Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Education board considers alternate theories about life
The Indepedent ^ | 6/7/2002

Posted on 06/13/2002 7:48:51 AM PDT by JediGirl


Last modified at 11:50 a.m. on Friday, June 7, 2002
•  On the Net: Nebraska Department of Education, the Concerned Citizens for Objective Science Education, and the Intelligent Design Network

By Scott Bauer


The Associated Press

LINCOLN -- The State Board of Education is being asked to allow for the teaching of numerous theories about how life began in addition to evolution.

One of those theories holds that aliens could have started life on Earth.

The board is considering whether to add state science standards to an accreditation rule schools must follow to operate.

More than a dozen people were scheduled to appear at the board meeting Friday to comment on the standards. Math and reading standards have already been added to the rule.

The science standards were approved in 1999. State law now requires schools to report how they are meeting such standards, so they must be added to Nebraska's accreditation rule.

The standards make it clear that evolution be taught as theory, not objective fact. They also ask that students investigate and use the theory of biological evolution to explain the diversity of life.

At an earlier hearing, several people supported the intelligent design concept.

Intelligent design is a belief that living things are too complex to have occurred through random genetic change and must have been designed by a higher power. The nature of that being is not specified, but backers acknowledge it could have been a biblical God, supernatural or extraterrestrial.

Critics of the concept argue that intelligent design is not science and that it is a disguise for creationism, which credits the origin of species to God and has been barred by courts from public schools.

The teaching of creationism in Nebraska drew heated debate in 1999 when the state board adopted science standards that left out any mention of creationism.

Some members of the state board in 1999 wanted to revise the standards to require schools teach that there are other theories in addition to evolution, including creationism.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; etcreatedhome; etphonehome; evolution; littlegreenmen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: PatrickHenry
Placemarker from beyond space and time.

Big smile! :-)

41 posted on 06/13/2002 1:42:07 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
The big lie...

Originally liberals were social conservatives who advocated growth and progess mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change.

Atheist secular materialists through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and call all technology evolution(science) to substantiate their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC!

Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives too!

What's left?

42 posted on 06/13/2002 3:02:59 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change.

You actually buy into this?

43 posted on 06/13/2002 3:07:52 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Truth will never change...your understanding is blubber-rubber-blather!
44 posted on 06/13/2002 3:10:17 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
your understanding is blubber-rubber-blather!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

45 posted on 06/13/2002 3:11:20 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: avenir
How clever, you switched the name of God with Allah.

What is the name of God, actually? Isn't "God" a title rather than a name?

Just asking... :)

46 posted on 06/13/2002 3:18:54 PM PDT by forsnax5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
bump
47 posted on 06/13/2002 4:05:00 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
Is the science cabal finally beginning to break up after about 500 years? Let's hope.

intelligent design

48 posted on 06/13/2002 4:16:03 PM PDT by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Is the science cabal finally beginning to break up after about 500 years? Let's hope.

Hope? You want the Dark Ages back? Just what is this "science cabal" of which you speak?

49 posted on 06/13/2002 4:20:30 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Yeah! Let's restore the good old times where the world was as we wanted it to be ;->
50 posted on 06/13/2002 4:42:11 PM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Normal science and inquiry is a set of beliefs that are shared by scientists who create paradigms and test hypotheses that fit into the paradigms rather than investigating alternative ways of looking at the universe. Scientists are essentially conservative (not the present day political/cultural sense!) who for the most part do not dare to go outside this paradigm and who control the means (financing) of maintaining the paradigm. If you are interested in the critique of science as an epistemiology you should take a look at Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution and Popper and others. According to Kuhn, "it is the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that define the puzzles that characterize normal science."

Thus the scientific establishment creates and perpetuates itself through organizations and PR monopolizing scientific funding.

51 posted on 06/13/2002 4:45:53 PM PDT by eleni121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Normal science and inquiry is a set of beliefs that are shared by scientists who create paradigms and test hypotheses that fit into the paradigms rather than investigating alternative ways of looking at the universe.

You should try to keep up with all the competing and conflicting theories that keep getting put forward in the field of cosmology. It will quickly change your mind.

52 posted on 06/13/2002 4:48:36 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
the scientific establishment creates and perpetuates itself through organizations and PR monopolizing scientific funding

There are two fronts of attack on the current scientific paradigms -- those from new and better theories, and those from crank theories.

The new and better theories eventually become the current paradigms -- when they can show they are not really crank theories. Consider it a temporary scientific purgatory. Unfortunately ID just hasn't made the cut and will dwell in the underworld forevermore.

53 posted on 06/13/2002 6:56:23 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
The existence of a deity is irrelevant in science.

As is science to meaningless life.

54 posted on 06/13/2002 8:29:36 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stanz
Glad I live far from Nebraska.

They are probably pleased as punch too. See we have total happiness.

55 posted on 06/13/2002 8:34:02 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
God Bless America.
56 posted on 06/14/2002 7:03:04 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Correction. Glad my kid grew up far from Nebraska. They would not have liked her either.
57 posted on 06/14/2002 8:20:24 AM PDT by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Another school board deep in the muck of idiocy.

It kinda makes you wonder how our society will maintain itself in a generation or two. Maybe that's why the future has no records from this time period.

Time to bring God back into the public forum openly.

58 posted on 06/14/2002 8:31:26 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
The existence of a deity is irrelevant in science.

Really? So tell us, how did the scientific laws which science discover arise? Who enforces those laws? How can there be scientific laws in a random occurring universe?

59 posted on 06/14/2002 10:14:28 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson