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 ...
Isn't it obvious? They know they have no scientific leg to stand on. Look what Creation and ID scientists have done to discredit Darwin's fairytale while being excluded from the scientific debate...can you imagine what will happen if public science institutions have to dispassionately present both sides! In short, they're doomed, and they know it.
Oh, I accept “natural selection” as a fact, experimentally it can be repeated. Heck, the evidence is, well, evident. Just look at the wolf, the dachshund, and the poodle, the horse, the donkey, and the zebra, on and on.
However, observing this is entirely consistent with the original “kind” having all the genetic information necessary to produce all the variants of that kind.
No one said you do not have a PHD. You have posted those 5 hypotheses probably a few hundred times, and now you run away from them, throw them under the bus Mr. NobamaCoyote.
About your five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life/forms. So these statements of yours, is your scientific assessment?
Are you still sticking to that geocentric universe nonsense?
How many other scientists have been denied the opportunity to present their evidence? Those students have a finite amount of class time to devote to science.
There must be thousands of scientists who are being denied the opportunity to "present their evidence".
Okay, so what is the big deal about being wrong on evolution? How is it worse than getting the phases of the moon wrong? Or thinking that bronze oxidizes green like copper? Or having conflicting statements in the same paragraph? How can one error be judged so much more stringently when a survey of texts concludes:
Not one of the books we reviewed reached a level that we could call "scientifically accurate" as far as the physical science contained therein. The sheer number of errors precludes such a designation. [Source]
So the big deal about this must be anti-religious sentiment. A lawyer should take on the case and present the sheer number of very obvious scientific errors, along with outdated and discredited theories currently being presented as fact in scientific texts the UC system accepts. It would be a pretty easy religious discrimination case.
I didn’t figure that one was even worth addressing...
you must.
A geocentric model and its equations violated the elegance that other scientists saw in Creation, and therefore, a different model was proposed and shown to be valid and correct.
BTW, this is another example of where scientists were wrong. But, for some reason, they’re right today about evolution and the age of the universe.
The Catholic Church never really stated that the heliocentric model was a threat to scripture.
Their objection was that someone outside the church was commenting on Creation - ie, stepping on their toes. It was a political fight, not a scripture vs science fight.
Is anybody still using these textbooks? The newest one listed was published eight years ago.
==And there was a time when the Majority of the People believed that the earth was flat.
Which is the equivalent of what the Temple of Darwin believes now.
==Only of fool would want scientific questions determined by majority rule.
Very true. But then again, only a fool would let scientific questions be determined by a crazy clique of Darwinian religious fanatics either. Their is only two solutions. Either let both sides be heard in our public schools and science institutions, or get the government out of the science business altogether, and return science to the private sector. Personally, I would prefer the latter.
If you trace the origins of the ACLU, you'll find that it is a communist founded organization. Then, look at the "Communist Goals for America" - destruction of religion is one of the main goals, as is destruction of the family.
In our court system, however, religious discrimination only ratchets against Christianity. It rarely slips the other way.
You never had an 8 year old textbook in high school? Here is a more recent article from the author. He notes that newer revisions tend to add rather than reduce errors.
==There must be thousands of scientists who are being denied the opportunity to “present their evidence”.
How many scientists are allowed to present the evidence that refutes Darwin’s ToE in our public schools and universities?
Yes, "discrimination" tends to be a code word bludgeon against white male Christians.
Probably not a lot. There's probably thousands more scientists with pet theories and evidence that refute other theories that are currently accepted and they don't get to either. Do they all get equal time?
==Probably not a lot. There’s probably thousands more scientists with pet theories and evidence that refute other theories that are currently accepted and they don’t get to either. Do they all get equal time?
There’s only two possibilities, life arose through blind chance processes, or life was designed. The evidence for and against both perspectives should be presented.
Okay. So basically you’re proposing they make the case there there really isn’t any such thing as a good science textbook, so there’s no basis to say ours is bad?
I think you misunderstand. When the next school board decides it a good idea to teach intelligent design, the ACLU will represent the opposition, win the case, and the state or the school board will pick up the legal fees.
Teaching ID is as good as donating to the ACLU.
It's not possible that the Universe was designed so that under the right circumstances, life could arise and appear to be a result of random processes?
I forget. What is the scientific evidence that life was designed. Describe the attributes of the designer. When did it happen and how was it implemented. Describe the scientific evidence for your theories.
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.