Posted on 08/02/2006 9:17:33 AM PDT by JCEccles
Columbia, SC –- After months of debate, today the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee unanimously ratified high school biology standards requiring students to understand why "scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The South Carolina State Board of Education adopted the standards unanimously last month, and submitted them to the EOC for approval. South Carolina’s new evolution standard does not require teaching the theory of intelligent design.
The biology standard approved requires students to be able to, “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” This falls under the overall biology standard which says that “The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life.”
“This victory is an important milestone towards improving the quality of science education, by ensuring that students learn the full range of relevant scientific evidence, including the scientific criticisms of evolution,” said Casey Luskin an attorney and public policy analyst with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “South Carolina is the fifth current state to require students to learn about scientific criticisms of evolution and this policy helps remedy the problem that most biology textbooks today largely ignore scientific challenges to Darwinism.”
South Carolina State Senator Mike Fair, a member of the Education Oversight Committee, and Terrye Campsen Seckinger, a member of the South Carolina Board of Education, issued a statement applauding the approval of the new high school biology standards: “It is impossible to meet this standard without the discussion of the meaning of critical analysis as it applies to evolutionary science. This is a great improvement over our 2000 standards. Students will now have the opportunity to wholly learn about the theory of evolution. This means that students will have the opportunity to fully discuss all aspects of evolutionary theory instead of limiting discussion to only evidence that might support it.”
Prominently displayed in the center of page 59 of the Time article is a tiny fragment of a toe bone. Lemonick and Dorfman wrote: “This toe bone proves the creature walked on two legs.” Amazing, is it not, what one can discern from a single toe bone! The human foot contains 26 individual bones, (see Netter, 1994, p. 492), and yet evolutionary scientists claim that they can distinguish walking characteristics from just a single bone? ;That bold caption also fails to inform the reader that this toe bone was found in 1999, is “chronologically younger” than the other bone fragments, and was found in a separate location from the rest of the fossils.
"Can anyone explain to someone dumber than a box of rocks, how the underlined section below, is EXPLAINING what is wrong with the researcher's assessment made in bold?"
Exactly my point. It isn't explaining what is allegedly wrong at all. You have failed to point out what was wrong with the researcher's assessment.
Now, to answer your above question, I don't know if anybody CAN explain that to you.
If anyone watching this shocking public display of denseness?!
Oy, vey. Must be one of those homeopathy idjits. If even one molecule of non-water remains from the pre-recycled water, then it must still retain the properties of raw sewage.
Craziness.
Actually, your argument is a non sequitur. There are inferences and assumptions in it that cannot reasonably be made. The researcher makes assertions from somewhat arbitrary assumptions without giving a reasonable argument for those assumptions, which kind of kicks the legs out of from under his argument.
As far as I can see, CG is not dense but you are missing his point.
A skull by any other name is a skull. Human skulls, what's the point?
This is a very simple procedure. Put the Bible on the shelf and read "The origin of the Species"
It provides a very critical analysis that anyone who can read will understand.
I think I will change my tagline to be like yours:
Christianity: Killing Children for the Glory of God.
I mean, Jim Jones was right, right?
Only explains why chimps like trees. Doesn't explain why there are so many tree huggers today.
The problem is that most environments (in which I include species populations) are complex systems frequently teetering on the edge of chaos. A small change in initial states can produce a small change in final state or a large change in final state. Your point about the weather is quite appropriate.
Bears are also very adaptable, they'll eat anything from nuts and berries to ants to moose, and are quite capable of hunting both small and large prey. It is likely that sexual selection impacts their morphology more than competition.
Please provide one example of what you consider compelling evidence for evolution.
I posted the photograph with this note:
Set these skulls out on the desk in the bone lab and arrange them any which way. As you begin to notice more and more of the morphology of various traits, even you would start to arrange them in this approximate order. Really!Now you come along and claim, "A skull by any other name is a skull. Human skulls, what's the point?"
The point is not all of the skulls are human. The one on the upper left is modern chimp, and the one on the bottom right is modern human. The rest are somewhere in between.
Where would you draw the dividing line between ape and man in this photograph?
And so that is why some eat grass and others live in trees?
"If anyone watching this shocking public display of denseness?!"
If they are, and they are honest, they will see you have not answered the questions not have you supported your claims.
Goodbye. It is obvious you just can't support your claim.
Why is evolution singled out?
"And so that is why some eat grass and others live in trees?"
That isn't what was said. Prevarication won't help you.
Tut tut tut, Coyote...
Didn't you SEE ALL THE CAPITALS?? I mean THAT IS PROOF THAT WHAT AU SAID is TRUE!!!
I mean WE ARE TALKING CAPITAL LETTERS HERE!! I'M CEREAL!
No no no. You are supposed to say "That's Non-sequitur". I thought Di taught you better.
Eyescan strain -- I think I saw a different post when I replied to yours.
But I WAS EMPHATIC! THAT WAS WHAT WAS IMPORTANT! Using CAPITAL LETTERS!
There is no dividing line. They are all human skulls.
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.