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 ...
What evidence do you have to support the idea that Faraday, for example, thought the world was only six thousand years old or would support the twisting of the data to conform to such?
You fascists are beginning to help me understand something about naziism and the people that were caught up in it, wholly oblivious to it like frogs in boiling water.
http://www.freegonzalez.com/tenure.html
But they founded those sciences by adhering to the scientific method, not by following some form of creationism.
Got a list of sciences founded by creationists relying on the methods of creationism?
Exactly right. He left off the part where I asked about any specifics about the I.D. or Creationist “research” he keeps talking about.
What evidence do you have to support the idea that Faraday, for example, thought the world was only six thousand years old or would support the twisting of the data to conform to such?
What evidence do you have godless liberals are objective about ANYTHING?
godless liberals: anyone who tpanther disagrees with.
So, now your saying that creationists can be scientists after all?
Make up your mind.
Methods of creationism? What's that? Something else you've made up?
Could you post a definition of that as well so that anybody might have a clue as to what you're talking about?
godless liberals: anyone who tpanther disagrees with.
godless liberals: anyone who decent Americans disagree with.
There fixed it for you boobs.
You DO realize there indeed ARE godless liberals...and...
this is FR???????????
You demand proof...
you get proof...
then you swing like a girl in response?
(my apologoies to all girls!)
Apologetics, evidence from revelation, rhetoric instead of reasoning. The usual nonsense we see on these threads.
You know, pretty much the opposite of the scientific method.
Anyone can be a scientist by following the scientific method.
An education will help one do science better, but science is differentiated from all other endeavors by adherence to the scientific method.
Those scientists on the list upthread did not become famous by spouting unsubstantiated nonsense, but by doing science.
Apologetics, evidence from revelation, rhetoric instead of reasoning. The usual nonsense we see on these threads.
You know, pretty much the opposite of the scientific method.
MmmmmmmmmImmmmm thinking you just through one of your own under the bus! LMAO!
But since you’re still whining...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/
The origin of life is not the foundation of evolution. Evolution describes and explains the changes that have occurred since that origin.
But then you've been advised of this before.
Anyone can be a scientist by following the scientific method.
An education will help one do science better, but science is differentiated from all other endeavors by adherence to the scientific method.
Those scientists on the list upthread did not become famous by spouting unsubstantiated nonsense, but by doing science.
uh-huh...
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
******SCIENTISTS that don’t agree with coyoteman: are just full of unsubstantiated nonsense!********
Wow I’ve seen the results of programming before but this truly takes the cake!
I think another flounderer needs to look up:
irony
hypocrisy
self-absorption
The origin of life is not the foundation of evolution. Evolution describes and explains the changes that have occurred since that origin.
Soooooo what exactly DOES explain origins then?
And if the origins of life aren’t explained by evolution, then why is it so necessary for godless liberals to sue propenents of ID into silence again?
And what you’re essentially saying is that since nothing explains origins INCLUDING evolution, godless liberals are satisfied for all children to “learn” or more accurately be programmed: when in doubt....just offer nothing and say things like “that’s not science” when someone else comes along and does?
JUST BRILLIANT!
WOW...you anti-intelligent people have had a very poor showing...and then some, eh?
==What evidence do you have to support the idea that Faraday, for example, thought the world was only six thousand years old or would support the twisting of the data to conform to such?
First of all, he belonged to the non-conformists, who were Biblical literalists and believed in special creation. As for twisting data, that became the job of the Darwinists who entered stage-left towards the end of Fradaday’s life. But it is clear from everything I read, that Faraday’s faith in a literal reading of the Bible inspired much of his work in science:
“…the startling boldness of Faraday’s theorizing about the special ordering of magnetic fields was facilitated by his deep belief that nature’s laws were themselves the product of a rational mind. The biblical idea of creation implied that there was an underlying order and unity to the phenomena of nature—-by virtue of the forces impressed on matter by the Creator—-and that the human mind, fallible as it was, could, when guided by experiments, formulate ideas that reflected those laws.”
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.