Posted on 12/01/2007 12:39:07 PM PST by Alter Kaker
AUSTIN, Tex., Nov. 29 (AP) — The state’s director of science curriculum said she resigned this month under pressure from officials who said she had given the appearance of criticizing the teaching of intelligent design.
The Texas Education Agency put the director, Chris Comer, on 30 days’ paid administrative leave in late October, resulting in what Ms. Comer called a forced resignation.
The move came shortly after she forwarded an e-mail message announcing a presentation by Barbara Forrest, an author of “Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” The book argues that creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design theory taught in public schools. Ms. Comer sent the message to several people and a few online communities.
Ms. Comer, who held her position for nine years, said she believed evolution politics were behind her ousting. “None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses,” she said.
Education agency officials declined to comment Wednesday on the matter. But they explained their recommendation to fire Ms. Comer in documents obtained by The Austin American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act.
“Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that T.E.A. endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral,” the officials said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All you are doing is attacking "common origin", not evolution.
How funny that you should use the word "fallacy" in that post. Humans have been manipulating the natural world for thousands of years, doing artificially what nature does, you know, naturally. Suggesting that artificially creating life is an endorsement of I.D. is like saying that irrigation endorses the idea that rivers were carved out in a deliberate design instead of forming through natural processes.
Perhaps the one with the "logical problem" isn't me.
...................................what? That has nothing to do with the issue.
lol
The Young’s translation is a literal translation of the bible.
You can find it at http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=§ion=0&version=ylt&language=en
(Under “using” click on the drop down menu and scroll through to find Youngs.)
You can test your ideas with it.
Using the same link, you can go to the KJV with Strong’s Numbers or the NASB with Strong’s numbers and do word studies.
By the way, a TRANSLATION is a readable rendering in your language of another language which is as close to word by word as you can get.
An INTERPRETATION is an imminently readable rendering in which in which intent and/or theological choices are made by the interpretors.
What you are suggesting is an interpretation and not a translation.
If the word is most readily rendered “day” in other places and other times and other documents, then it would be rendered “day” in a bible translation. If one knows of an instance in which it symbolically represents a period of time, then it is a THEOLOGICAL choice to render it as “period of time.”
I’m not saying an interpretation is invalid. I just think a translation leaves it up to each reader to make those decisions for himself.
The Bible talks about the sun rising and setting, but never mentions that the earth revolves around the sun. It talks about God creating the land and sea, but never mentions plate techtonics. It speaks of matter, without discussing atomic theory. It talks about people getting sick, but never mentions the germ theory of disease.
Do you think maybe the Bible had a purpose other than a science book?
Would you claim that Evolutionary Theory could explain new transgenic lab species?
If not, then which theory best explains transgenics?
You did not consider point #3 in your above comment.
God doesn’t enter into a discussion on geology in the bible at all that I know of, nor one of meteorology, or of astronomy.
He does on origins of life and species. Origins was a subject clearly addressed. In fact, one book is called “genesis.”
No, because they have genes that don't fit within nested hierarchies, in complete contrast to all known natural lifeforms.
Have you found any details about whatever it is you've been claiming that corals and people, but not fish, have? Like for instance, is it found in flatworms, birds, mammals, molluscs, .... ???
I don't have all day to find counterexamples, so I will just point to two discussions of astronomy:
Ecclesiastes 1:5: "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."
Joshua 10:12-13: "Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; And thou, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."
No mention there that the earth revolves around the sun. I guess the heliocentric theory is non-Biblical. (The biblical scholars who tried Galileo certainly thought so.)
When you are having one of your lucid episodes, ask yourself which is more likely: All the factions in the evolution debate — mainstream science, ID, AIG, ICR — are in collusion to deny southhack the Nobel Prize for discovering code skipping; or perhaps southhack has misread something.
Genes out of place in a lineage would pose a problem, but first you have to have a lineage. Corals are not ancestors to humans, and modern fish are not intermediates between corals and humans.
And yes, claiming that because humans as an intelligent agent can design things that utilize DNA to make proteins means that all things that utilize DNA to make proteins are the product of a human intelligence is much the same as saying that because humans can make irrigation channels then all rivers were designed for irrigation.
You may have just broken the Free Republic record for most times to repeat yourself, and you’ve managed to do it on claims that have long since been debunked.
Somebody call Guinness (the beer and the record keeper)!
So do you claim that Intelligent Design explains transgenic species?
For the record, let's just ask the lurkers how many agree with you that modern fish are ancestors of humans. Or corals.
Or perhaps you can find a reference to code skipping somewhere besides your own posts?
Anywhere?
Science is not a popularity contest.
Nice try, though.
I'm not qualified to either make or refute that claim. I can say that our ability to engineer new life forms has no bearing on the validity of the Theory of Evolution or I.D.
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.