(School) Board votes down evolution analysis

cnn/ap ^ | 3-10-06

[LouAvul]

South Carolina (AP) -- The state Board of Education on Wednesday rejected a state panel's proposal to change high school standards on evolution by calling on students to "critically analyze" the theory.

Science teachers had complained that although critical analysis is part of all science, the wording was really a backdoor attempt to force educators to teach religious-based alternatives. In a 10-6 vote, board members agreed.

The Education Oversight Committee, a school reform panel made up of lawmakers, teachers, parents and other community members, recommended the change last month. Panel member Senator Mike Fair, R-Greenville, has said it was intended to introduce students to challenges to evolutionary theory.

Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum, a Democrat, has called the effort "a ploy to confuse the issue of evolution so that ultimately evolution won't be taught."

Officials disagreed over the effect of the vote.

Education department officials say the vote leaves previous science standards adopted in 2002 in place. But Representative Bob Walker, R-Landrum, said both the Education Oversight Committee and the Board of Education must agree on new standards.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

.. Evolution

.Creationism

ID

[whattajoke]

The entire philosophy of evolution is atheism. Evolution is the religion of atheism. The left wants to encourage atheism and through what better vehicle in academia than through, godless, mindless, nonsensical evolution that has absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support it. It's a deck of cards built on lies supplied by leading atheists.

nmh, you remind me of this crow that appears near my bedroom window every other morning or so. He just squawks and squawks, repeating the same annoying squawk over and over again, louder and louder.

And yet, he never says anything new and always without substance. Your act has grown boring. Your first sentence above makes absolutely no sense - you mix philospophy with science with the lack of a belief in a deity. 3 distinct things to my mind.

What parts of academia are "god-full?"

[nmh]

I was simply trying to phrase truth in a few ways so even the densest could "get it". Apparently it is still over your head. I tend to see evolutionists squealing the same way. The same fallacious lies are squawked over and over again. When these lies are rejected by people like me, then as usual you resort to name calling - just as you have done.

The simple truth is this you cannot believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time. They are diametrically opposed theories. As Dawkins stated it is evolution that lead him to disbelief in God. It does the SAME THING for everyone else. For some reason that disturbs you - too bad!

I really don't understand why an evolutionist, being labeled an atheist should bother an evolutionist so much. It's a choice, whether you believe in God or not. Perhaps it is true that:

Pss.14:1

[1] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Pss.53

[1] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

I'm glad that objective scientific evidence supports just what God has stated.

Rom.1:20

[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I often wonder where the atheist, Carl Sagan would up ... . Let's hope he had a deathbed awakening and didn't wind up in hell.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" The simple truth is this you cannot believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time."

Sure you can. To say otherwise goes against all evidence, as most people who accept evolution also believe in a God.

" I really don't understand why an evolutionist, being labeled an atheist should bother an evolutionist so much."

For the evolutionists who believe in God, it's simply not true to call them atheists. Wouldn't you get mad if someone called you an atheist if you weren't?

"As Dawkins stated it is evolution that lead him to disbelief in God."

He also said that evolution doesn't necessitate atheism.

[Thatcherite]

I often wonder where the atheist, Carl Sagan would up ... . Let's hope he had a deathbed awakening and didn't wind up in hell.

Maybe God will get a moral wakening and not put sentient creatures in hell.

[King Prout]

better trial:
examine the behavior of students attending a school which administers discipline (in a manner exactly comparable to the way one raises animals to be safe and cleanly around humans) and compare that to the behavior of students who are taught from day one that they are something *special* and deserve esteem without effort.

[Virginia-American]

...where the atheist, Carl Sagan would up...

I'd much rather be in his shoes than the late Henry Morris'. AFAIK, Sagan did not drive people away from Christ; Morris did.

[whattajoke]

Ok, this is great. You've made some stong claims. let's see you back one up.

The same fallacious lies are squawked over and over again.

(Are "fallacious lies" actually truths?) Name one. Show me one. Discuss one. Link one.

When these lies are rejected by people like me

Name one. Show me one. Discuss one. Link one.

Then as usual you resort to name calling - just as you have done.

I compared your repetitive "squawking" to a crow and mentioned that you've become boring. You said, "I was simply trying to phrase truth in a few ways so even the densest could "get it". Apparently it is still over your head." We'll call it a draw and shake hands.

The simple truth is this you cannot believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time.

I'm curious how you feel about the millions who profess to do just that. Are they not "real God believers" or not "real evolutionists?"

Pss.53 [1] The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
I'm glad that objective scientific evidence supports just what God has stated.

Please show us the "objective scientific evidence." And no, you can't hand wave this away and say, "Whattajoke is a fool!" That would be lame.

I often wonder where the atheist, Carl Sagan would up ... . Let's hope he had a deathbed awakening and didn't wind up in hell.

You really "often wonder" about Carl Sagan? Sagan didn't believe in hell any more than he believed in heaven. The idea of some "bad place" is so silly and juvenile when you actually step back and think about it.

[nmh]

Do you really want me to go into the NUMEROUS hoaxes used to find the "missing link" that doesn't exit? I personally find the "theory" that we evolved from fish to be fairly amusing. Most seriously, to believe evolutionists are telling you the truth as the same as saying ole Clinton is an honest man.

I skipped the rest of your gibberish.

Then I noticed this:

"You really "often wonder" about Carl Sagan? Sagan didn't believe in hell any more than he believed in heaven. The idea of some "bad place" is so silly and juvenile when you actually step back and think about it."

Believe what ever you wish! Thank you for emphasizing my point. The premise of an evolutionist is there is NO God. Your theory, and I'm being very generous in calling evolution a "theory" by default makes one an atheist. Obviously you agree with him in mocking heaven and hell.

One of the best things about heaven is not to have to hear ridiculous "theories" on how the earth began and how human beings evolved from some primordial soup!
Believe what ever you wish!

[nmh]

What's kind of funny is that the more people side up against Creation and the objective scientific evidence that supports it, the more polls show they reject it. It seems the atheistic gods are getting upset over their silly "theories" being rejected. They really want to believe that stifling debate and facts will have them reign supreme. Today, there are MANY resources to look to validate Creation. Laws can't change facts nor can they stop people from pursuing truth.

[Dimensio]

Do you really want me to go into the NUMEROUS hoaxes used to find the "missing link" that doesn't exit?

It would be interesting for you to do so, given that thus far you have not provided any factual references at all in order to support your claims, and have even made claims that are demonstratably false.

The premise of an evolutionist is there is NO God.

This statement is demonstratably false. I have to wonder why you continue to repeat a statement that very clearly is untrue.

[gomaaa]

Today, there are MANY resources to look to validate Creation.

Then post a couple and we'll start talking. Blanket declarations that you are right do not impress anyone.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" This statement is demonstrably false. I have to wonder why you continue to repeat a statement that very clearly is untrue."

It's similar to a claim from someone here early this week that if you aren't Christian, you are an atheist. It's a redefinition of the word *atheist* to suit a particular agenda.

[whattajoke]

Do you really want me to go into the NUMEROUS hoaxes used to find the "missing link" that doesn't exit?

Yes! Please do! Here, I'll even help you out. Please read the following links and try not to repeat the same stuff all over again.

HOW ABOUT ALL THOSE EVOLUTIONIST FRAUDS? (None of them amounts to anything.)Piltdown Man. Science (not creationism) uncovered the fraud.
Nebraska Man. Also: NEW Nebraska Man in Textbooks? It wasn't much of a fraud.
Peppered Moths. Another non-issue.
NEW Ichneumon's Discussion of Peppered Moths. FreeRepublic post (#438).
Haeckel's Embryos. Yet another.
Ichneumon's Discussion of Haeckel's embryo drawings. A FreeRepublic post (#62).
Archaeopteryx. Despite howls from creationists, it's not a fake.
Archaeoraptor. A crude fake, publicised by Nat'l Geographic, then quickly exposed.
Lucy. The "fraud" claim is actually a creationist fraud.

I personally find the "theory" that we evolved from fish to be fairly amusing.

Why is that? Simply because you never learned about it in school? I suppose it is a difficult concept. Doesn't make it untrue though (though a bit confusing when you skip the millions of steps in between and the millions of years it required.

I skipped the rest of your gibberish

Aha! These glimpses into your mind are very beneficial. For we gain an appreciation each time into how you seem to miss basic concepts that have been pointed out to you time and time again. Or, the fact that you continue to fail to answer simple questions... such as what were contained within my "gibberish:"

Like when I said, "Name one. Show me one. Discuss one. Link one" when you stated that evolutionists lie all the time here. Or when I said, "I'm curious how you feel about the millions who profess to do just that. Are they not "real God believers" or not "real evolutionists," at your bold claim that, "The simple truth is this you cannot believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time." Or my request for you to back up your claim that Psalm 53:1 contains, "objective scientific evidence supports just what God has stated." Y'know, gibberish like that.

[pleikumud]

Those who have food fights over Creationism, ID and evolution are missing a big point, which is: How little anyone really knows. We are smaller than a speck of dust in the universe, and profoundly ignorant.

It seems the public schools are designed to limit the imagination.

[gomaaa]

What is odder still is that if they are "conservative" or "fundie" Muslims, the Koran has explicit instructions not to take Jews or Christians as one's friends..

That's not really true. Like the Bible, the Koran has some verses that can sound contradictory if taken out of context. There are a lot of verses that specifically refer to Jews and Christians in a much more friendly light, calling them "fellow people of the book". Muslims believe that Muhammed is the latest in a string of prophets from God that INCLUDED Jesus. Naturally, they also believe that Muhammed's teachings carry more weight, but Jesus was historically an important figure for them, not a natural enemy.

The antagonism between Muslims and the rest of the world is very recent. Anti-semitism in particular is new to them, despite the vehemence with which it is currently practiced.

http://www.submission.org/christians/friends.html

[whattajoke]

What's kind of funny is that the more people side up against Creation and the objective scientific evidence that supports it, the more polls show they reject it.

No, what's funnier is that I could post a bunch of ridiculous (but real) polls that say things like lots of Americans believe in Astrology or numerology. Or the one that says the vast majority of our soldiers want out of Iraq. Or I could take a poll of several countries that would show you overwhelmingly that Jesus wasn't so great. Polls often mean diddly squat. Since when did public ignorance decide what science is and isn't?

It seems the atheistic gods are getting upset over their silly "theories" being rejected.

I'm very curious as to what an "atheistic god" is. Please enlighten me.

Today, there are MANY resources to look to validate Creation.

And I'll only ask you for ONE. Just ONE. Please? Pretty please?

[grey_whiskers]

Do you really want me to go into the NUMEROUS hoaxes used to find the "missing link" that doesn't exit?

I'll just BET you meant the last word to be "exist" and not "exit."

As it is, one could do an analogy to the following:

The great logician Bertrand Russell (or was it A.N. Whitehead?) once claimed that he could prove anything if given that 1+1=1. So one day, some smarty-pants asked him, "Ok. Prove that you're the Pope." He thought for a while and proclaimed, "I am one. The Pope is one. Therefore, the Pope and I are one."

Q. "There's no missing link!"

A. Try looking at (*)

Q. I didn't mean a Hypertext link!

or
Q. We know about that link. It isn't missing anymore!

Cheers!

(*) Hat-tip to Ichneumon, BTW.

[Coyoteman]

What's kind of funny is that the more people side up against Creation and the objective scientific evidence that supports it

Why is it that this "objective scientific evidence" that supports creationism can only be seen by creationists?

Why can't scientists, who are trained to see "objective scientific evidence" not see this?

Perhaps it takes a specific prior belief to be able to see that particular evidence. A belief in the biblical version of creation perhaps?

If so, then this line of reasoning is not following the scientific method, and it is disingenuous to speak "of objective scientific evidence that supports creationism."

[Coyoteman]

We are smaller than a speck of dust in the universe, and profoundly ignorant

But many of us believe that science is our best method of combating that ignorance. What would you have us do instead? Tea leaves? Or as Heinlein put it:

What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973