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 ...
Your recollection is incorrect. I am not a school teacher on any sort. Nor are you. So why not leave teaching science to the science teachers and not force your theology on them?
Don’t you mean ANY science teachers except THESE scientist teachers?
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org
Let’;s see, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton...
nope it can’t be about the science, it can only be about the anti-theology cult of darwinism!
I wonder how the meteorlogist and geologist will feel when y'all come up with 'intelligent meteorology' and 'intelligent geology' based on your Biblical beliefs?
I could have sworn just recently you asked: “Why couldn’t God have made man through evolving from algae...”?
I explained to you TECHNICALLY that would actually be ID when you get right down to the brass tacks. On this regard of origins, evolution would therefore be a tool at the disposal of an Intelligent Designer, as you posited: God.
This is pretty straight forward, rational logical thinking, even on your grade level, not at all above even your paygrade.
You truthfully need to get some help with scientific definitions before you can adequately move forward without embarassing yourself any further in this way,
frankly, I’m beginning to get a little bit embarassed for you at this point!
You two guys have bought the Big Lie. That humans are in fact, nothing but primordial goo, sewn together for absolutely no purpose whatsoever, and you continue to post this crap on Freerepublic. Fine. We all have the freedom to say whatever we want.
Some (I would even say most) of us believe otherwise. That we are in fact created in God's own image, created to bring glory to God. It's really that simple.
You can slap your own definitions (science, fact, etc...) on whatever you'd like, but ultimately God created the cosmos and everything in it. Period. Truth is Truth, everything else is not The Truth.
The Big Lie (Secular Humanism, Moral Relativity etc.) has creeped into our education system, and now children are taught this Lie day in and day out, and - I ask you - what is the result? Degradation of education, the lessening of the sanctity of human life, moral relativity...the list goes on and on. I'll go ahead and say that TOE accomplishes all of the things listed above. No longer are we created in the image of a Perfect, Loving Creator...we are stardust (in the words of Carl Sagan)d, but we are spun together of various materials in a random fashion....with no purpose....It's really sad. Really, really sad.
I propose you post these threads in the Religion section of Freerepublic. Secular Humanism, et. al, can be classified as a Cult, Sect, etc.
Not only do these threads insult those of us who are Christians or other people of faith, but they are insulting to the intelligence and integrity of any people who post here.
Great. So how is this falsifiable? Technically?
You truthfully need to get some help with scientific definitions
Like the ones you're pulling from the Bible? LOL!
I wonder how the meteorlogist and geologist will feel when y’all come up with ‘intelligent meteorology’ and ‘intelligent geology’ based on your Biblical beliefs?
Why cant you simply focus on origins and the NEA cult of darwinism at hand, and forget all the strawmen for just this once?
I think people are a little worn out with the Inquistions and burnings at the stakes canards...really!
Btw, questioning that you’re nothing more than a fancy great ape isn’t Biblical, even if I refuse to believe you have a soul and I’m atheistic, I still can’t see how a big bang with no purpose and everything just WAS...can be the one and only possibility.
What about this curiosity makes you so insecure in YOUR OWN beliefs?
Great. So how is this falsifiable? Technically?
first things first...
Explain to us how God using evolution as a tool, to form humans (through evolution) from algae is NOT ID, Einstein.
Poking fun at someone else’s knowledge of science isn’t very convincing when you yourself aren’t smarter than a 5th grader.
Not in the adult world anyway.
It is. Now tell me how it's falsifiable. LOL!
Poking fun at someone else’s knowledge of science
You have knowledge of science? That's funny!
It’s time to go play your video games now.
Toddster
As soon as you explain how ID is falsifiable. LOL!
Not only do these threads insult those of us who are Christians or other people of faith, but they are insulting to the intelligence and integrity of any people who post here.
Since The Enlightenment, people living in western civilizations don't have to kowtow to the shamans any longer; science and man are free to explore their potential without being controlled, or burned at the stake, by the shamans and witch doctors. This, unfortunately, is not the case in many other areas of the world.
From your post it seems you want to reverse The Enlightenment.
In this country it would take a revolution and an imposed theocratic dictatorship to put the genie back in the bottle. Is that what you want?
How is evolution falsifiable?
Nobody's rejecting science. They are merely rejecting a particular philosophical worldview through which the issue is viewed. It is in error to assume that "evolution" = "science".
The answer is in your video game. Where you’ll find the rest of your world waiting for you.
And some of us (I'll only speak for myself and a few other who have expressed explicit agreeement) believe that being created in God's own image doesn't mean that God has two arms and two legs, ten fingers and toes, etc. We believe that evolution, by God's Plan, made us homo sapiens. Our souls are what make us men, and that is what is in His image.
New scientific evidence could be found tomorrow.
Someone could come up with a new theory that better fits the scientific evidence.
God could come down and say, "I created the world in 7 days, 6000 years ago".
Your turn.
How is Creationism falsifiable?
Right. They just want to teach religion in science class.
It is in error to assume that "evolution" = "science".
It is in error to assume that "Creationism" = "science".
What creationists and creation "scientists" do is the opposite of the scientific method. They start with an a priori belief and twist, manipulate, or ignore the data to make things fit that belief.
That's not science; and it doesn't matter how many degrees one has, it still isn't science. Its apologetics.
You're right, you do science by the scientific method. Evolution, however, is not about the scientific method. Evolution is about philosophy used to justify a particular worldview.
In all the crevo debates on here, I have been consistent in stating that neither evolution nor creationism are "science" in the strict sense of the term (the one you are de facto referring to). BOTH are essentially philosophies applied to the debate. I'm honest enough to admit it. You are not. "Evolution" in and of itself is not "Science". One could evapourate "evolution" tomorrow and not do a whit of damage to actual science education and application. Ultimately, if one is going to investigate which philosophical worldview is correct, one will have to investigate the bases of the philosophy (including origins), something which science is completely incompetent to do.
The most proper place for the teaching of evolution would be in a philosophy class.
False.
You just don't like the results of those scientific investigations, so are determined to believe it is not science.
That doesn't make it true.
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.