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 ...
It's scientists, not Scientists. You keep giving your religious agenda away.
Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations
sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
Does anybody who refers to Joe the plumber as “Joe the Plumber” belong to the church of the Plumber?
Scientist is a job title, like Doctor, Lawyer, Police Officer. Capitalizing it is perfectly appropriate.
http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp
Rule 6. Capitalize any title when used as a direct address.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong or avoiding the subject?
I know the evidence destroys your idiotic position. What choice do you have other than to ignore it?
Even a single instance shows that the model of how new genetic variation can be formed is valid. Do you accept the model as valid? Why not, if you accept this “one” example?
Stop posting scientific evidence, you’ll upset the Creationists. LOL!
And just who is "Scientists"?
Will you take my temperature, Doctor?
Why did you leave off the rest?
Example: Will you take my temperature, Doctor?
Will you take my temperature, Scientists? LOL
Really? How many times have the experimental results been duplicated?
[crickets]
In Genesis?
Carrel was old, but not that old.
When were they reproduced? And by who?
Have they ever been reproduced? You know they haven't been, don't you?
And if you bothered to read the source, you will find that the Scientist has replicated the results.
Withholding is not the same as paying taxes. I suppose that is a concept that is beyond you.
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).
Why draw the line there? Shouldn't promoting ignorance and superstition be dealt with too?
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.
I agree that is the case. The power to tax is the power to destroy. My point is if Churches want to start influencing State activities then they should be treated like the rest of us, taxation included. I think the phrase is, put up or shut up.
You know the difference between "not reproduced" and "non-reproducible"? LOL!
Reading comprehension and science, not your strong points. LOL!
Just like Carrel's pure strain in vitro longevity experiment? The one Hayflick famously exposed as invalid decades later?
Experiments that are non-reproducible are not ever reproduced.
Poor you.
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.