(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.

[BMCDA]

His logic is faulty because it implies there is an intrinsic conflict between being an animal in the biological sense and not being one in the religious sense. But this is obviously false; both can, and are true.

And he's also mistaken to imply that there is something like a uniform animal behavior.

[gomaaa]

Interesting how it's the IDers that are trying to use the government to force ID into schools. Rather like how a communist would do it...

I always get a kick out of attempts to connect evolution to communism. Stalin deliberately suppressed efforts to do real science in genetics and Darwinian evolution, instead promoting his brand of Lamarckism that fit closely with his ideological beliefs. This is the sort of thing that happens when politics trumps science.

For many years, leftist academics preferred Lamarck over Darwin, because the idea of inheriting environmentally induced changes fit better with Marxist ideas of social change. In 1948, under T. D. Lysenko as Soviet director of scientific research, Mendelian genetics was officially outlawed in Russia and Lamarckism established as communist dogma.
http://www3.telus.net/csabc/Personalities.html

[freerepublic007]

If just ONE person could provide evidence that an "intelligent designer" created human beings and life on this planet they would be among the most famous people in the world nearly overnight. Darwin would be small potatoes compared to this person. The problem is that there is no such person able to present this evidence because it doesn't exist in the first place.

[Doctor Stochastic]

And even less for Creationists to call people who disagree with them communists. Of course, the communists did execute those supporting evolution. And of course, the Creationists do hire Harun Yahya extremists as experts to present their case.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Teach the alternative: There are other fundamentalists that support creationism.

[nmh]

You're absolutely right!

We also know the left is totally godless. Now, I wonder, who are they following ... .

Let me help you out from the mouth of an egotistical, er idiot:

The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins

Here are a few choice excerpts:

Question:
What are your thoughts about the despair some people feel when they ponder natural selection and random mutation? The idea of evolution and natural selection makes some people feel that everything is meaningless--people’s individual lives and life in general.

Answer from the evolutionist high priest, Dawkins:

If it’s true that it causes people to feel despair, that’s tough. It’s still the truth. The universe doesn’t owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn’t owe us a nice warm feeling inside. If it’s true, it’s true, and you'd better live with it.

Question:
You criticize intelligent design, saying that "the theistic answer"--pointing to God as designer--"is deeply unsatisfying"--presumably you mean on a logical, scientific level.

Answer by the renowned Dawkins:

Yes, because it doesn’t explain where the designer comes from. If they’re going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs—"these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?"--well, if they’re so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.

My comment - Imagine that! Just to think for a second that there could be SOMEONE more intelligent that Dawkins and more complicated than Dawkins is just, well UNTHINKABLE! He truly wants to believe HE, Dawkins knows it ALL better! LOL!! The arrogance and HUGE ego here is surreal. Boy is he in for a suprise when he meets his Maker! Then it'll be too late.

Question:
Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?

Answer by the cold hearted and arrogant ATHEIST, Dawkins:

They clearly can’t be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.

My comment: It's common sense. When you remove God and what the Bible teaches you slowly if no immediately stop believing in God. The order of evolution all wrong. There is NO evidence to support it and of course when you keep telling a lie often enough there will always be dumbed down idiots willing to believe it. It is NO coincidence that evolution leads one to ATHEISM. Dawkins is NO exception to that fact.

Elsewhere he suggests that God is some imaginary friend and that adoptions are the result of "genetic mistakes". Guess Moses failed to realize he was a "genetic mistake".

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.








http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889.html

[forsnax5]

Waiting for PatrickHenry's flying monkeys ping.

The flying monkeys have evolved...

:)

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

There difference is that the broad interpretations of the Bible are divergent while the major theories of science are convergent.

Huh?

The history of science has taken and will continue to take many varied paths. Some leading to deadends and outright untruths.

The Bible leads to many interpretations but the source remains fixed.

I can remember when the "big bang" theory was fought tooth and nail by modern scientists because it was so ....shall we say...biblical?

The Bible has never waivered in it's insistence in a finite universe. Science has flip flopped on the issue.

I will agree that "practical" science as opposed "speculative" science, (e.g. origin of species, cosmology) does converge.

[Dimensio]

And he's also mistaken to imply that there is something like a uniform animal behavior.

One could argue that ingestion of nourishment is a uniform animal behaviour.

[70times7]

The problem with answering your question is that the Bible stands alone. It is not subject to review and many considered it to be without error. Science on the other hand relies on evidence that is obtained independently and assembled to give a larger picture. There difference is that the broad interpretations of the Bible are divergent while the major theories of science are convergent.

I must ask, how can one imply that Christians disagree on evolution and yet are in agreement on scripture? After all, "it is not subject to review and is without error". You state that ” There difference is that the broad interpretations of the Bible are divergent…”

I think I understand what you are getting at, but you are mistaken. I may be off base – tell me if I am, but have you ever reviewed the methods for evaluating the accuracy of an historical text? Are you familiar with Josephus? Have you read any information on how and why the various books of scripture are in the bible? Do you understand WHY a denial of the historical accuracy of Genesis undermines the entirety of scripture? One does not need to agree with this view to understand it. I don’t think you do.

I have learned enough about evolution to have a good working knowledge of it, at least to the point of knowing what I don't know. I would like to respectfully recommend that one who is going to make claims about Christian perspectives have a basic working knowledge of them rather than trotting out base misconceptions.

[Dimensio]

The entire philosophy of evolution is atheism.

This would appear to be false in light of the large number of people who accept evolution who are also theists. I find it strange that you continue to ignore this fact in spite of ample evidence for it. In fact, I find it nearly as strange as your claim that you had never mentioned Antony Flew despite a previous posting, to which I had directly linked, wherein you made a very clear statement about the man.

[JamesP81]

And even less for Creationists to call people who disagree with them communists. Of course, the communists did execute those supporting evolution. And of course, the Creationists do hire Harun Yahya extremists as experts to present their case.

As I've said to others, I'll say to you: it's not my fault that you can't tell the profound differences between Christianity and Islamofascism.

You are proceeding under a false impression. You think that is some kind of a debate, and that you are doing your best to win that debate. I, on the other hand, never had the intent of debating anyone. It's pointless. Everybody here already knows what they believe. It's been rehashed thousands of times to no result. You are attempting to win a debate with me that I never even attempted to enter.

One poster observed that people of faith view the Bible as not up for questioning or disproving. This is a correct perception. My purpose is not to convince you or anyone else whether or not the Bible is historically or theologically correct. My purpose is to make everyone here choose their side. There are two choices here: you are either on God's side or you aren't. And you made your choice, as did most everyone else, therefore I succeeded in doing what I set out to do.

Have an excellent afternooon.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Nor is it my fault that the Christian Creatioinists hire Islamic extremists (without your complaining at all) to present anti-evolutionary ideas.

However, it is your fault that you are not familiar with the communists execution of those trying to teach or do research on evolutionary theory.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

But what you fail to see is that this is how science works. All new ideas are fought against very hard. If the idea has merit then it survives and begins to gain ground. Sometimes it will even overturn the old way of thinking and become the new foundation upon which future progress is made. That's what's happening with evolution right now. I'm old enough to have witnessed the "steady state" theory over turned by the "big bang" theory. There was a lot of resistence to that because of it's religious implications. But the evidence became overwhelming and theSS theory was overthrown.

It is indeed a battle, but it's not pretty and it's motivated by more then a desire for the truth. Read:

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

But what you fail to see is that this is how science works. All new ideas are fought against very hard. If the idea has merit then it survives and begins to gain ground. Sometimes it will even overturn the old way of thinking and become the new foundation upon which future progress is made. That's what's happening with evolution right now. I'm old enough to have witnessed the "steady state" theory over turned by the "big bang" theory. There was a lot of resistence to that because of it's religious implications. But the evidence became overwhelming and theSS theory was overthrown.

It is indeed a battle, but it's not pretty and it's motivated by more then a desire for the truth. Read:

[narby]

If humans are simply the chance outcome of some sort of natural selection process that started with a puddle of soup and a few bolts of lightening, then this life is all we have.

Not if God controlled the lightning and the recipe of the soup. If one thinks that God brings the thunderstorm, as random and "scientifically understood" as they are, then what's the problem with claiming that God created life via evolution? The Cathlics think so.

[narby]

Cathlics = Catholics

[Doctor Stochastic]

I can remember when the "big bang" theory was fought tooth and nail by modern scientists because it was so ....shall we say...biblical?

So that was Tom Golds' and Fred Hoyle's objection? Perhaps you have a link to Gold and Hoyle's comments on the subject. (These were the primary opponents of the Big Bang theory.)

PS: I didn't know you were that old.

[PatrickHenry]

100