single example discounts your position. Snickering like a little school girl doesn't address the issue. Neither is this a unique circumstance. New genetic material is produced every time a single bacteria is allowed to expand into a colony.
That's your lame strawman. Pathetic.
Evo cultists passing themselves as defenders of science
I'm sure you see it that way
Sarah’s position on climate change
I do support capping carbon emissions. (Oct 2008)
Cyclical temperature changes affect climate change. (Oct 2008)
All-of-the-above approach to deal with climate change. (Oct 2008)
Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)
Analyze potential costs associated with climate change. (Oct 2006)
http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm
Some scientists believe Alaska will be among the first to feel the impact of global warming, but Sarah Palin told voters there she wasn’t sure climate change wasn’t simply part of a natural warming cycle.
“I will not pretend to have all the answers,” Palin said about global warming, according to the Anchorage Daily News. Her spokesman clarified at the time that “she’s not totally convinced one way or the other. Science will tell us ... She thinks the jury’s still out.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/29/palin_not_convinced_on_global.html
“Beg that question. Now it's time to call your bluff. Produce a source for your assertion.” Mojave
If you are calling what I said above “a bluff” that means you thought I wasn't holding those cards.
I showed you that newly evolved genetic variation IS produced, and now your dancing away from your idiotic position.
Let me reiterate.
New genetic material is produced from this population. It was not and never was a “bluff”.
Change in DNA is mutation by definition.
Any other hideous misconceptions about Biology I can clear up for you?
“And yes, the new strain/species would have newly evolved genetic variation.” allmendream
And you’re back to your once equals always logic. Let me know when you catch your tail.
//Evo cultists passing themselves as defenders of science //
That is much more accurate a statement
That just because Biologists show that evolution can and does happen by selection of genetic variation a hundred thousand times that we can rule out that it might have happened some other way at some other time?
No.
I am not saying that evolution could not happen in some other way at some other time; Science can never rule that out.
I am saying that the theory of evolution through selection of genetic variation is one that we have mountains of data to support.
Data that you do not wish to address because it destroys your idiotic argument.
I though it was science, not Science. Little Freuedan slip there, allmendream.
That just because Biologists show that evolution can and does happen by selection of genetic variation a hundred thousand times
Your question begging is getting more blatant with each post.
I am saying that the theory of evolution through selection of genetic variation
The peppered moth fallacy.
Do you deny that new genetic variation can arise from allowing a single plated bacteria to expand into several colonies?
Do you deny that selection leads to differential reproductive success of these bacteria based upon this genetic variation?
Do you deny that new traits, like the utilization of citrate, can and does evolve in experimental populations?
What exactly and precisely is your dissent from the theory based upon?
I have demolished your objection that no definition of evolution had been provided, and your idiotic statement that I was ‘bluffing’ when I said new genetic variation was produced. In order to obliterate your next argument I am afraid you will have to actually state your new objection.
What data?
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.