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 ...
Your original "definition" said nothing. Your subsequent amendments added little more.
Your link says, “”And because the species in question is a bacterium...”
You claimed that there are no baterium species. Nice foot shot.
That's your lame strawman. Pathetic.
If that's not your stance, what did you mean when you said
Does the "strain" have newly evolved genetic material or a changed balance in pre-existing genetic material? [184]If you're not arguing that new genetic material cannot be produced, what are you arguing? Or are you just sniping to make yourself feel important?Giving up on the fact that new genetic variation can and does arise during evolution? [197]
Some preexisting genes within a species can become more common than other preexisting genes within a gene pool. [201]
Asked and answered. "Some preexisting genes within a species can become more common than other preexisting genes within a gene pool."
You seem to be in the grip of the peppered moth fallacy.
They cling to the notion that Science (with a capital “S”) must not be questioned. That’s the opposite of real science.
No one claimed otherwise. The question is whether you think that's all that happens, or do you agree that sometimes new genetic material can be produced also. If you think both things can happen, no one's arguing with you; if you think only the first thing can happen, allmendream's characterization of your position was not a strawman.
"And yes, the new strain/species would have newly evolved genetic variation." --allmendream, Post 185
Try to keep up.
And they're free to redefine it at will, kinda like their Global Warming religion.
Um, saying that A happened doesn't mean that B never happens. If you're still having trouble, I'll see if I can draw you a picture.
Um, saying that A happened doesn't mean that A always happens. Or usually happens. Or frequently happens. Or happen much at all.
The church doesn’t pay the employer’s portion of the Medicare, the unemployment insurance, etc.? I know that many clergy are self-employed, so they pay both, but what about the clerks, etc.? http://www.accountingforchurches.com/payroll_taxes.htm
In addition, certain property that is not directly used for worship is often subjected to property taxes.
In my view, churches shouldn’t pay any taxes at all or taxes on certain property and activities should be weighed very carefully.
No arm of our government should interfere in any way with churches except to protect the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property when it’s directly endangered (i.e., to prevent human sacrifice, forced marriages, for example).
If the State or even local government has the ability to tax, I believe that we could agree that that power enables control over actions and property. For example, I don’t own my house, I only rent it as long as I pay taxes and follow the building codes. I would change this if I could. There is no way that I want to allow government to impose new powers to tax at all, much less to impose taxes that will give others increased power over my religious beliefs as I live them.
Do you pretend that how you classify it is essential to the question of whether or not it evolved new genetic variation?
You’re trusting people you’ve never met to tell you the truth about something you have no expertise in.
That takes faith.
They're also scientists, whether you like it or not, and from a journalist's perspective (which was the point of my post) that should have been included and correlated from the very first sentence. Sloppy journalism, sloppy intellectualism, and sloppy ethics. Of course, these traits, among others, seem to infect just about everything nowadays. Anyone who thinks that science and scientists are somehow immune to these behaviors is in complete denial....
Like the writers of the gospels?
cute
Cite and quote, please. And quit begging the question.
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.