Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Battle over evolution heating up
News 8 Austin ^ | 8/20/2003 | Antonio Castelan

Posted on 08/20/2003 6:24:57 PM PDT by new cruelty

The debate continues over what information Texas biology books should present.

The Texas Board of Education is looking to pick the best science book for students.

Members of a campaign called "Stand Up For Science'' said it's meant to protect the accurate teaching of evolution in Texas high school biology textbooks.

The push was unveiled on Wednesday by some religious leaders, scientists and parents. It comes as the state Board of Education prepares to adopt new biology textbooks this fall.

Terry Maxwell, a professor of biology at Angelo State University, doesn't believe creationism should be in biology textbooks.

"Science uses evidentiary reasoning and it uses no other approach," he said.

Creationists generally believe earth was formed supernaturally by God.

Reverend Tom Hegar said while he believes in God's powers, those ideas need to stay at home or in the church.

"Faith and science are complimentary. Don't use faith to build your science. Don't use science to try to destroy or shrink my faith," he said.

Seattle-based Discovery Institute believes the theory of intelligent design should be in Texas biology books. According to the Institute, intelligent design is the hypothesis that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Science backers say that's the same thing as creationism.

"Textbooks should fix embarrassing factual errors and tell students about the scientific weakness of neo-Darwinism as well as its strengths," Discovery Institute officials stated in a faxed memo.

Maxwell said two different ideologies make it harder for students to learn science.

"If you interject ways of knowing other than the way science is practiced by mainstream science you confuse children," he said.

Austin biology teacher Amanda Walker said evolution is the cornerstone for understanding the living world, and influences medicine such as prostate cancer, heart disease and AIDS.

The evolution proponents also criticized what they said are attempts to teach creationist theories.

The Board of Education can reject books because of errors or failure to follow the state curriculum.

The board will make its final decision on the biology textbooks in November.

People have until Thursday, Aug. 21, to sign up to speak at the final public hearing Sept. 10.

In July, the first public hearing brought 42 speakers who offered their opinions at the public hearing on biology, but only half of them were familiar with the particular books.

Board member Gail Lowe said then she was disappointed that many of the people who testified for or against certain textbooks hadn't actually read them.

"They seem to be here to express a viewpoint, but it doesn't seem to relate to the textbooks we're actually considering," she said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: biology; creation; crevolist; evolution; scienceeducation; textbooks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-239 next last
To: whattajoke
The relation is; unless you are an ardent atheist..you also believe in creation...you 'creationist'!
141 posted on 08/21/2003 2:01:54 PM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
you expect folks to know the difference between scio, cogno, and credo?
142 posted on 08/21/2003 2:08:31 PM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: gdani
"The Nation of Islam believes that the white race is the result of an alien scientist's experiment gone awry. Shall we include that one?"

If they can get the alien scientist to show up for show 'n tell, I'd say go for it. :-)

I've noticed a tendency to use kooky ideas as a foil / scare tactic to reject introduction of mainstream religious ideas.
Nice debating tactic, but not practical pedagogy. Go with the main ideas that have influenced actual western civilization, seems a clear enough rule I'd say.
143 posted on 08/21/2003 2:18:34 PM PDT by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
happy placemarker
144 posted on 08/21/2003 2:22:25 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
you expect folks to know the difference between scio, cogno, and credo?

Est semper spes.

145 posted on 08/21/2003 2:26:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
sed est numquam expectes ;)
146 posted on 08/21/2003 3:01:36 PM PDT by King Prout (people hear and do not listen, see and do not observe, speak without thought, post and not edit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: new cruelty
Battle over evolution?

This one's in the bag.
As far as I know, the monkeys may have troops, but they don't have any guns.

147 posted on 08/21/2003 3:03:53 PM PDT by dogbrain ("Life is hard son. It's harder if you're stupid.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbrain
They have ... lost ((link)) --- a big one."

"They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly."

"That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout."

148 posted on 08/21/2003 3:29:26 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
goes along its merry way, being scientific

Only when it is able to demonstrate its conclusions. It (science) has not been able to demonstrate evolution, hence, the debate.

Seriously, if you were correct, there would not be so much controversy. The fact is that even experts are merely "guessing."

149 posted on 08/21/2003 4:04:04 PM PDT by hoosierskypilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: hoosierskypilot
Only when it is able to demonstrate its conclusions. It (science) has not been able to demonstrate evolution, hence, the debate. Seriously, if you were correct [that goes along its merry way, being scientific], there would not be so much controversy. The fact is that even experts are merely "guessing."

In a very loose sense of the word, every scientific theory is a "guess." But a well-informed guess, which is something very far from a wild shot in the dark. Scientific theories are designed to be explanatory models for the data they purport to explain. Any scientific theory must be testable. It should make predictions. (Neither of these applies to creationism.) If a scientific theory fails to survive such a test, it will be revised, or even disgarged. As long as a theory continues to provide a useful explanatory model, consistent with the data, it will be regarded as a good scientific theory.

You may find these articles helpful. The first is short. The second is much longer, but loaded with information on this issue:
Is Evolution Science?.
29 Evidences: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

150 posted on 08/21/2003 5:06:24 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
What does ID predict, and how can it be falsified?

Please read the links I provided.

151 posted on 08/21/2003 5:48:30 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: =Intervention=
The only proponents of Creationism are the boogeymen who live inside of evolutionist's minds. Why is that?

What is that?... 'The Boogeyman in the evolutionists' minds, etc.?'

Because, as I've stated endlessly, Creationism is a pejorative term invented by evolutionists...Help me out here, I'm having trouble getting your gist.

152 posted on 08/21/2003 6:11:43 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Almondjoy
Not sure what this means....
153 posted on 08/21/2003 6:13:43 PM PDT by thulldud (It's bad luck to be superstitious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
That's what evolution is; alchemy. Lead to Gold. Algae to Ecosystem. Something from Nothing. Too much faith for me!
154 posted on 08/21/2003 6:39:37 PM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: TheAngryClam
I'd contribute to stand up for science.

Then you should be opposed to evolution, it is not science. There is tons of Evidence Disproving Evolution , as well as many Amazing Creatures which in no way could have evolved as evolution claims. There are also plenty of reasons to say Bye, Bye Darwin.

155 posted on 08/21/2003 6:50:36 PM PDT by gore3000 (ALS - Another good Christian banned from FR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
People who believe that God created the earth in some amount of days don't call themselves Creationists! Sure, there are a few who have adopted the term, but the term is a pejorative belittling term created by scientists to disparage such adherants to the idea.

156 posted on 08/21/2003 7:45:25 PM PDT by =Intervention= (Moderatism is the most lackluster battle-cry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
I did examine the sites via the links provided by you. I will continue to examine them, but this far I have not located any description of what ID predicts nor any falsification criteria for it.
157 posted on 08/21/2003 7:57:00 PM PDT by Dimensio (Sometimes I doubt your committment to Sparkle Motion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: =Intervention=
I'm a scientist and I didn't know.
158 posted on 08/21/2003 8:10:30 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
But atheistic evolution purports to be fact, not a "guess." And any who challenge the "facts" concerning evolution are dismissed as unscientific.

Richard Goldschmidt (Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist American Scientist) says, "The incessant repetitionof this unproved claim (of micromutational evolution), glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not easily swayed by fashions of science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine."

I still contend it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God. But, if evolutionists were honest about the shortcoming of their religion, maybe there could be more honest dialogue.

159 posted on 08/21/2003 8:29:37 PM PDT by hoosierskypilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: hoosierskypilot
But, if evolutionists were honest about the shortcoming of their religion, maybe there could be more honest dialogue.

Talk about begging the question!!

160 posted on 08/21/2003 8:36:14 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 221-239 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson