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 ...
Perhaps start with actually reading the chemist's NON-religious, scientific ideas, and then imagine the multiple admissions by your peers that evolution is just a tool God's using, therby technically making evolution itself intelligent design.
See if you're capable of not ranting yourself about "Theocracy", "dark ages" or "burnings at the stake" for just this once.It should be a great challenge for you!I'd be willing to bet folks on both sides of the aisle are pulling for you!
Obama pimping, Palin smearing, Global Warming nonsense...
No surprises.
Most people who accept the theory of evolution use it as a replacement for parts of their other religious views. People with no theistic religion use evolution to release them from any religous views and default to materialism.
Still backwards. A successful attempt is needed to show an experiment is reproducible. You're so desperate to believe on faith alone.
I asked for scientific challenges to the theory of evolution. I am not interested in anyone's religious beliefs, just the scientific challenges.
Please provide, or link, to such.
Is cold fusion reproducible?
How old were you when you decided Creationism was not science?
The problem with that is you avoid answering my questions right along with everyone else you engage. The only telling consistency is you routinely avoid giving straight answers, or answer questions with questions. The predictable results of defending the untenable.
“The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution” —Evolutionary anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith
Fleischmann and Pons insisted that they were able to reproduce their own experiment, the same false defense tendered here.
Another great foot shot!
Nobody made you inject yourself in that discussion. If you don't like the results then don't do it.
Bob Larson interviewed Shreck and Zena Levay the high priest and preistess of Satanism several years ago. They were clearly 100 percent evolutionists with scarcely a spiritual bone in their bodies.
Is cold fusion reproducible?
By your standard it is. Fleischmann and Pons claimed that they were able to reproduce their own experiment.
By your standard, is cold fusion reproducible?
How old were you when you decided Creationism was not science?
Independent researchers have not reproduced it. Sound familiar?
By your standard, is cold fusion reproducible?
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.