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 ...
You just changed the 8.6 year figure you invented back to 12 years.
Again:
"And since mutations allegedly occur randomly, your 8.6 year figure is pretty much meaningless. Multiple projects could be expected to have such a random mutation occur in one of them in a fraction of that time."
So you admit that such mutations can and will happen?
That selection will lead to the evolution of traits in an experimental population like utilization of a new resource?
This is the closest you have actually come to dealing with the data. And your objection is that there is no way to predict how long it would take? Objection noted. Yes, there is no way to tell how long such evolutionary processes would take.
You haven't produced as single instance of it having ever been reproduced.
You haven't produced a single instance of a failed attempt. Were you jumping the gun when you said it was irreproducible?
They haven't. Believe now, proof can come later.
That's an interesting type of "science" you're proselytizing for.
The burden of proof is on the proponent. That's you.
Another "believe now and the proof can come later" advocate.
Back then, I don’t think we had enough money for Daddy to worry about the future Social Security.
Regardless of Daddy’s motives, for non-ministerial employees, the church pays the employer’s portion of social security and medicare.
Excellent! You're the proponent. You claimed it was irreproducible. Prove it. A list of failures would be a good start.
My type of science finds life saving molecular treatments for debilitating diseases.
Your type of “science” is to put your fingers in your ears and go “nah nah nah, can't read the article, won't deal with the data, it might be fraudulent. A twelve year experiment must be replicated from scratch by an independent lab within a couple months before I will even consider the data.’
Your inability to deal with the data is noted.
Nope. I'm questioning the experiment that you're clinging to, sans verification.
That's the glory of English: No L'Académie française to judge what words are to be permitted. Without a learned body to lay down a hard dividing line between approved and unapproved, you have a lot of new words (There's ever a word for them -neologism- for them) circulating around that people just thought up. And anybody can do it, and does (Shaksper did it a lot). It enbiggens the English Language
Alas, while (to the best of my recollection) I did invent "fictoid" a short while ago (in that I just thought it up), I was not original
In fact it you google it, you find 7080 entries.
Your 8.6 years "data" or your 12 year "data"?
Hey, you're right. And the very first entry using the invented word is by a 9/11 Truther.
You didn't question it, you said it could never be reproduced. How many times was it tried?
Your skills of determination need serious work. It first started with Obama, next it started with someone else on this thread bringing up Joe the Plumber, not me. I rightly pointed out non-sequitor mucked it up severly, like he does on these threads. (And conservatives are continually capable of identifying just how utterly backwards evo cultists get conservatism.)
Joe didn't seek out Obama, Obama came to Joe's neighborhood knocking on doors. I saw the footage. Obama being in his neighborhood is what initiated the contact. As I pointed out, if something was going on where I live, I'd investigate too, just like any American would. Joe didn't drive out to a bambi's cult gathering.
Meanwhile it's the lunatic evo cult which thinks enforcing their science via lawsuits is somehow conservative.This Joe the Plumber defense of bambi episode really fools no conservative.Too many DU slips are showing.
Speaking of bald faced liars.
I bet there's some sand to stick your head back in somewhere too Oztrich Boy. ;)
It never has been. Believe now, proof later. Or never.
Empirical science turned on its head.
Don't forget the Global Warming defenses. This thread has got it all.
“Evos on this board aren't scientists either. At least the ones honest enough to answer when asked.”Actually, if I do an experiment using the a scientific method, I am a scientist.
How many times was it tried?
It isn't my data, I approximated how much time it would take to get to generation 31,500 if 44,000 generations took twelve years.
You cannot deal with EITHER or ANY of the data. And it is Dr. Lenski’s data, not mine.
Your inability to deal with the data is humorously noted.
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.