Skip to comments.
Charles Darwin Knew: Science and Freedom
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
| 1 Mar 04
| Charles Colson
Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 961-974 next last
Attention server elves: All hands prepare for crevo thread, I repeat, all hands prepare for crevo thread. That is all.
To: agenda_express; BA63; banjo joe; Believer 1; billbears; Blood of Tyrants; ChewedGum; ...
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping! If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
2
posted on
03/01/2004 1:03:30 PM PST
by
Mr. Silverback
(Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; Piltdown_Woman; RadioAstronomer; Ichneumon
Ping.
3
posted on
03/01/2004 1:05:11 PM PST
by
Junior
(No animals were harmed in the making of this post)
To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
4
posted on
03/01/2004 1:09:53 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(A compassionate evolutionist.)
To: Mr. Silverback
Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and others that are supposed to advance science are doing their best to suppress scientific information and stop discussion. What "scientific" information is being suppressed?
5
posted on
03/01/2004 1:12:29 PM PST
by
Shryke
To: Mr. Silverback
In late 2002, the Ohio Board of Education adopted science education standards that said students should know "how scientists investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory scientific theories. If the Ohio B of E was really interested in teaching kids about the scientific method, this is how the new science standards would read. However, by only focusing on TOE, their creationist slip is showing.
6
posted on
03/01/2004 1:17:10 PM PST
by
Modernman
("The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides)
To: Mr. Silverback
There is nothing currently scientific about intelligent design. That may change, but until then, ID has no place in a science classroom.
7
posted on
03/01/2004 1:18:17 PM PST
by
ThinkPlease
(Fortune Favors the Bold!)
To: Shryke
What "scientific" information is being suppressed? Three answers:
1. None yet, but they're trying. Did you even read the portion you quoted?
2. Read the article. The people who oppose this standard don't oppose it because it says, "Thou Shalt have Ken Hamm as a guest speaker," they oppose it because it is going to teach kids that scientists disagree about evidence and conclusions drawn from it. What does it say about someone when they're afraid kids might learn that scientists don't all think the same things about the same issues?
3. Short answer: Whatever the "National Academy of Sciences and others" thinks is a thoughtcrime.
8
posted on
03/01/2004 1:20:30 PM PST
by
Mr. Silverback
(Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
To: Mr. Silverback
even though it does nothing more than report criticisms of evolutionary theory that are readily available in scientific literature. I've got my popcorn. Let's see all the scientific criticism of evolution.
9
posted on
03/01/2004 1:21:58 PM PST
by
js1138
To: ThinkPlease
Where in the article does it say ID will be taught?
10
posted on
03/01/2004 1:23:16 PM PST
by
Mr. Silverback
(Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
To: Mr. Silverback
I'm going to report you to Tommy Thompson.
To: Mr. Silverback
Where in the article does it say ID will be taught? In the current plan, among the additional source material that is presented/recommended is links to creationist & ID wesbites & literature.
12
posted on
03/01/2004 1:31:14 PM PST
by
gdani
(letting the marketplace decide = conservatism)
To: Mr. Silverback
Where in the article does it say ID will be taught? It doesn't, because of course the article is trying to paint the scientists and educators as "intolerant", in an attempt to try to undermine their efforts to keep anti-science agendas out of the science classrooms. Thus it *avoids* mentioning the teaching of ID. But that's the intent of all the folks pushing for the "new" material. And you know it, so don't be coy.
An article in an Ohio newspaper states that the "suggested curricula" includes large portions of Wells' book, "Icons of Evolution", which is not only a plea for ID, but so fundamentally flawed and error-filled that the very notion of including it in a high school course is appalling.
To: Mr. Silverback
Only the Cult of Scientific High Priests are supposed to know that there are huge holes in evolution theory. All us unwashed peons are to simply accept the simplistic dogma, as taught in the publik skools, without question.
Huge grants are at stake here.
14
posted on
03/01/2004 1:34:56 PM PST
by
Seruzawa
(If you agree with the French raise your hand... if you are French raise both hands.)
To: PatrickHenry
... these students, and their teachers, may be prevented from even looking at the evidence -- evidence already freely available in top science publications. I'm going to assume here that Colson thinks the AiG website, The Genesis Flood, and Darwin's Black Box are "top science" publications.
To: Seruzawa
Only the Cult of Scientific High Priests are supposed to know that there are huge holes in evolution theory. Such hyperbole works only if you care to point out these so-called huge holes.
Unanswered questions? Yes. Huge Holes? What do you specifically mean?
16
posted on
03/01/2004 1:41:26 PM PST
by
gdani
(letting the marketplace decide = conservatism)
To: gdani
Explain to me how life can come from non-life.
17
posted on
03/01/2004 1:47:32 PM PST
by
roylene
To: Mr. Silverback
Have you read the proposed
lesson plan that is causing all the fuss in Ohio? It reads like Jonathan Wells' book, as well as including links to www.arn.org, and www.origins.org, which is a
Creationist website. The article might not mention it, but that's what Colson is talking about.
18
posted on
03/01/2004 1:49:02 PM PST
by
ThinkPlease
(Fortune Favors the Bold!)
To: js1138
I've got my popcorn. Let's see all the scientific criticism of evolution. Oh yeah, there hasn't been any criticism of current evolution theory except by radical, Bible-thumping Creationists...
Just by a biochemist at LeHigh...
...A Law professor at Berkeley...
...a guy from Baylor with doctorates in Math and Philosophy who did his postdoc at MIT, the University of Chicago and Princeton, has held National Science Foundation fellowships and taught at Northwestern and Notre Dame...
...and a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Otago in New Zealand.
Nope, nobody but preachers, flat-earthers, Bible College Basket-weaving Ministry grads and high school dropouts in there.
The reason evolution is coming under attack from people outside the scope of the Creationist movement is because evolution is such a bloody silly theory that rational scientific observors have reached a certain point: The point where they can no longer ignore evolutionists' religiosity in the face of the evidence.
19
posted on
03/01/2004 1:50:20 PM PST
by
Mr. Silverback
(Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
To: Mr. Silverback
I'm sorry, but your links don't seem to be working for me.
20
posted on
03/01/2004 1:51:49 PM PST
by
js1138
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 961-974 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson