Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
With five seats on the State Board of Education up for grabs this year, education advocates say how children learn about evolution hangs in the balance -- and who voters choose could affect Kansas' national reputation.
A frequent flip-flop between moderate and conservative majorities on the 10-member board has resulted in the state changing its science standards four times in the past eight years.
Conservatives have pushed for standards casting doubt on evolution, and moderates have said intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.
In 2007, a new 6-4 moderate majority removed standards that called evolution into question.
This year, none of the three moderates whose seats are up for election are running again. Only one of the two conservative incumbents is running for re-election...
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
sentient beings who are sentient by some sort of random mutation process that accidentally adds information to the genome that in some way is beneficial enough to make the organism survive better than its competitors (others of the same species),
yet for some reason develops a common set of values that just happen to line up with the last 6 commandments of a religion that such a theory is said to debunk,
yet for some reason also, even if these values are “beneficial to survival”, somehow at the same time retain a desire to go against this beneficial drive.
And we’re to believe that the reasoning of the minds developed by this process is correct?
I can say with certainty that EVERY science text throughout history has been wrong about something.
Never hire the ACLU to fight a conservative fight. You’ll just be empowering and enriching communists.
Go to the ACLJ.
==All I know is that as a child when I watched the Flintstone’s I knew it was fiction.
Then why can’t you apply the same logic to Darwin’s discredited fairytale?
==However, I do know that what ever those forces were it all began billions of years ago.
Faith statement.
Present your evidence of this faith. What assumptions is it based on, and do you even know?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2061218/posts?page=650#650
As usual you either didn't understand the post, or you lied about it. Here is my post #650:
The theory of evolution stands independent of the origins question. Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
The theory of evolution works just fine with any of those.
Lie: claiming that I advocated any of these. They are hypotheses.
Lie: claiming that I don't have a Ph.D. You know nothing about my educational background.
Lie: claiming that the theory of evolution depends on any of these. The theory of evolution stands independent of origins in spite of creationists' misrepresentations.
==Is there any evidence they haven’t been allowed to present?
Haven’t you been paying attention? The Temple of Darwin teamed up with the Communist ACLU to prevent students from learning about both sides of the scientific debate.
We are in the majority. If we ever got our act together, all the definitions in the world wouldn’t save their state-enforced hold on power.
Within science there are not two sides to this issue, nor is there a debate.
The "debate" is creationists attacking science in an attempt to get their particular brand of superstition taught in place of science--and having the nerve to call it science! What a joke!
If that had any truth to it Darwinists would not be in fits over ID. Perhaps Darwinists themselves are unaware that the TOE is independent of origins.
If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as one of its own. But because you do not belong to the world and I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you.
John 15:19
I expect to be derided and despised by those that claim to be wiser than God.
==What a joke!
The joke will be one you, once the people get tired of your tyranny and pull down the Temple of Darwin and force your co-religionists to compete in the free market of scientific ideas. But don’t worry, you will still be free to poor milk over your Darwin idols in the privacy of your own home.
The ironic thing (well, I guess we should have expected deceit from those on the “other” side) is that the argument that the ACLU first put forth was about
“presenting a balanced view”.
Once they got their foot in the door, they again went to the coercive body of government in order to kick the other viewpoint out.
It doesn’t even make sense. Why are they so afraid? Where does this irrational fear come from? I do not and have never feared Science. It was truly my first love as a child. One of my mentors was Isaac Asimov by proxy of course. I probably as a child read more articles written by him than any other and he most certainly was an atheist. I cried the day he died. I don’t think any other author affected me that way. I remember getting into an acute argument with my country grandmother and telling her she was descended from monkeys. I think it was a response to her calling negros monkeys (her terms not mine) or something to that effect.
I think it is the first time I ever confronted anyone like that. I also read a lot from Stephen Jay Gould.
Ironically it was through reading the Origin of the Species and many other references on Darwinism that I found the picture wasn’t so clear. That natural selection and random mutation and even neo-darwinism didn’t explain evolution fully. It was my hunger for science that led to the conclusion that there was more going on. Also I wasn’t impressed with the reliance on silly concepts like monkeys and typewriters. Monkeys and type writers will always produce gibberish and never Shakespeare (as if their is a limit on the amount of gibberish a monkey or politician can produce) yet Darwinists for the longest time kept using that silly story as if it were some kind of unchallengeable truth. Smart people should not need to rely on patently ignorant claims to prove a point. Science does not need to attack religion to be valid a religious person should not insert theology into science and a scientist should not tilt their findings toward an atheist mindset.
I feel as Kant did that such things are “two independent discourses of a dualistic system”. That is one reason why I object to trying to use the Bible to derive what God didn’t do or what he did do where no elaboration is provided. I don’t like putting God in a box. I think that Christians often do this. There are no innocent parties where this debate is concerned. Much of the antipathy to religion expressed by atheists and secularist was fueled from the pulpit from those who substituted anger for grace.
Here is a neat little story: (Isaac Asimov Illustrates Creationism)
http://1truebeliever.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/isaac-asimov-illustrates-creationism/
That won’t be satisfying -
the point of Darwinism is to “disprove” Christianity.
If they’re not doing that, there’s no reason to exist.
==I expect to be derided and despised by those that claim to be wiser than God.
That’s fine. Let the Temple of Darwin deride and despise from their own privately funded religious institutions—not from our publically funded universities.
No one else that I know of in the "Creation movement" fear or hate science either.
Science is based on Creationism: A Good, rational Creator, that creates rational, predictable, elegant, and DISCOVERABLE laws in the universe. It's amazing that scientists use these assumptions in order to make their discoveries, then some atheistholes come along and try to bend the evidence and force this interpretation on children in schools.
And there was a time when the Majority of the People believed that the earth was flat.
There was also a time where the Majority of the People believed in a geocentric universe.
Only of fool would want scientific questions determined by majority rule.
//Ironically it was through reading the Origin of the Species and many other references on Darwinism that I found the picture wasn’t so clear. That natural selection and random mutation and even neo-darwinism didn’t explain evolution fully. It was my hunger for science that led to the conclusion that there was more going on//
That largely parallels some of my experiences.
Not really. Everyone can see the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse. Everyone can see the shape of the moon and sun. Everyone could see a ship's sails first when it came over the horizon.
Very few would believe that the earth was flat.
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.