Posted on 02/05/2005 11:37:51 AM PST by gobucks
ELKTON - Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants have taken a lashing here lately.
With the Cecil County Board of Education about to vote on a new high school biology textbook, some school board members are asking whether students should be taught that the theory of evolution, a fundamental tenet of modern science, falls short of explaining how life on Earth took shape.
*snip*
The politically conservative county of about 90,000 people bordering Pennsylvania and Delaware is joining communities around the country that are publicly stirring this stew of science, education and faith.
*snip*
At the Board of Education's regular monthly meeting Feb. 14, the five voting board members are scheduled to decide whether to accept the new edition of the book and might discuss Herold's call for new anti-evolution materials in addition to the book.
*snip*
The consensus in mainstream science, represented in such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, was, in effect, captured in 31 pages of text and illustrations published in November in National Geographic magazine. In big red letters, the magazine cover asks: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" In bigger letters inside, the answer is: "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."
*snip*
Joel Cracraft, immediate past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, compared the scientific agreement on evolutionary theory to "the Earth revolving around the sun."
*snip*
Then there's the matter of teaching the meaning and method of good science.
"The issue is science," Roberts said. "What is science, and, if there's a conflicting view, does it meet the rigor of science we're seeking?"
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
"Hmm.. A slight clarification: If the concept of God is an invention of humanity then any concept attributed to God is also an invention of humanity."
Does not follow. If you have a bunch of things in a bucket and someone takes away the bucket. It does not follow that all those things will automatically fall into the same new bucket.
Consider the question: "Would there be a God if there were no Men?"
The state with God does not have a good track record either.
Good question. I honestly couldn't say. At a guess, I'd give it day five or six, but I'm not sure.
No, my question refers to Creation. When were fungi created?
Right before Man decided to make the first cheese.
That you are trying to turn my distinction into a generalization only further demonstrates your own fundamental dishonesty.
Well said.
Of course, it begs the question of why the anti-science posters on the crevo threads fall into the latter category. My guess is that your ordinary run-of-the-mill creationist couldn't care less about defeating that imaginary evil-science bugaboo.
To the best of my knowledge sea grapes are a kind of animal.
Photo in #139
The Torah does not attempt to explain how God created--it just says he made it and there it is.
And you, in turn, attack those who do not conflate science and theology.
Bravo! You seem to have a keen eye for hypocrisy!
The classic example of the irreducible complexity is the human eye. An eye is of no use unless all its parts are fully formed and working together.
VERY UNTRUE. But you have heard all the arguments against you so no need to repeat them.
Everyone, including you knows that plants that are sensitive to light turn toward the light and shutdown respiration come night.
At a guess, I'd give it day five or six, but I'm not sure.
Do you really--literally--believe that the living world was created in 6 days?
Sometimes I think the creationists are actually from DU and come here just to rile us up and waste our time.
"In a public university, the only people receiving salaries as part of direct costs are those of us on 9 month contracts, where we can draw up to 3 months summer salary from grants. People on 12 month contracts (e.g. ag. schools) don't get any salary from the feds.
This amounts to another sub-fraction of the 10%. So much for your 'Scientists are overwhelmingly paid by government grants, not student tuition money.'.
Telling untruths out of negligence or wanton disregard for the truth is lying."
I was going to wade in on this one, but since you were there, I decided to let you answer. You did a great job, but........
Government is much more pervasive than direct salaries. A lot of that overhead is recycled down to Departments in the form of equipment and small grants to support this and that. But the worst part, is the peer review of grants that forces scientists into research areas that are "approved" by the NSF, NIH, DOE, EPA, etc. That effect is quite serious, IMHO. Government Scientist is an oxymoron, and especially in the Life Sciences, government scientists are typically an inferior lot. So we have this inferior lot leading around the best brains in the business. It's not awful, but our progress could have been much greater if they would get out of the way.
I am a microbiologist and have been in the middle of this - how do you fit?
I have found the creationist Christians the worst offenders when it comes to bearing false witness.
Impossible to enlighten you. But if you spent less money at the creationists websites and more on formal education, you might learn something other than the dumb statements that you repeat.
For coming here. It is always good to have another straight thinker here to help counter the stupid creationists.
Not in my copy of Genesis. You can stretch ferns and mosses as seed bearing plants even though they're not, but fungi aren't plants at all.
For some of them, that is 100% true.
And some of them don't even realize it.
"Scientists are overwhelmingly paid by government grants"
"Science is what liberal democrats use to spread godlessness"
"Science and reason are antithesis (sic!) to Darwinism"
"Most diehard evolutionists know that at root, ToE gives a free pass for all immoral acts, especially sexual ones"
"Are you a leftist science teacher"
"Evolution is a constant state of evolving while our lives are actually dying"
"Why is it that the shaded deliverance of evolution is tolerated"
"If a fis develops lungs...... it drowns"
Man, the mush heads are out in full force tonight.
BTW do you have a link that deals with the "up" in evolving? Gould use to very persuasively argue that evolution is not about up or down or higher or lower. After a trilobite was perfectly adapted for its environment for many millions of years. Is it not as well evolved as Man?
Sorry, I believe God created the heavens and the earth. Don't know how and don't really care.
incurable ... your word. Implies 'cure', and 'cures' are used for diseases.
Guess your metaphor is not to your liking. I suggest you be more effective in your future choices.
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.