Here's the fast For Dummies version of geological ordering:
Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) -
The long-running debate over the origins of mankind continues Wednesday before the Texas State Board of Education, and the result could change the way science is taught here and across the nation.
Local and out-of-state lobbying groups will try to convince the board that the next generation of biology books should contain new scientific evidence that reportedly pokes holes in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Many of those groups say that they are not pushing to place a divine creator back into science books, but to show that Darwin's theory is far from a perfect explanation of the origin of mankind.
"It has become a battle ground," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of theNational Center of Science Education, which is dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the classroom.
Almost 45 scientists, educators and special interest groups from across the state will testify at the state's first public hearing this year on the next generation of textbooks for the courses of biology, family and career studies and English as a Second Language.
Approved textbooks will be available for classrooms for the 2004-05 school year. And because Texas is the second largest textbook buyer in the nation, the outcome could affect education nationwide.
The Texas Freedom Network and a handful of educators held a conference call last week to warn that conservative Christians and special interest organizations will try to twist textbook content to further their own views.
"We are seeing the wave of the future of religious right's attack on basic scientific principles," said Samantha Smoot, executive director of the network, an anti-censorship group and opponent of the radical right.
Those named by the network disagree with the claim, including the Discovery Institute and its Science and Culture Center of Seattle.
"Instead of wasting time looking at motivations, we wish people would look at the facts," said John West, associate director of the center.
"Our goal nationally is to encourage schools and educators to include more about evolution, including controversies about various parts of Darwinian theory that exists between even evolutionary scientists," West said. "We are a secular think tank."
The institute also is perhaps the nation's leading proponent of intelligent design - the idea that life is too complex to have occurred without the help of an unknown, intelligent being.
It pushed this view through grants to teachers and scientists, including Michael J. Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The Institute receives millions of dollars from philanthropists and foundations dedicated to discrediting Darwin's theory.
The center sent the state board a 55-page report that graded 11 high school biology textbooks submitted for adoption. None earned a grade above a C minus. The report also includes four arguments it says show that evolutionary theory is not as solid as presented in biology textbooks.
Discovery Institute Fellow Raymond Bohlin, who also is executive director of Probe Ministries, based in Richardson, Texas, will deliver that message in person Wednesday before the State Board of Education. Bohlin has a doctorate degree in molecular cell biology from the University of Texas at Dallas.
"If we can simply allow students to see that evolution is not an established fact, that leaves freedom for students to pursue other ideas," Bohlin said. "All I can do is continue to point these things out and hopefully get a group that hears and sees relevant data and insist on some changes."
The executive director of Texas Citizens for Science, Steven Schafersman, calls the institute's information "pseudoscience nonsense." Schafersman is an evolutionary scientist who, for more than two decades, taught biology, geology, paleontology and environmental science at a number of universities, including the University of Houston and the University of Texas of the Permian Basin.
"It sounds plausible to people who are not scientifically informed," Schafersman said. "But they are fraudulently trying to deceive board members. They might succeed, but it will be over the public protests of scientists."
The last time Texas looked at biology books, in 1997, the State Board of Education considered replacing them all with new ones that did not mention evolution. The board voted down the proposal by a slim margin.
The state requires that evolution be in textbooks. But arguments against evolution have been successful over the last decade in other states. Alabama, New Mexico and Nebraska made changes that, to varying degrees, challenge the pre-eminence of evolution in the scientific curriculum.
In 1999, the Kansas Board of Education voted to wash the concepts of evolution from the state's science curricula. A new state board has since put evolution back in. Last year, the Cobb County school board in Georgia voted to include creationism in science classes.
Texas education requirements demand that textbooks include arguments for and against evolution, said Neal Frey, an analyst working with perhaps Texas' most famous textbook reviewers, Mel and Norma Gabler.
The Gablers, of Longview, have been reviewing Texas textbooks for almost four decades. They describe themselves as conservative Christians. Some of their priorities include making sure textbooks include scientific flaws in arguments for evolution.
"None of the texts truly conform to the state's requirements that the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories be presented to students," Frey said.
The Texas textbook proclamation of 2001, which is part of the standard for the state's curriculum, Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, requires that biology textbooks instruct students so they may "analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weakness using scientific evidence and information."
The state board is empowered to reject books only for factual errors or for not meeting the state's curriculum requirements. If speakers convince the state board that their evidence is scientifically sound, members may see little choice but to demand its presence in schoolbooks.
Proposed books already have been reviewed and approved by Texas Tech University. After a public hearing Wednesday and another Sept. 10, the state board is scheduled to adopt the new textbooks in November.
Satisfying the state board is only half the battle for textbook publishers. Individual school districts choose which books to use and are reimbursed by the state unless they buy texts rejected by the state board.
Districts can opt not to use books with passages they find objectionable. So when speakers at the public hearings criticize what they perceived as flaws in various books - such as failing to portray the United States or Christianity in a positive light - many publishers listen.
New books will be distributed next summer.
State Board member Terri Leo said the Discovery Institute works with esteemed scientists and that their evidence should be heard.
"You cannot teach students how to think if you don't present both sides of a scientific issue," Leo said. "Wouldn't you think that the body that has the responsibility of what's in the classroom would look at all scientific arguments?"
State board member Bob Craig said he had heard of the Intelligent Design theory.
"I'm going in with an open mind about everybody's presentation," Craig said. "I need to hear their presentation before I make any decisions or comments.
State board member Mary Helen Berlanga said she wanted to hear from local scientists.
"If we are going to discuss scientific information in the textbooks, the discussion will have to remain scientific," Berlanga said. "I'd like to hear from some of our scientists in the field on the subject."
At least I live in a specific state! There's no real question that Discovery Institute--if you don't know who they are, you didn't read the lead article--will target other states sooner or later.
I'm someone who objects to the dumbing down of science education in this country. I'm someone who has read Discovery Institute materials before and found them utterly bogus. Witness this paper on the Cambrian. An allegedly secular movement in science should not be borrowing creationist pamphlet arguments and creationist pamphlet standards of scholarship.
YOu have no say in what parents want to teach their children.
He didn't say he did. He just said that he hasn't seen any convincing argument that the textbooks really need changing.
I don't have any say on how France conducts itself, either, but I still have an opinion about how well I think they're doing it.
Is that clear enough now?
Creationists really don't care what YOU or any other darwinian elitist thinks should be in those textbooks in Texas.
And yet, creationists (including you, apparently) feel that everyone should care what *they* think should be in the textbooks. Double standard?
Do you live in Texas?
*I* do. Are you going to allow me an opinion, or are you now going to think of some other excuse to deny people the right to have an opinion that differs from yours?
Who do you think you are?
I think I'm someone who has the right to have an opinion and express it, and so is the person you're raging at for daring to (gasp) express his.
Oh please. I cut off nothing. I provided the first two paragraphs as an excerpt, and a link to the original article. That is a standard followed on FR, even when posting new threads.
As for the content of the article, I think it speaks for itself. If you are competent to shoot it down, I think you must be in the wrong profession.
As for the article not being "on" the site, what are all those links for, if they aren't recommended reading?
Here's the fast For Dummies version of geological ordering:
Well it would have been nice if he could have at least got his geneologies to match each other instead of leaving another of many condradictions in the bible
Regarding your alledged "contradiction" in #2283, here is the explanation from Faussets' Bible dictionary, just in case you really are interested:
GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST
Needed, to show that redemption was no afterthought, but designed from the first. Abraham and David, in Matthew's Gospel are singled out to prove the fulfillment in Christ, of the promises made to Abraham 2,000 years previously, and to David 1,000.
The Old Testament begins with "Genesis" ("generation"); so also the New Testament begins with the genesis ("generation," Matt 1:1) of Jesus Christ. Matthew's Gospel contains, not Joseph's direct ancestors, but the succession of heirs to David's and Solomon's throne.
The tracing of Christ's descent through Judah's royal line harmonizes with the kingly aspect of Jesus Christ in Matthew's Gospel.
The steps of Joseph's direct parentage did not coincide with those of the succession to the throne.
Solomon's line failed, and Nathan's and Neri's succeeded as legal heirs.
Hence the need of two genealogies, one (Matthew) of the succession, the other (Luke) of the parentage.
Jeremiah (Jer 22:30) declares Jeconiah, Coniah, or Jehoiachin was to be childless.
He cannot therefore have been lineal progenitor of Jesus Christ.
It is at this point in the genealogy, i.e. after Jehoiachin, the same names occur in both lists, Salathiel and Zerubbabel taken (in Matthew) from the line of Nathan (Luke) to supply the failure of Jehoiachin's issue.
The promise was, Messiah was to be "of the fruit of the loins of David" (Acts 2:30), but to Solomon only that "his throne should be established evermore" (1 Chron 17:14). So a double genealogy of Jair is given, one of the inheritance, the other of birth (1 Chron 2:4-5,21-22; Num 32:41).
Matthew appropriately, as writing for Jews, gives Christ's legal descent; Luke, for Gentiles, the natural descent.
Matthew downward, from Abraham the father of the Jews (naturally, but of the Gentiles also spiritually: Gen 17:5; Rom 4:16-17); Luke upward, to Adam, "who was the son of God" and the father of Gentiles and Jews alike.
The words "as was supposed" (Luke 3:23) imply that Christ's sonship to Joseph was only a reputed not a real one. Yet He was God's extraordinary gift to Joseph through his proper wife Mary, and the fruit of his marriage to her, not as natural offspring of his body but as supernatural fruit.
Hence attention is drawn to Joseph's being "son of David" (Matt 1:20), "of the house and lineage of David" (Luke 2:4, compare Luke 1:32).
Matthew omits three links of the pedigree. "Joram begat Ozias," i.e. Uzziah. But Joram really begat Ahaziah, Ahaziah Jehoash, Jehoash Uzziah.
If the two genealogies contained anything false or mutually contradictory, Christ's enemies would have convicted them from the public documents.
Clearly men in that day saw nothing irreconcilable in them.
From Abraham to David both agree, thenceforward the names differ. Luke has 42 names from David, Matthew only 27 names.
The less number in Matthew is intelligible, if he be only tracing the heir's to the throne; for "the heir of my heir is my heir."
So intermediate heirs are omitted without risk of misconception, for spiritual reasons; e.g., Simeon is omitted in Moses' blessing (Deut 33) on account of his cruelty, Dan in Rev 7 for his idolatry.
The full number is given in Luke, as naming the natural line.
Mary must have been of the same tribe and family as Joseph, according to the law (Num 36:8).
Isa 11:1 implies that Messiah was the seed of David by natural as well as legal descent. Probably Matthan of Matthew is the Matthat of Luke, and Jacob and Heli were brothers; and Heli's son Joseph, and Jacob's daughter Mary, first cousins. Joseph, as male heir of his uncle Jacob, who had only one child, Mary, would marry her according to the law (Num 36:8).
Thus the genealogy of the inheritance (Matthew's) and that of natural descent (Luke's) would be primarily Joseph's, then Mary's also.
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1998 by Biblesoft) 2,403 posted on 07/14/2003 8:07 PM EDT by HalfFull [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2283 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I dunno. Start with mandatory education, grades 1-12, and then we can consider the question of higher education. We'll never kill the beast overnight, but school choice is an excellent way to start.
You have to realize that this happens absolutely automatically for people with a well-established infestation of Morton's Demon. It's thus easy for them to assume it in others.
Thank you for researching this. It is painfully obvious that ALS has none no reading of original sources, is completely clueless about the content of his own website, doesn't even realize that it links to dozens of articles which, if actually read, support evolution. What is even funier is to read one of the original articles he links to, then read the "analysis", which invariably consists of taking quotes out of context, pretty much as ALS has done with his Darwin quotes.
I'll put it another way. You read a collection of science articles on an issue and think, "Well, about 20 points were discussed there and it comes down to about 18-2 on one side." Gore could read the same thing and say "Wow! Here's two new things I can use!"
I recognized and remembered the letter ALS was quoting from right off. It was only a matter of find the text on the interent.
Like ways to not know things. That's why you shouldn't be consulted on the state of our knowledge. There's no educating you, so you're not the choice for Ask Mr. Science Person (apologies to Dave Barry). You're also not the choice for science textbook selection.
The 8-foot limestone layer you see here was formed on the ocean bottom because...
Because there was nothing to prevent it at the time? Where are you even envisioning the difficulty here?
The 4-foot layer of sandstone that can be matched across the continent tells us the entire continent was a desert for x million years...
Begging the question here aren't you? What's the evidence that the entire continent was ever desert? Are you sure you're quoting a real scientist on this one?
This 3-foot deposit shows evidence that a river flooded locally...
Riverine deposits don't look like desert sandstone, ocean limestone, volcanic ash, or whatever.
This is a volcanic layer that is too expansive and we cannot explain...
Too expansive for what? How big are volcanic deposits allowed to be? There have been episodes of absolutely huge volcanism in the past.
You simply dodge that the figure I posted is representative of the complex geology to be found all over the world. It's not one single episode of deposition of any form whatsoever. It cannot reasonably be explained as such.
Are you going on record asserting that Darwin believed in and supported slavery?
You can object all you want, you still have no authority over anyone's children but your own. By the way, you are too late - the schools are already dumbed down.
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.