Here are some anomalies which lead to a designer conclusion:
Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
By WILL SENTELL
wsentell@theadvocate.com
Capitol news bureau
High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board.
If the disclaimer wins final approval, it would apparently make Louisiana just the second state in the nation with such a provision. The other is Alabama, which is the model for the disclaimer backers want in Louisiana.
Alabama approved its policy six or seven years ago after extensive controversy that included questions over the religious overtones of the issue.
The change approved Tuesday requires Louisiana education officials to check on details for getting publishers to add the disclaimer to biology textbooks.
It won approval in the board's Student and School Standards/ Instruction Committee after a sometimes contentious session.
"I don't believe I evolved from some primate," said Jim Stafford, a board member from Monroe. Stafford said evolution should be offered as a theory, not fact.
Whether the proposal will win approval by the full state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education on Thursday is unclear.
Paul Pastorek of New Orleans, president of the board, said he will oppose the addition.
"I am not prepared to go back to the Dark Ages," Pastorek said.
"I don't think state boards should dictate editorial content of school textbooks," he said. "We shouldn't be involved with that."
Donna Contois of Metairie, chairwoman of the committee that approved the change, said afterward she could not say whether it will win approval by the full board.
The disclaimer under consideration says the theory of evolution "still leaves many unanswered questions about the origin of life.
"Study hard and keep an open mind," it says. "Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth."
Backers say the addition would be inserted in the front of biology textbooks used by students in grades 9-12, possibly next fall.
The issue surfaced when a committee of the board prepared to approve dozens of textbooks used by both public and nonpublic schools. The list was recommended by a separate panel that reviews textbooks every seven years.
A handful of citizens, one armed with a copy of Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species," complained that biology textbooks used now are one-sided in promoting evolution uncritically and are riddled with factual errors.
"If we give them all the facts to make up their mind, we have educated them," Darrell White of Baton Rouge said of students. "Otherwise we have indoctrinated them."
Darwin wrote that individuals with certain characteristics enjoy an edge over their peers and life forms developed gradually millions of years ago.
Backers bristled at suggestions that they favor the teaching of creationism, which says that life began about 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible's Book of Genesis.
White said he is the father of seven children, including a 10th-grader at a public high school in Baton Rouge.
He said he reviewed 21 science textbooks for use by middle and high school students. White called Darwin's book "racist and sexist" and said students are entitled to know more about controversy that swirls around the theory.
"If nothing else, put a disclaimer in the front of the textbooks," White said.
John Oller Jr., a professor at the University of Louisiana-Lafayette, also criticized the accuracy of science textbooks under review. Oller said he was appearing on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, a Christian lobbying group.
Oller said the state should force publishers to offer alternatives, correct mistakes in textbooks and fill in gaps in science teachings. "We are talking about major falsehoods that should be addressed," he said.
Linda Johnson of Plaquemine, a member of the board, said she supports the change. Johnson said the new message of evolution "will encourage students to go after the facts."
No they are not. Evolution is totally materialistic, religion is the exact opposite.
Pitching explanations to the level of the audience is not "talking down", particularly in an elementary educational setting.
Yes it is and to use their age as an excuse for lying to them is totally despicable.
It has found design in the Universe:
Imagine that you are a cosmic explorer who has just stumbled into the control room of the whole universe. There you discover an elaborate "universe-creating-machine", with rows and rows of dials, each with many possible settings. As you investigate, you learn that each dial represents some particular parameter that has to be calibrated with a precise value in order to create a universe in which life can exist. One dial represents the possible settings for the strong nuclear force, one for the gravitationl constant, one for Planck's constant, one for the ratio of the neutron mass to the proton mass, one for the strength of electromagnetic attraction, and so on. As you, the cosmic explorer, examine the dials, you find that they could easily have been tuned to different settings. Moreover, you determine by careful calculations that if any of the dial settings were even slightly altered, life would cease to exist. Yet for some reason each dial is set at just the exact value necessary to keep the universe running. What do you infer about the origin of these finely tuned dial settings?
From: Stephen C. Meyer, "Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology.
Here are some anomalies which lead to a designer conclusion:
Absolute nonsense. A species is not 'whatever you want it to be'. That is not science. Science is about specific definitions. The elements are strictly specified for example as is everything else in science. Only evolutionists try to twist and turn definitions. The definition of a species is a group of organisms which can reproduce with each other and produce viable offspring. The evo definitions that a bird that sings a bit differently or has a different coloring is a new species is absolute garbage and shows the desperation of evolutionists that they have to twist everything to make their theory look legitimate.
Baseless assertion.
the impossibility of abiogenesis,
Does not constitute evidence FOR creation.
the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagella,
Shown to be incorrect. Still not evidence FOR creation.
the miracle of 100 trillion cells perfectly arising from a single one in a human being.
Personal incredulty. Not relevant.
Do you have any evidence IN FAVOR of your theory, or just highly suspect arguments against your own personal windmill? In other words, assume evolution has been totally discredited--pretend that evolution is wrong and that for the purposes of this exercise, everyone knows it. Now make a case for your own theory.
So, your entire life and experience is . . . static?
You have a table of all the possible configurations of off-by-one-molecule machines that fail to wiggle a flagellums' tail, however efficiently? No?-me-
You are asking your opponents to prove a negative. You are asking for the impossible and thus claiming victory. Our side, has given postive proof of its assertions, your side, the evolutionist/materialist side has only given rhetoric. The closest they have come to a plausible scientific explanation is the secretory system (which is likely also ID). But that only has half as many genes as the flagellum and leaves the problem unsolved.
Even if the birds depend on vocalizations and coloration to recognize potential mates?
Total balderdash. All you folk know how to say is that everyone says evolution is true. Science is based on evidence. Everythime I ask you folk to discuss the evidence you run away. Let's see the evidence, enough rhetorical nonsense.
Everything that has already happened to me cannot change. That which has not happened to me is not yet part of my life experience. And yet, at any given point in time, I will have experienced more than I had at any previous point in time. Gosh, that's deep.
This has what, exactly, to do with anything related to ID, creationism, or evolution?
Is this abandonment representative of evolution theory in general? Has it been challenged over time and accepted by the scientific community?
We are not talking equilibrium here, and anyway the equilibrium is that order disintegrates not that order arises at random. You materialists have the whole thing backwards.
You never fail to amuse. Any evidence presented is ignored, waved away, or classified as "just a bunch of bones."
Do your memories persist from day to day?
Of course it does. Irreducible complexity proves design and Darwin himself admitted that it would disprove his theory. (BTW - since there were no human designers when bacteria arose, guess Who that designer was?)
Don't let the evos get you upset. These folk just troll these threads insulting people and backing up each other's lies. One of their favorites is trying to say that someone has insulted them and then all start repeating it when it is they that invariably start the insults when proven wrong.
They are so dumb and such a wolf pack that they can sometimes be very amusing. On one thread I forgot to put the word 'no' in a sentence. In typical evo knee-jerk reaction they all tried to deny my statement and went post after post backing each other up. After I had had enough fun watching the foolishness, I finaly told them after some 50 posts that I had intended to deny the statement and had missed typing 'no'. I wish I could have seen their faces then!
Every circus needs a clown, on these threads we have the evos providing the amusement.
Evolution, Creationism, and Other Modern Myths: A Critical Inquiry
by Vine Deloria
About the Author
Vine Deloria, Jr., is a leading Native American scholar, whose research, writings, and teaching have encompassed history, law, religious studies, and political science. He is the former executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, a retired professor of political science at the University of Arizona, and a retired professor emeritus of history at the University of Colorado. He is the author of many acclaimed books, including Evolution, Creationism, and other Modern Myths, Spirit & Reason, God Is Red, Red Earth, White Lies, Power and Place: Indian Education in America, Custer Died for Your Sins, and Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties.
Vine Deloria, Jr. was honored at the 2002 National Book Festival on Oct 12, 2002. Vine also received the Wallace Stegner award from the Center of the American West in Boulder Colorado on Oct 23, 2002. This annual award is named after one of the most influential writers in the modern West.
DeLoria cannot easily be discounted as a Christian fundamentalist. He views all western religions as things to be avoided.
The entire article is found at this site.
A few excerpt from Introduction:
A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO the Kansas State Board of Education decided to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in its curriculum, setting off a brouhaha of no small proportions. Commenting on the case, Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould reminded us that Kansas has usually been associated with the land of Oz in our folklore and dogmatically declared evolution to be a "fact"—although his definition of a fact lacked certain logic in itself. Hordes of scientific Chicken Littles proclaimed the end of the intellectual enterprise, and school principals searched their classrooms for teachers who might be offering a critical analysis of Darwinism to minds as yet not fully shaped in beliefs approved by the scientific establishment. No matter that the bookstores were filled with volumes pointing out the flaws and frauds inherent in the present articulation of evolution.I followed this controversy with some fascination, since many well regarded thinkers have issued consistent and prolonged criticism of Darwinism for decades. The astounding thing about the uproar was the knee-jerk reaction among academics, most of whom could not have spoken intelligently on evolution for five minutes and who used examples that bore no resemblance whatsoever to evolutionary theory. I concluded that evolution had become a major tenet in our civil religion and, like patriotism and other generalities, was whatever anyone wanted it to be. More to the point was the realization that almost everyone involved in the debate had picked up their knowledge of scientific theory from The New York Times Sunday science section, Newsweek, or USA Today. When I turned to various "authorities:’ they seemed to know less than I did—about their own fields, in many cases.
Somehow that sounds like a lot of what I see in evolution debates on internet forums, including FreeRepublic.
I guess you claim you've never been unconcious. Well you've made a stellar attempt at insensibility on occasion.
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.