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 ...
Riiiiight, we should all know by now that demanding God be removed so the godless won’t be offended in science class is what will ultimately help them find oil.
that is until another godless liberal demand we protect some wildlife that is.
The Soviets rejected Darwin's evolution through natural selection of genetic variation because they thought it smacked too much of capitalism with its unequal distribution of resources and dependence upon individual accomplishment.
The Lamarkian inheritance hypothesis of Lysenko led to the starvation death of millions because of massive agricultural failure brought about by refusal to accept Science for ideological reasons. That should sound pretty familiar to many.
Awwwwww...looks like you’ve reverted to the wet paper bag syndrome again...you can’t argue yourself free from yourself.
You’re not going to get away with saying that CONSERVATIVES are for suing others into silence to promote science, uh-uh.
again...it’s YOUR side that’s suing normal people be silent dunce!
Unless you have something to add to the discussion of science , you neither merit nor receive respect.
Projecting and stomping your feet won’t work anymore than convincing people godless liberalism works in science class or elsewhere!
And you think that no-God is better?
Let's see.....Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao.......
Actually, it appears that the ones who believe in the weak and powerless God are the ones who keep stating that God created everything and then let evolution take over, as if He couldn't manage it Himself.
Creationists believe in a powerful God who holds everything together.
Col 1:16 & 17 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Doesn't sound like a weak and powerless God to me.
Why do evolutionists try so hard to portray God in that light? Every effort of theirs is to degrade God that way. "Incompetent design* and other derogatory remarks as if they're better than God. It seems that evos want nothing more than to drag God down to a level where they can say that they're better than Him.
Interesting that when there's a conflict between current accepted scientific consensus and the Word of God, that the Bible is wrong as a default option? There's never any consideration that science might be wrong, as it so often is shown to be.
It's pretty amusing coming from a group of people who claim that what they're all about is not concerned with truth.
if we allow the Christian worldview to creep into public policy and education,
we’ll end up like Afghanistan under the Taliban!
/sarc
What they don't seem to realize is that if we allow the Christian worldview to creep into public policy and education, we might end up with this.....
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Incompetent Design IS a slur upon God, made by cdesign proponentists who posit that the design of God is a rather shoddy affair that needs constant tinkering to keep up the edifice. THAT is a weak and incompetent deity, not the God that I know and worship.
You don't know your history very well then.
The ultimate undoing of your premise that ID is only a ruse to inject a Christian theocracy into screwels is that not all that long ago, we had prayer in school, God wasn’t sued out of school, not to mention Christmas was actually ON the school calendar...
and what REALLY happened was the godless did PRECISELY what they’re whining about now, to the point the godless liberals have to sneak around and threaten legal action to get the FEDERAL HOLIDAY Christmas removed, and so on...
Forget going hunting today, your dog needs a funeral dude!
Why should anyone find your reasoning adequate if you don't know what you're talking about because you're not qualified in that field.
Sure takes a lot of guts to tell others that they're wrong then.
as I have pointed out, I don't stand on credentials.
You sure do appeal to authority a lot. If credentials are that meaningless, then then why do you stand on other's?
They'll tell you why everone else's theories and methodologies are wrong, but when it comes time to do the real-world work, like finding oil deposits or determining the best places to build storage facilities for long term storage of nuclear waste, they can't tell you what theories and methodologies we shoud be using instead. All you get is some smartass reply.
That's not helping your case one bit.
I think we’ve got finding oil down pretty well, I think the larger issue is getting godless liberals to drill for it.
Nuke storage...most likely the same.
I’ll even go out on a limb and suggest more believers contributed to these very tasks than non-believers did.
Last I checked we were focused on origins, and PLAINLY darwinism/ToE comes up short for alot of people, so normal intelligent folks simply propose that disorder, randomness, purposeless, “it just happened” theory is vacuous and perhaps there’s a BETTER explanation i.e. God created all we know, what appears as disorder, order may be found, and so on.
I truly don’t care where we go from there, but what I’M tired of is hearing stories like kids aren’t even allowed to even so much as HEAR ID/creation, and the godless liberal NEA agenda is so scared they won’t let these books be in their library much less ALLOW kids have access to them even on their own time.
We’ve seen godless liberals in schools from kindergarten all the way through graduate school with activist professors that are destroying the culture of this country.
Now, having said all that: something the godless should get used to...
their way has been an utter and complete and total failure.
they don’t get exclusively to decide what is or isn’t science.
they don’t exclusively get to set the agenda.
they don’t exclusively get to decide how much ‘free exercise’ thereof is PERMITTED to be TOLERATED in public as well as govt, education, media, etc.
they don’t get to exclusively intepret the Constituion etc. for everyone.
and normal mainstream folks need not concern themselves with their “approval, permission” what have you: providing proof and all that tired failed drivel.
For what it’s worth I’m still waiting for some of your teammates to show us why they think godless liberalism has proven itself over time as objective when it comes to:
journalism
politics
education (in general)
history
etc.
So get in line with your concerns.
So far they seem to think that godless liberalism in regards to science is A-OK concerning these subjects:
homosexuality is normal,
life doesn’t begin at conception,
and that science is the one exception where godless liberals can somehow remain objective.
I don’t know if you read where I proposed a so-called lesson plan could be as little as a paragraph, for starters, but I have a REAL problem with ANY side hijacking courts to silence others.
This issue about science is a microcosm of the disease of liberal “progressivism”, we’re in a virtual culture war that I believe will soon have to go back to the supreme court, ie Michael Newdow’s madness.
Godless liberals have decided to hijack courts to enforce their way on others, and it needs to cease.
GREAT POINT!
It is because of Christian people that the godless in this country even have their freedoms.
AGAION, misunderstanding God does not validate godless theory.
Misunderstanding God doesn’t invalidate Science.
No Scientific theory is either pro God or anti God. No Scientific theory is either full of God or Godless. They are simply Scientific and validated by experimental observation.
Misunderstanding God AND science has been aptly illustrated via the results of the godless agenda.
Which has yet to be addressed, from unobjectivity to homosexuality to vacuous excuses.
Which begs the question, if what you say is true, why the need to sue anyone into silence if a theory can withstand peer review then?
I think we all know the answer to that.
btw...how is it law is allowed to influence science but religion is off limits?
The agenda of most Scientists is Science, and most Scientists in the USA are people of faith. They and I do not in any way shape or form have a Godless agenda. In fact many of us think that an intellectual exploration of creation does glory to God.
Why the need to sue? The parents at Dover didn't want their kids to be taught shoddy theology in the name of Science, preferring that their children be taught actual Science as it is understood by Scientists.
As to why Science and religion are treated differently by the law, as all Conservatives, we should look to the Constitution.
From the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Article 1, Section 8, line 8: (Congress shall have the power...) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoverie
==The Soviets rejected Darwin’s evolution through natural selection of genetic variation because they thought it smacked too much of capitalism with its unequal distribution of resources and dependence upon individual accomplishment.
First of all, if Stalin’s understanding of Lamarck matches Allmendream’s description, then Stalin never grasped Lamarck, let alone epigenetics (which would not be surprising). Second, it was Lamarck who stressed self-improvement, whereas Darwin maintained that individual improvement is randomly generated and then selected by our environment, and thus completely out of our hands. I have explained this to Allmendream a number of times in the past, but to no avail.
==Interesting that when there’s a conflict between current accepted scientific consensus and the Word of God, that the Bible is wrong as a default option?
Sadly, your description also includes the “Christian” Darwinists. Or should I say, Darwinist Christians?
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.