Posted on 01/19/2009 9:42:35 PM PST by Coyoteman
The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.
Continues...
(Excerpt) Read more at texscience.org ...
Exactly so...it's not limited to science but all of school, indeed all of public realms...from journalism to law to politics, nothing is immune.
godless secular humanist liberals have hijacked one political party and destroyed it...the media, the NEA run schools...
godless secular humanist liberals are just the willing dupes of communists (and Satan).
Those items you listed are in their goals for America.
The family is the primary target of Satan. He knows it is the primary institution through which our relationship with God is learned and developed.
The US is already well behind the rest of the world in science and math and that in spite of the decades long monopoly that the teaching of evolution has enjoyed in the public school system. The deterioration of those subjects cannot be laid at the feet of the creationists. It has coincided directly with the liberal takeover of the public education system and the removal of God from education.
Private Christian schools and homeschools which teach both creation and evolution, consistently outperform public schools at every turn.
There’s simply no precedent for the hysterical fear mongering by the God hating faction over what will become of our education system should Christianity and creation be reintroduced into the public education system.
U.S. Math And Science Scores Indicate Mediocrity
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980825075401.htm
SAT/ACT homeschoolers:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp
Standardized test scores homeschoolers:
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
Not many, in spite of the propaganda....
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
JR's comments there are more about conservativism than science.
That's funny that you should react that way when you're off on some screed about *newbs*. If you're going to throw your weight around because you've been here longer, the same could apply to JR. Compared to him, you're the newb.
I've been posting here since Clinton was president, but Tpanther says I should be thankful that I'm "allowed" to post here because I differ with JimRob on one issue.
Everyone here is "allowed" to post and can be kicked off at any time. I find it interesting that you side with someone who wasn't around for six years worth of my posts on this site, yet preaches to me about who the 'real' Freepers and conservatives are. Considering his time here, I'd say that his estimation of my credentials simply is at best, lacking.
Ummm so by my pointing out to you that the majority of Freepers agree with Jim Robinson on creation, that the majority of people in general want creationism taught alongside evolution, (did you bother reading ANY of the links metmom and I posted that destroyed your argument???)means I claim to speak for the majority of freepers AND conservatives?
Well allll-righty-then!
I’d have been willing to believe your point, but you didn’t use a big enough font or enough colored text.
Well, given the NEA godless liberal agenda of socializing as opposed to educating, students and liberals need color charts and big fonts.
They need all the help they can get!
If you’re going to drag JimRob into the middle of this, shouldn’t you at least extend the courtesy of pinging him?
Please point to the poll that shows that a majority of all 100,000+ Freepers are creationists. Even if that's true, so what?.
...that the majority of people in general want creationism taught alongside evolution,
40% of Americans believe in astrology. I would oppose that being taught as science as well.
means I claim to speak for the majority of freepers AND conservatives?
Like I said, you don't speak for anybody. You're a follower and you cling on to other Freepers whose knowledge of the subject far exceeds yours. After they've made their points, you chime in with a link you got off Google and your proverbial "stupid evo-cultist!" ad hominem.
tpanther, your notion that the only people incapable of recognizing the “bias” of peer review are “evo-cultists” is a very dangerous misconception being spread by adherents (both Real and Fake) to Young-Earth Creationism.
This misconception is being eagerly fanned on you-tube and web-2.0 media by “Poes”, leftist liberals who see an inability of mainline Christians to comprehend the difference between cosmology and rational science as a form of Intellectual(as opposed to faith-based) wedge issue.
The General “Poe” line of attack is to craft a postulate which, on the surface, sound reasonable to people conservative, mainline Christian cosmology, but which contain built-in, fundamental logical fallacies which are immediately obvious to individuals educated in a particular intellectual discipline. The Poe then broadcasts his postulate among the faithful, who, eager to read “Scientific evidence that supports their faith”, quickly latch on to it, praise it, and often claim it as their own material.
This is where the real subterfuge begins. The Poe then circulates the related postulate, and the eager faithful support of it, among those of the intellectual discipline for which is particular postulate was crafted to appeal, for it is these people who are his real intended audience.
The result is predictable- The Poes Educated audience (of undetermined faith and cosmological background) are lead to the conclusion that people of faith, and specifically, all people of Christian Religious Faith are “obviously” of diminished intellectual capacity due to their inability to see the “obvious” flaw. Usually, the Poe’s responsibility for creating the postulate, and the flaw itself, is conveniently “forgotten” in this follow-up discussion.
From a scientific and academic perspective, the comparisons drawn between Intelligent Design and Alchemy, Geocentricism, and even Astrology are absolutely apt, and the only people who do not understand this are those who have never been taught to comprehend the difference between Scientific Rationalism and Spiritual Cosmology.
Should young earth creationism be taught in school? ABSOLUTELY! Teach it in an introduction to philosophy/cosmology course. Teach it for what it is - a notion of how human beings fit in and relate to God and His Universe. That’s great, it’s honest and it’s fair.
The Hostility towards Young-Earth Creationism by Scientific journals has nothing to do with Truth or Cosmology, and everything to do with the fact that it is simply not a rational science. Until our children are taught to explicitly comprehend the difference, their, and your, confusion on the matter will be used by intellectually dishonest wolves to cast a mere lack of education as a fundamental fallacy in flaw in all you believe in and hold dear. The very terms “Evilution” and “evo-cultists” are meant as emotional bait, and all to often, the Traps are very real.
Even if you, personally, cannot comprehend them.
I’ll do better than that:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
*******************************************************
and OF COURSE they’re relevant to all your silly assertions!
and again GunRunner, my pointing this out isn’t “speaking for them”, they’ve already spoken, DOH!
I’m merely pointing out to you and your ilk these threatening, liberal distortion-destroying facts! DOH!
You’re squirming. Like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
Like an ant in a hot skillet.
Oh, I know! The Godless NEA Liberals (GNEALs) don't even bother teaching our kids that the creation story contained in the King James version of the Bible is the literal, inerrant truth! Can you believe it? Where are our children supposed to get their religious instruction if not for public schools!?
And don't even get me started on the GNEALs approach to teaching physics! They blindly stick to their Newtonian dogma and ONLY teach the theory of gravity! They REFUSE to teach the controversy, and admit that there is just as much evidence for Intelligent Falling as there is for their so-called "science."
And what about the FARCE of astronomy!? Have YOU ever been to a star? No! They tell us that their fancy equations and observations demonstrate the the stars are billions of miles away, but they don't tell you not ONCE has their silly "science" ever reproduced a star in a laboratory that was billions of miles away! Why won't they allow Astrology equal time in the science class, and let kids make up their own mind about what is actual science and what is bunk? That's called LEARNING.
Keep up the good fight, tpanther, you're definitely on the right track.
LOL....oh yeah, it’s dangerous all right!
Why you think I’m concerned about the liberal kool-aid drinkers spreading their endless lies is way beyond me though!
You’re correct, I see how they try to destroy Sara Palin for instance.
I’ve seen the hollyweirdo Matt Damon bash Sarah Palin because he clings to the misconceptions about wanting to know if she believes humans wandered the earth with humans, and this alone is the basis on how he judges her ability to govern.
I’ve seen the scientists with legitimate scientific ideas about ID/creationism that have been castigated as flat earthers and knuckle draggers..
See, they do this regardless of the science though, which is the ENTIRE point.
To pretend that godless secualr humanist whack-job liberals with endless God hang-ups haven’t hijacked evolution or that as it’s presented today it’s somehow objective theory, is frankly laughable!
When a movie like Expelled comes out, the kool-aid drinkers won’t examine the facts or even bother listening to Dawkins (and his ilk) own words! Nope, their first and only response is to circle the wagons, regurgitate the talking points about us knuckle-draggers and squeal about “theocracy and inquisition, and burnings at the stake and the age of enlightenment replaced by the dark ages again”.
I’ve been really clear, I don’t have a problem with evolution when it’s presented as theory, but obviously this isn’t the case and it has ALREADY been hijacked by the very NEA type godless liberals you’re worried about!
When it comes to origins, ID, creationism, it can be presented without the YEC ideas you speak of, people riding dinosaurs, large dinosaurs on the ark and every flying purple spaghetti monster they can dream up!
Or with it, it doesn’t matter to me, but I’m a proponent of science determined in the science setting, not the godless liberal ideology setting, and not the court setting.
There’s millions of excuses to obfuscate the glory of God and millions of reasons to think science has to somehow remain pure only when it’s godless.
I’m just going to continue telling everyone most conservatives and people of faith are above these tactics.
And what I’m talking about is origins taught that challenges evolution/origins with intelligent design, that purposeless design in science is theory, as it shoud be taught.
There’s simply no reason to teach children that science has to be not onbly sterile of God but that it neded not be taught with a godless ideology and that science is on the path to disprove Him or doesn’t need Him.
This is the cruelest liberal result...driving students away from science unlike any other study, be it math or whatever...
fortunately kids are being home-schooled and private schooled and in otherwise cases not allowed to be socialized to godlessness, and lo and behold science thrives!
[[There’s simply no precedent for the hysterical fear mongering by the God hating faction over what will become of our education system should Christianity and creation be reintroduced into the public education system.]]
Sure htere is- gotta keep the myth of macroevolution alive and keep shoving it down the throats of children
“Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure. They note, following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection (2003:3)—that selection must act on what already exists.
Yet, in their view, the “genocentricity” and “incrementalism” of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists. Instead, Muller and Newman see the need to identify epigenetic sources of morphological innovation during the evolution of life. In the meantime, however, they insist neo-Darwinism lacks any “theory of the generative” (p. 7).
As it happens, Muller and Newman are not alone in this judgment. In the last decade or so a host of scientific essays and books have questioned the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating morphological novelty, as even a brief literature survey will establish. Thomson (1992:107) expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate via minor phenotypic changes at the population genetic level. Miklos (1993:29) argued that neo-Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and complexity. Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to develop a new theory of evolutionary mechanisms to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argued, could not adequately explain macroevolution. As they put it in a memorable summary of the situation: “starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its (neo-Darwinism’s) adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, ‘the origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved’“ (p. 361). Though Gilbert et al. (1996) attempted to solve the problem of the origin of form by proposing a greater role for developmental genetics within an otherwise neo-Darwinian framework,1 numerous recent authors have continued to raise questions about the adequacy of that framework itself or about the problem of the origination of form generally (Webster & Goodwin 1996; Shubin & Marshall 2000; Erwin 2000; Conway Morris 2000, 2003b; Carroll 2000; Wagner 2001; Becker & Lonnig 2001; Stadler et al. 2001; Lonnig & Saedler 2002; Wagner & Stadler 2003; Valentine 2004:189-194).”
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177
“Molecular biologists such as Monod and Crick understood biological information—the information stored in DNA and proteins—as something more than mere complexity (or improbability). Their notion of information associated both biochemical contingency and combinatorial complexity with DNA sequences (allowing DNA’s carrying capacity to be calculated), but it also affirmed that sequences of nucleotides and amino acids in functioning macromolecules possessed a high degree of specificity relative to the maintenance of cellular function.”
Many scientists and mathematicians have questioned the ability of mutation and selection to generate information in the form of novel genes and proteins. Such skepticism often derives from consideration of the extreme improbability (and specificity) of functional genes and proteins.
Strawmen are bad enough but to make yourself a sore thumb on a pro-God site like FR truly makes me wonder if the very first comment you made here wasn’t absolutely true.
In a literal kind of way.
must...keep....kids....from...learning...stuff like the following:
“Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks—almost by definition—are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality—with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation.”
http://www.discovery.org/a/2177
Natural selection can NOT account for metainformation- nor can it account for the absolutely necessary 5 heirarchal points of devlopement required for life- but by golly, let’s keep telling our kids “Nature-did-it” anyways!
[[There’s simply no precedent for the hysterical fear mongering by the God hating faction over what will become of our education system should Christianity and creation be reintroduced into the public education system.]]
And one more:
“We are therefore left with the former claim: intelligent design is excluded from journals because many scientists perceive it as nothing more than a blind appeal to the supernatural action of God, and is not science. Given that intelligent design does not refer to God nor the supernatural, but simply argues from our ability to describe and then detect the types of information remnant of prior action of intelligent agents, we must ask “why is intelligent design perceived by many scientists as some sort of a purely religious theory?” The answer to this question lies in the trickle-down theory of systemic misrepresentations of intelligent design.
The bottom line is that certain well-respected and widely-traveled scientists are intentionally spreading a false understanding of intelligent design, claiming that intelligent design 1) is merely a religiously motivated, religious appeal to the supernatural, 2) that it therefore lacks a testable mechanism and any potential empirical support, and 3) is therefore NOT science. Individuals promoting these misrepresentations speak at dozens of large-scale, often national-level gatherings of scientific communities and educators across the nation each year, spreading misinformation about intelligent design, and, based upon this false representation, convince many that intelligent design is not science.
There are other flavors of this misrepresentation—some say intelligent design is just a negative argument against evolution making a “God-of-the-gaps” argument, except leaving out the word “God” deceitfully, because design proponents are really arguing that God is the designer. Quotes from design proponents indicating their Christian faith or their belief in the God of the Bible as the Creator are then shown trying to prove that the design proponent really means God.
A simple reading of the works of design theorists such as William Dembski or Michael Behe show that they actually go to great pains in their writings to show how intelligent design has an empirical testable basis, and that its basis is empirical and in no way religious. For example, Dembski’s The Design Inference, which lays out the methodology for detecting design, makes no reference to God, and only argues that we can detect design from our empirical everyday understanding of how intelligent agency works. Yet one of the most popular quotes among design critics is to quote Dembski saying something like, “The world is a mirror representing the divine life…Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” (William Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, A Journal of Mere Christianity, July/August 1999, Vol 12, pg. 84). This quote was written directed a Christian audience in a Christian journal in on design from a section entitled, “Design, Metaphysics, and Beyond.” Dembski never argues that one ought to conclude that the God of the Bible is the designer from the evidence for design itself. He is merely discussing his philosophical interpretation of the meaning of design within Christian philosophy for the Christian audience to which he is writing.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1163
Wait...you mean you *don’t* support teaching children in public schools that the account of creation found in Genesis in the King James version of the Bible is the inerrant word of God? You *don’t* support teaching “Intelligent Falling” alongside Newtonism in physics class? You *don’t* support teaching the controversy between astrology and astronomy, and letting the kids decide which is legitimate science?
Looks like the GLNEA has gotten to you, too. For shame.
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.