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 ...
So the results could NOT be reproduced by anyone else or even by using any other cell population.
Nice foot shot.
Big time. Attack Palin, defend Obama, promote Global Warming mythology...
Interesting.
So any new data will never falsify the ToE. The ToE will just be adjusted/modified/whatever to incorporate the new data.
So is *modifying* the ToE much different than having the old theory be falsified and a new one being presented with the new data incorporated and nobody is just saying so in so many words?
Doesn't the theory, with modifications, more accurately describe and organize the data? And isn't this the goal of science?"
Sure, but what you seem to continually misunderstand is none of this actually happens...because people just like you ensure it can never honestly be examined scientifically because each and every time someone challenges evolution, you evo cultists begin screaming: "Inquisition", "dark ages", "burning at the stake", or your "Oh no, we're doomed to become a Theology" nonsense.
That is because the challenges you are thinking of rely on religious belief rather than scientific evidence; they are made on creationist websites and in creationist books rather than in scientific journals.
If creationists actually had scientific evidence I am sure it would be submitted to the journals for peer review. And I'm sure it would be accepted.
That creationists do not submit to the peer reviewed journals speaks to the nature of their evidence. That creationists are seeking to have the rules of science changed to allow belief and revelation to be included speaks very loudly to the nature of their evidence.
Was that a “yes” or a “no”?
You expect someone to replicate an entire twelve year experiment from the beginning in a couple months?
What an idiotic statement.
Despite your idea of what replicating the experiment meant, Dr. Lenski can recreate citrate plus e.coli from non citrate plus e.coli by thawing one of his twelve lines after generation 21,000.
How do you suppose it happens?
I think we have all seen your inability to deal with the data. Now accusing people of fraud and unreplicable results just makes you look petty petulant and foolish.
“HE was there all the time”
Ah, multiple Theories of Evolution.
Why do its true believers never refer to it as "the Theories of Evolution" or even as "the latest Theory of Evolution"?
How about a little truth in advertising?
Alexis Carrel's "pure strain" in vitro experiment was over fifty years old when it was refuted by Hayflick.
Why do its true believers never refer to it as "the Theories of Evolution" or even as "the latest Theory of Evolution"?
It is assumed that the audience knows what a theory is. I see that was an overestimation.
Here are some definitions (from a long list of definitions on my FR home page):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
A scientific experiment refuted by a scientist?
How would a scientist refute Creationism?
You just finished proving that tsuch data has NEVER been independently recreated.
Thank you, BTW.
And you just finished admitting (albeit inadvertently) that it's not "a" theory, but is instead a series of modified theories.
I ask you again, why do its true believers never refer to it as "the Theories of Evolution" or even as "the latest Theory of Evolution"?
Laughably inept reasoning.
Your complete and utter inability to deal with the data is noted. All you can hold out hope that it is somehow in error. Hilarious!
What are you talking about? That evoution IS ID?
Yep. More accurately, a nonreproducible experiment which poisoned scientific thought for over fifty years until Hayflick famously refuted it in 1962, and then only after gaining access to the cell culture used by Carrel.
How would a scientist refute Creationism?
I dunno. Why do you ask?
I dunno. I thought Creationism was science? Is it?
The project may be twelve years old. Are you telling me that no results were achieved for 12 years?
Really? I never did.
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.