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..

[Elsie]

The new genetic variation developed from mutation of preexisting genetic material.

And the experiment was NOT contaminated in ANY way...

--EvoDude(I'm clean on this one.)

[Elsie]

Churches don't pay taxes, they are tax exempt.

Neither do businesses.

They COLLECT them for the Government by passing on THEIR costs to the consumer.

[Elsie]

Some just don't want to learn anything that contradicts what they already think they know.

AMEN, Brother!

[Elsie]

I'm sure you see it that way

I know it that way!

[LeGrande]

Churches don't pay taxes, they are tax exempt.

Neither do businesses.

They COLLECT them for the Government by passing on THEIR costs to the consumer.

Did you even notice that you contradicted yourself? If taxes are a cost to a business, then they pay taxes. Churches don't pay taxes.

[LeGrande]

Of course withholding is a tax.

To the employee, not the Church. It is deducted from the Employees wages.

Teaching less than the truth does not approach physical death or enslavement - we would all be guilty as well as victims.

Teaching falsehood is an incredible evil that causes death and enslavement.

There is no reasonable justification for prohibiting people who identify with a religion from acting politically.

Then they shouldn't be subsidized. Everyone else has to pay taxes on property that they meet in. Why not Churches if they are going to use them to promote their political agenda?

Which other groups of like-minded people do you think should not be able to act together according to their beliefs?

Everyone should be able to act together, after they pay their taxes : )

[allmendream]

I am clear that any result a Creationist finds disturbing must be the result of contamination (with citrate digesting e.coli? Contamination with something that never before existed, except in his vials of evolving e.coli?), or fraud.

It is clear that no amount of evidence will ever convince those who think acceptance of the evidence is tantamount to denial of God. Luckily the vast majority of Scientists who DO believe in God are not crippled with that short sighted theology.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

I am clear that any result a Creationist finds disturbing must be the result of contamination...or fraud.

I'm wondering why they just don't hail it as a miracle. If the point of ID is that the Designer intervenes from time to time to tweak the development of His creatures, it seems like this new strain of e.coli would be a perfect example. They insist it happened, but they also insist it's not happening now. They should be lining up to see the miraculous test tubes.

[allmendream]

Yes, and when they are trying to be “respectable” Creationists they admit that “micro” evolution is perfectly acceptable and the evidence for it iron clad, but somehow due to some unknown and unknowable mechanism “micro” over millions of years can never be “macro”.

But then there are those who are still trying to hold the line against ANY evolutionary change. No new genetic material could EVER be produced, and if new genetic material IS produced it must be from fraud or contamination (never mind that the Scientist is staking his entire career on this being real and replicable and has already replicated his results by re plating the frozen down e.coli and testing it for contamination).

Their tactic is obvious, to ignore or attempt to besmirch any contrary evidence, while claiming to be rational Creation “Scientists” attempting to “rescue” science from its adherence to empiricism.

[Coyoteman]

Their tactic is obvious, to ignore or attempt to besmirch any contrary evidence, while claiming to be rational Creation “Scientists” attempting to “rescue” science from its adherence to empiricism.

Creative writer: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, Alice in Wonderland

Scientist: "Why, sometimes I've seen evidence for as many as six things, formerly thought impossible, before breakfast."

Creation "Scientist:" "Why, sometimes I've declared as many as six of those heathenish sciencey things impossible before breakfast."

[Mojave]

I am clear that any result a Creationist finds disturbing must be the result of contamination (with citrate digesting e.coli?

Irreproducible results can have many causes. Unquestioning belief in irreproducible results requires agenda driven faith. Questioning irreproducible results is heresy in the eyes of those controlled by that agenda.

[Mojave]

By the logic of these fellows, cold fusion is Truth. Hey, it was claimed to be observed once. That’s all we need.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unquestioning belief in irreproducible results requires agenda driven faith.

His experiment is falsifiable. How is ID falsifiable?

[Elsie]

Tough. Evidence happens.

INTERPRETATION of evidence happens more...

[Elsie]

The head showed changes from more primitive fish that helped adapt to the new feeding and breathing conditions presented by a terrestrial environment, scientists said.

[Elsie]

Put some salt on them - they taste SCRUMPIOUS!

[Elsie]

If you repeat that lie 100 times, will it magically become a truth?

It's not how MANY times you say it: but how LONG it has been repeated...

[Mojave]

His experiment is falsifiable.

Explain how his irreproducle results are falsifiable.

[Elsie]

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Scientific method...

[Mojave]

Good catch.