Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
With five seats on the State Board of Education up for grabs this year, education advocates say how children learn about evolution hangs in the balance -- and who voters choose could affect Kansas' national reputation.
A frequent flip-flop between moderate and conservative majorities on the 10-member board has resulted in the state changing its science standards four times in the past eight years.
Conservatives have pushed for standards casting doubt on evolution, and moderates have said intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom.
In 2007, a new 6-4 moderate majority removed standards that called evolution into question.
This year, none of the three moderates whose seats are up for election are running again. Only one of the two conservative incumbents is running for re-election...
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
Not to mention that truth has no place in science. (see coyoteman's homepage or posting history)
That being the case, one wonders what the hoopla is all about over the teaching of evolution from the evolutionists. If science isn't about truth, then there's no basis for saying that anybody else's theory, or even opinion, is not true. How can someone proclaim something as fact when they don't even know what truth is?
I was referring to the election, not global warming. Once more you have it wrong. But we've come to expect that.
ad·vo·cate
1. to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly:
So apparently we can assume that you do not advocate anything that you post, including this one? Kinda like speaking the 'truth', which you have publicly-stated and posted references from the most worshipful house of natural philosophy CalTech, is not the intent of science either. Or maybe not. I'm not sure that you ever really say anything at all.
So, between you not advocating the things you post and science not intending to communicate truth, why should anyone listen to anything you say? We could get as much from a random word-generator as we get from you.
"Lie: claiming that I don't have a Ph.D. You know nothing about my educational background."
Nobody ever said you didn't have a PhD. I believe that you have stated that you do. I don't *know* that you do or do not have a PhD. I only know that you *claim* to have one.
In post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1685030/posts?page=493#493 you said (or maybe not):
"I follow the scientific method, which has outlined a procedure for dealing with different kinds of evidence. I have studied those skulls at some length in grad school, as well as evolution (two of my four fields for the Ph.D. exams were human osteology and fossil man). Accordingly, I do not regard my opinions in this area as metaphysical but scientific."
Never mind the fact that you absurdly claim that your 'opinions in this area are scientific', I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you had your PhD. Maybe you don't.
"Lie: claiming that the theory of evolution depends on any of these. The theory of evolution stands independent of origins in spite of creationists' misrepresentations."
The ToE commits the fallacy of exclusion by avoiding origins. Origins should be included in evolution because it is important information that would undermine the ToE.
By claiming that origins is off-limits, science gets to avoid saying where the 'poof-zap' magic of space aliens/time-warping humans ended and 'evolution' began. Evolutionists avoid that distinction like the plague because, once admitted, there is no logical, intermediate defensible position that would distinguish it from biblical creation.
Unfortunately, that would expose the fact that 'evolution' is nothing more than adaptation, the starting point for life is way down the imaginary path and 'evolution' is falsified as a model.
I didn't lie or misunderstand your post. You did misrepresent mine though.
Precisely. Although, for some reason the very prospect of this causes Darwinists to run out in a panic and exchange their undergarments for diapers.
It would be very difficult to remove “darwinian assumptions”, because removing the assumptions causes the whole circular theory to collapse.
Evolution, in the macro sense (I throw that in there just to pss the evos off), is an extravagent extrapolation based on forcing a model on the evidence, and extrapolating based on current observations of “natural selection” and breeding.
Current observations support natural selection by causing EXISTING INFORMATION in the organisms’ makeup to be expressed.
Current observations do NOT support the extrapolation that one kind of organism can “evolve” into another.
==I was referring to the election, not global warming.
Then not are you on the wrong side of the debate, but you picked the wrong Gore analogy as well. You’re batting a thousand today Wiley.
Therefore, according to the ToE, humans evolved into beings who believe in a god who created everything.
The irony.
Do you consider estimates of the age of the Earth based on radioactive decay of Uranium to be "Darwinian"? How about the ice cores they're drilling out of the Antartic that they say go back 400,000 years by counting the seasonal layers in the cores? These have nothing to do with Darwin or evolution.
Do you have any idea how many competing theories there could be on any given issue? Basically, you're saying that if someone has a theory and some "evidence" not matter how ephemeral or disputed they get equal time in each and every classroom that addresses or mentions that particular scientific issue.
I LOVE IT!
If something can’t be explained by the theory, exclude it from the theory as irrelevant.
Like Steve Martin’s standup “How to have a million dollars and never pay taxes” - “First, get a million dollars, THEN...”
First, assume life, then evolution “works”.
BS
That being the case, one wonders what the hoopla is all about over the teaching of evolution from the evolutionists. If science isn't about truth, then there's no basis for saying that anybody else's theory, or even opinion, is not true. How can someone proclaim something as fact when they don't even know what truth is?
I've explained this to you at least a dozen times, but you simply are unable to learn.
For the lurkers, what this incorrect and dishonest post is in reference to a definition I have posted on my FR home page, and which I have posted periodically. This deals with the use of the word "truth" in science. It is from a CalTech website, so reflects more than just my opinion.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.While I have explained this a number of times, some folks refuse to listen, and repeatedly and dishonestly try to twist the meaning of the definition.
Lurkers, judge for yourselves.
==It would be very difficult to remove “darwinian assumptions”, because removing the assumptions causes the whole circular theory to collapse.
That’s my point. Either you remove Darwinist assumptions, or you allow those assumptions to be challenged by Creation/ID scientists in every case. Either way, Darwin’s ToE gets exposed for the unscientific fairytale it is.
Oh, it’s better than that!
Through random mutations accompanied by natural selection,
some “life” eventually became a being sentient enough to concoct such a theory, and HE TRUSTS HIS OWN REASONING!
This ping list is for articles of interest to homeschoolers. DaveLoneRanger has asked me to take over the management of this list. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping List. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added or removed from either list, or both.
Ice cores, assuming depth = age? Heard of the “missing squadron” of WWII planes that ended up in an ice layer “thousands of years old”?
What assumptions do you base your faith in radiometric dating on?
Purity of the original sample? Lack of contamination? No mechanical interference during decay?
What evidence do YEC geologists base their arguments on other than an attack on the validity of the scientific method?
As it all started with the Scopes trials. We've come a long way from simply making the teaching of evolution not illegal but no doubt that was the intent even then.
Seasonal variations in the composition of the ice produce "rings" that can be counted, like the growth rings in a tree.
I question your assumptions, not your “method”.
BTW, I see you have no answer for my challenge to your assumptions.
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.