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 ...
A visual representaion of self verification, like Fleischmann and Pons. And others.
By your standard, is cold fusion reproducible?
See post 598.
Did you decide that cold fusion could not be reproduced on March 23, 1989? Or did it take you a few days to decide?
Anything to take the focus off of the never reproduced e coli experiment you're plugging.
And you're the one dodging my questions.
Cold fusion isn't mentioned in the Bible. Is that why you knew it couldn't be reproduced?
I do : )
The speed of light proves that an omnipotent God can't exist.
I know. It was an experiment that wasn't independently reproduced.
Like the e coli experiment.
There is a new theory emerging that does away with that problem. The GUT may be closer than we think : )
Right now science is only accurate out to about 13 decimal places, give or take a few. The only difference between Einsteins and Newtons theories is a couple of decimal places. The quantum equations are even more accurate, but they are at the other end of the spectrum. It is going to be fun joining them up : )
Nonlocality proves that cultists are given to asserting baseless non sequiturs.
Nonlocality has made it farther away than ever.
That goes for a lot of other things as well. I think I am going to steal that line, if you don't mind : )
You don't understand it then. Everything is local.
Because the universe must be older than 6 thousand years in order to see galaxies billions of light years away?
Falsify the speed of light theory then : )
Instantaneous action at a distance.
Did you decide that cold fusion could not be reproduced on March 23, 1989?
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.