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 ...
The thing you have to keep reminding yourself of when you argue with or debate evolutionites is that you’re dealing with second-raters. Nobody with brains or talent is defending that business any more.
Thanks for the ping LOL
:^)
I compare it to Rush today:
When Obama talks Chris Matthews gets tingling up his leg, when I hear Obama talk I get a tingling up my spine!
(and probably a cold sweat, hair standing up on the back of his neck...)
You are so lacking in basic science education--or deliberately ignorant--that I don't know why you even bother. Nobody, except your co-religionists, pays the least bit of credence to your opinions on matters of science, and for good reason.
The "theories" concerning abiogenesis are hypotheses, not theories. There is a huge difference between an hypothesis and a theory, as I have tried for a couple of years to explain to you. For some reason you are unwilling, or unable, to learn.
Science offers several hypotheses to explain how life started. None has yet accumulated the evidence, nor acquired the status, to be elevated to a theory.
The "designer" idea is religion masquerading as science. It has not even passed any of the initial tests that are required for science. In reality, it is creation "science" reborn after the U.S. Supreme Court's Edwards decision in another attempt to sneak religion back into science classes. There is no research program, no attempt to construct a base of evidence, no laboratories working on the question, no nothing. It is religion lite promoted largely by the Discovery Institute with a team of lawyers and PR flacks (and lots of creationist money).
And your "evo rule of theory disagreement" is nonsense. There are several different hypotheses gathering evidence and fighting for the status of a theory. That is the way things are supposed to be. And you are trying to say something about that violating some rule of science? Because science is not willing to admit tribal religious beliefs as scientific evidence? The religious belief in creationism is trying to assume the trappings, and respect accorded to, science without gathering the required evidence or going through any of the other steps required in science. That's the violation of the rules of science!
Well, one would come to expect this as they are on the side working hard to extract intelligence from science!
But more to the point, I think it’s simpler, the truth often bears out.
So give the parents the option to have their kids opt out of that section of the science course.
It goes to show that the real issue is about getting God out of the schools.
Or is the atheists faith in science so uncertain that they can't handle hearing about God?
So scientists are comparable to lawyers? I know plenty who would take exception to that.
"consensus of science"? After we've been beaten over the head for all these years that science is NOT done by consensus?
Your lack of credentials is showing.
A conflict between science and the Bible doesn't make the Bible wrong, it just makes it not a science book.
Not to mention that the MIT Center for Theoretical Physics is not exactly a high school textbook or a popular science article.
If you want to be the scientist, show me you can do the science.
Both of these groups hate American historical values, and both of these groups worship the Big Government public school monopoly.
The hardcore evolutionists on FR who claim to be small government libertarians are the worst liars of all.
The FR hardcore evolutionists worship Big Government at its very worst (public school monopoly) but claim libertarianism as a convenient, dishonest excuse for the extreme moral liberalism they spew on this conservative forum.
They are liars of the worst kind.
Who's "us"? You're the only one that doesn't seem to want to figure it out, and when you don't want to know something there's no explaining it to you.
You know scientists? Any biologists among them? I'd love to hear what they say about you.
But perhaps they have never heard of historical sciences like geology. And perhaps they have never written for a juried publication.
You'll have to show me where professional scientists dismiss the idea of consensus.
Cm worships science meaning himself and he sees himself as a High Shaman of the religion of evolution/darwinism.
And because he got a PHD 30 years ago, you are now supposed to abandon all of your ideas and experiences based simply on his academic authority.
But we never see any ‘science’ from the evos.
String theory satisfies a major criterion for becoming a theory: all the flavors of it have to be consistent with all the finding of physics, and then go a bit beyond.
Folks who think the earth is 6000 years old, or that gold will reach $1650 this summer have problems dealing with facts.
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/cf_sinti.htm
Yes people, lots of people, are skeptical of your conclusions
Excerpt:
Ritter’s associates included the anthropologist Dr. Adolf Würth and, until 1942, the zoologist and anthropologist Dr. Sophie Ehrhardt. Ritter’s closest associate was Eva Justin, a nurse who, received her doctorate in anthropology in 1944 based on her research with Gypsy children raised apart from their families. At the conclusion of her study, these children were deported to Auschwitz, where all but a few were killed.
In a report of his research findings in 1940, Ritter concluded that 90 percent of the Gypsies native to Germany were “of mixed blood.” He described such Gypsies as “the products of matings with the German criminal asocial subproletariat.” He further characterized Gypsies as a “primitive” people incapable of real social adaptation.”
You know, of course, that Plato is the father of eugenics, recommending infanticide to maintain racial purity.
It would be interesting to do a study of the percentage of PhD German scientists who supported Hitler compared to say, the percentage of Lutherans. I don’t really know what the result would be, but considering the attempt to smear science, it would interesting.
Those in science and/or proclaim themselves to be scientists do more to damage and smear science than any of us ever could.
Same is true of religion. It would be interesting to compare the percentage of biology teachers convicted of sexually molesting boys, compared to the percentage of clergymen.
I don’t think this is a good issue for you.
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.