Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[MEGoody]

I don't see why evos would be afraid of including scientific facts in science books. But it seems that they are.

[VadeRetro]

goodseedhomeschool: Darwin himself said that in order for his theory to be true, we would find innumerable intermediate forms in the fossil record. Well? We are still waiting to find those innumerable forms. Where are they?

Here is but a sample. A much larger listing, but still covering only the vertebrates, The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.

Goodseed asked me earlier not to post directly to her. Thus she is not addressed. She was warned at the time that she would not be left free to post nonsense and go unrebutted. That's the danger in posting questions out loud for which there are answers you don't want.

[MEGoody]

"How does the fossil record not support evolution? The fossil sequences are what tipped researchers to the possibility of evolution in the first place."

Are you claiming that the theory of evolution was first proposed based upon examination of a series of fossils? If so, could you please let us know who that first theorist was and what fossils he/she examined?

[Junior]

What "scientific facts" would those be?

[f.Christian]

Ask rwp about it ... no philosophy is taught anywhere other than its own dept in schools --- purposefully too !

[exmarine]

When explaining the world to the rest of us, please be sure to refer to the God you speak of as the "Bible literalist's Christian God." Otherwise, 99% of the world won't understand or appreciate your sentiments.

Even you have to admit that beleving in any type of universal Creator/God other than a "literally real" one is a waste of time. God is either really real or really doesn't exist.

[VadeRetro]

I hadn't realized that the Southern Baptist Conference was founded over slavery.

So were the Southern Methodists.

[Junior]

No, the first inklings of what later became evolution came about by a comparative study of extent animals physiology. However, the nascent field of paleontology added impetus to the theory as researchers discovered that not all creatures were extent at the same time, and that animals with similar physiologies appeared in sequential order in the fossil record.

[MEGoody]

"What "scientific facts" would those be?"

Whatever scientific facts these groups would like to have included in the biology textbooks.

[MEGoody]

"No"

That's what I thought.

[whattajoke]

"Where does [goodseedhomeschool] get this [lazy Darwin] stuff" indeed. Goodseed claims to have read "Origin of Species."

Goodseed: "I consider him a philosopher but certainly not a scientist. This guy had too much time on his hands."

Fake Dr Hovind: "Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in the bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life"

Hovind also brushes off Darwin's Galapagos time as though it was a couple days looking at a couple birds. It's all on his site... the Lyell "Principles of Geology" stuff too.

Ok, this doesn't prove anything, or even make much of a cogent point. Pardon me, its just "MHO," but I simply can't believe the way-more-polite-than-me goodseedhomeschool read Darwin's work, let alone came up with stuff like him hating women and whatnot. It just doesn't add up.

(All Hovind material taken from here: http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=29 Scroll down to the Darwin part and let's see who can come up with the most lies and errors. The part about him becoming a south american satanic witch, which later led to his death, is quite awesome.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Even you have to admit that beleving in any type of universal Creator/God other than a "literally real" one is a waste of time. God is either really real or really doesn't exist.

One can believe in a "literally real" God without believing that Genesis is a "literally true" science book.

[exmarine]

ergo all creationists are first christians and creationism is a byproduct of christianity and therefore has no business meddling in secular public highschools? thanks for clearing that up!

NEODARWINISM is the ONLY politically mandated scientific theory I have ever heard of in this country.

The 1st amendment says govt. has no authority to restrict the free exercise of religion ANYWHERE. If my community wants to teach creationism because 95% of the community is Christian, then people like you and the govt. should butt out. The problem is that the govt has also violated the Establishment Clause by embracing atheism as the national religion - another Constitutional violation.

[whattajoke]

Logic dictates that if God created all things, including natural, physical and chemical laws and properties and all matter in all forms, then science has everything to do with God.

um, ok. so why bother with anything in any discipline any time at all, ever?

[exmarine]

One can believe in a "literally real" God without believing that Genesis is a "literally true" science book.

Any Christian who says that has big problems theologically. Here it is in a nutshell: If Genesis is just a story, then there was really no real Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin, therefore no need for a Savior to save people from the consequences of sin today, therefore, there is no need for Jesus Christ. I have not yet heard any good counter-argument to this problem. Throw out Genesis, throw out Christianity. Oh, I know there are PLENTY of churches who believe as you believe, but most of them are Christian in name only.

[exmarine]

um, ok. so why bother with anything in any discipline any time at all, ever?

Thank goodness that Newton, Copernicus, Farraday, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, Pasteur (all Christians) did not have that attitude. They were able to make their discoveries becuase of their Christian worldview - they saw the big picture - they began with the correct premise that an orderly God creates an orderly universe for our habitation - a universe that is rational can be understood.

[exmarine]

ergo all creationists are first christians and creationism is a byproduct of christianity and therefore has no business meddling in secular public highschools? thanks for clearing that up!

NEODARWINISM is the ONLY politically mandated scientific theory I have ever heard of in this country.

The 1st amendment says govt. has no authority to restrict the free exercise of religion ANYWHERE. If my community wants to teach creationism because 95% of the community is Christian, then people like you and the govt. should butt out. The problem is that the govt has also violated the Establishment Clause by embracing atheism as the national religion - another Constitutional violation.

[js1138]

I consider him a philosopher but certainly not a scientist.

I posted Darwin's bibliography on one of the now deleted threads. It covered about five screens. "Origin" represents about five percent of Darwin's published output. His volumes on barnicles are still in print and still standard references. Any modern biologist would be proud to have their name on them.

Now that you have been informed, I expect you to stop spreading this falsehood, unless you do not take the ten commandments seriously. Either that, or explain how the other 95 percent of Darwin's work is not science.

[donh]

I consider him a philosopher but certainly not a scientist. This guy had too much time on his hands.

All scientists that alter the existing paradigm have to be considered philosophers. And all of them have "too much time on their hands", by some measure or other. Any career that requires think time will have periods of apparent immobility.

He read the books of Charlie Lyell and others and took the next step. The influence of the other writers shows in his work. Had he never read Principle of Geology, I think the book may have turned out differently.

Lyell became one of Darwin's great champions and friends--pretty odd behavior for someone whose thunder you apparently think Darwin somehow stole, eh?

All scientists read the works of others and take the next step. That defines their job, pretty reasonably. Einstein was responding to observed problems in the experiments and theorizing of the likes of Maxwell concerning the unification of the electrical and magnetic forces, and the centuries old puzzle of the elevator in free fall--which, obviously, Einstein did not invent.

[kegler4]

"Oh, I know there are PLENTY of churches who believe as you believe, but most of them are Christian in name only."

So you have a mandate to determine which churches are REALLY Christian? Rather sanctimonious of you don't you think?