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 ...
They trust the peer review system to work and that the men and women on the panels make objective, reliable reviews.
If they trust all the other scientists to do objetive reliable work, why does it need to be reviewed?
If their faith in each other is that same as your faith in God, do you submit God's work for peer review?
In a way, yes. Joe the Plumber isn't a licensed plumber, the creationists on the board aren't scientists. Joe the Plumber isn't close to buying his boss's business, creationists on the board aren't close to being interested in science. By now Joe the Plumber is probably wishing hadn't gotten all the limelight, and creationists on school boards tend to avoid publicity, too, preferring to screw up educational standards when people aren't watching. Yes, I see the parallels.
How utterly typical of liberals, the issue isn't Joe the Plumber's integrity, it's bambi's. bambi came knocking on the guy's door, Joe didn't seek bambi out. Meanwhile indeed qualified scientists question the cult of evolution. Scientists qualified from MIT, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, etc. etc. etc.
Liberals are just sore-headed the American people have called liberals out on their NEA liberal idiocy and cult of evolution, FINALLY!
Only a hypocrat liberal could twist these obvious facts into such utter nonsense.
That’s got nothing to do with the fact that faith is involved.
The definition of faith doesn’t depend on the object of the faith. Faith is still faith regardless of who it’s in.
Evos have faith in other scientists that they are indeed being objective and have integrity in the work they do and the interpretation of that work.
Trusting that the scientific method and peer review system, both man designed systems, are reliable means for gaining and processing information takes faith.
Trusting that those procedures lead to a correct understanding of the world around us takes faith.
The difference between faith in man and faith in God is that faith in God actually does something for you after you die.
Well said and have you seen any recent honest examination of evolution by NON-creationist scientists? We keep hearing this nonsense about the cult of evo being “peer reviewed” but no one can seem to produce an ACTUAL CRITICAL examination of evolution by peers outside of creationist proponents.
If the scientists have such faith in each other's objectivity and integrity, why do they have to do peer review?
Uhhhh because it's the same thing you demand of THESE scientists with degrees from MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton, etc.?
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Not likely. They were doing that long before I was born.
Uhhhh because it’s the same thing you demand of THESE scientists with degrees from MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton, etc.?
Not likely. They were doing that long before I was born.
So which is it? Your original question to metmom or your excuse for them here?
Oh. Come. On. You've been on these threads long enough to have read a dozen answers to that. Find dinosaur bones with human teeth marks. Find mammal bones in Precambrian strata. Or develop a method of examining family relationships between organisms that didn't exist when Darwin came up with his theory, and have it totally contradict what Darwin theorized. Oh wait a minute, they did that, and it confirmed the theory!
Now, why don't you answer the original question instead of playing cute games with it?
Actually, that's not true. Joe was at home when Obama was campaigning in his neighborhood, and he decided to go out and approach bambi with his question.
It never has been. I love watching you squirm.
I dunno. Why do you ask?
Looks like it. It apparently means whatever they want it to mean, changing from post to post.
No quote, naturally.
Actually, that’s not true. Joe was at home when Obama was campaigning in his neighborhood, and he decided to go out and approach bambi with his question.
Again, in his neighborhood. Seeking him and his neighbors out, knocking on their doors. He has every right to know what’s going on in his neighborhood. He didn’t go seeking bambi out at some rally.
And the larger point is just like McCain said, citizens SHOULD be able to question their candidates without fear of being “investigated” themselves. Joe’s not on trial. Joe’s not running for office.
Interesting to see who the Obama defenders are on this thread,
That is a simple question. It is falsifiable in the same way that the underlying presupposition that science should assume an emipirical reason for all causes is falsifiable, which is ... uh.... well...
anyway, it is falsifiable in the same way that the basic underlying presupposition of sceience that there is uniformity of matter is falsifiable, which is... well, ALL the data we have collected in the little gnatfart corner of the universe we have been able to test agrees... um, except for stuff at the subatomic level sometimes, and ummm well.... some physical properties in the heavenly bodies sometimes.
Give me a break. Empiricism is chock full of FAITH assumptions, and the insistence that science should be done with presuppositions of naturalism and empirical assumptions is entirely faith based. You have NO empirical evidence to demand that this should be so.
You people are quite amusing in your insistence that you stand for DEMONSTRABLE FACTS when your "Facts" are kneedeep in faith based assumptions. No have NO empirical basis to posit either of the above two suppositions about the universe, which you consider integral to doing science.
The creationist at least has a REASON to believe in these things as he posits that the universe is regular because God is a God of consistency, and arranges His universe to coincide with His character. Even Post-Fall, with the rulers of the creation in cosmic rebellion against Him, He maintains a cosmos of order. That, in fact, was the basis for modern science. You, otoh, have nothing at all to say when asked on what you place your FAITH that these things are so and are reliable, other than the collective opinions of other technically trained persons who evidently believe that they can establish a position by shouting loudly.
Please spare us the idiotic mewling that one position is that of "FAITH" while the other is "SCIENCE." If you want to go at it with me that your faith position is justified, then bring it, and we can talk. When you begin to assert this idiotic assertion in the argument whether there is evidence of a Creator in the Created Order, you clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about, and don't even recognize your own unfounded faith assumptions you are standing on while you bawl out your philosophy while calling it "science."
Error!
“No have NO empirical basis to posit either of the above two suppositions about the universe, which you consider integral to doing science.” should read
“YOU have NO empirical basis to posit either of the above two suppositions about the universe, which you consider integral to doing science.”
More likely finding human bones with dinosaur teeth marks, but that's beside the point.
Find mammal bones in Precambrian strata.
Something besides something that evos could explain away.
*Mammal evolution pushed back*
*Evidence suggests that mammals evolved earlier than previously thought.*
*________ (whatever mammal found) discovered to be another "living fossil".*
*Look, someone tried to perpetrate another fraud*
I've also been around long enough to know that if something out of the ordinary is found, evos just *revise* their theory, as they do with any theory as new data comes in. No way they'd let it falsify the ToE without a fight.
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.