Skip to comments.A column about Kansas Science Standards
Posted on 11/14/2005 8:06:26 AM PST by Exigence
click here to read article
And amazingly, he doesn't seem to understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (or he deliberately distorts it - I'm not sure which).
What you stated is basically how I unserstand evolution, I was just amazed by the article's statement: We want to differentiate between the genetic capacity in each species genome that permits it to change with the environment as being different from changing to some other creature.
And was curious how they could define a "genetic capacity" when one of the things evolution could do is change the "genetic capacity", and what would regulate such "permission to change" if such permission is contained in DNA and thusly could itself be changed ...
Just not a particularly good one, it seems.
Are you saying that the link provided in the article to the State of Kansas website has to be provided by a neutral source? You're kidding, right? Sheesh...
This is truly classic!
What excerpt? I posted the entire text. Check the link!
Any specific citations? This would be more effective than an apocryphal reference. I'm all for peer-reviewed literature being used in the context of proper science education. I'm aware of none that exists supporting ID or creationism.
I'll be back in a sec.
Or, perhaps, try the URL in the article I posted. I'm beginning to think no one reads before they comment. *g*
Ah, yes, a real conservative. We should shut down private schools and home schools, too, eh? Pardon, but your rampant liberalism is peeking through... Don't you hate that when that happens? lol
I think you might be confusing Gish with Henry Morris - he's a hydraulic engineer, I believe.
Yes, it does. Thank you. *g*
The "five words" bit is also a thoroughly dishonest representation of the changes made to the Kansas standards. There's also a bit tossed in asserting that the fossil record does not support evolution.
This might surprise Behe, who is on record in "Darwin's Black Box" and under oath in court saying that the fossil record does support evolution.
I believe that is "Dr." Abrams to you... but, why bother with facts. *g*
Ah, the old bait and switch. I was talking about evolution and criticism thereof. What are you talking about? It seems some agenda, because the focus keeps slipping.
The foreign journals are just as atheistic, materialist, Satanic, blah! blah! blah! as those with their HQs in the US. If there was a body of "foreign" research contradicting the preponderance of opinion in US science, it would be all over these threads and we'd have been talking about it for years now.
Yes, you named no one, but I am familiar with the antievolution arguments and who makes them. And the preponderance of opinion in science is not anything you want it to be. That and not the personal attachments of state or local school board members should be reflected in the preparation of educational materials.
I see... well, glad to see that you're man enough to admit you hadn't read the article and can't see the URL unless it's linked. That certainly warrants some name calling, doesn't it? Well, then, back to talking to the reasonable and intelligent... lol
BTW, is school out today?
Okay, is that what this row was all about? A clause in science standards mandating criticism of origin-of-life theories? Any of the Kansans are yahoos (in Swift's sense, not subscribers to a certain on-line company) crowd have some missing quotations from the Kansas BOR standards to show otherwise?
Origin of life theories are so far from being settled science that any teaching of them without criticisms would be an erosion of science education.
I beg to differ, but those who toss the word "lie" around so casually can probably substantiate their claims, right?
It was early in October
When I was far from sober
And hauling home a load with manly pride,
When my feet began to stutter,
So I tumbled in the gutter
And soon a pig was seated by my side.
Then I warbled "It's fair weather
When good fellows get together,"
'Till a lady passing by was heard to say,
"You can tell a man who boozes
By the company he chooses."
And the pig got up and slowly walked away.
No bait and switch. I was asking for citations for peer-reviewed literature that criticize the general validity of evolution. You still haven't provided any.
Till then, I see no reason to introduce scientific critiques that don't exist into a school curriculum...
> I see the distinction.
Clearly you do not. Please return to grade school for a refresher course.
...why bother with facts....
Dr Abrahms didn't in the article posted.
> We should shut down private schools and home schools, too, eh? Pardon, but your rampant liberalism is peeking through...
Again, seek help on obtaining at least a minimal education. You are embarassing yourself. You can't even do a decent ad hominem attack.
Origin of life is not evolution.
Only the whack jobs are still contesting common descent and whether evolution happens at all. The Kansas Board is in this latter territory.
Can two members of the opposite sex was implied, obviously.
It is the same mentality that would pictures the start of a marthon, the middle, and the end just see a bunch of steps and no journey.
|The CrevoSci Archive
Just one of the many services of Darwin Central
"The Conspiracy that Cares"
CrevoSci threads for the past week: CrevoSci Thread Count, 2005 YTD: 1094
CrevoSci Thread Count, 2005 YTD: 1094
1999-11-22 Blood of Tyrants
1997-11-28 cd jones
2000-11-02 Exit 109
2004-11-03 Grey Rabbit
2000-11-04 harbinger of doom
2000-11-28 HiTech RedNeck
2002-11-17 Just mythoughts
2003-11-18 little jeremiah
2000-11-19 Mike Fieschko
2004-11-24 mista science
2003-11-17 Nathan Zachary
2000-11-10 Patriotic Teen
Lost CrevoSci Battlefields (Pulled Threads)
Glossary of Terms
Assumption: Premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Belief: Any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Crevo: Creation vs. evolution
CrevoSci: Creation vs. evolution/Science
CrevoSci Warriors: Those who take part on CrevoSci threads
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Fact: When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Freepday: The day a Freeper joined Free Republic
Hypothesis: A tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Impression: A vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Law: A generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Observation: Any information collected with the senses
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
of Darwin Central
No, I am sying "you are hardly a neutral source"
You suggested that reading the article which contained a link would be sufficient.
If you had said "go to the link" I would not have had to point out that you are hardly a neutral source.
I'm not following what you mean by this ... could you clarify your statement?
Origin of life is not evolution.
Actually "another" might be better than opposite. Some critters have breeding strains that function about the same way as sexes. Schizophyllum commune, a fungus, has 28,000.
Basically, this guy is preaching "micro-evolution" because all he sees is a single step, and intentionally refuses to see the evidence of a series of "steps."
He doesn't have (or refuses to use, more likely) the mental ability to see how multiple small changes can accumulate to create something completely different.
It is akin to seeing hand drawn animation frames not running through the projector and not seeing how one can have motion --- just a bunch of pictures, each slightly different.
Okay, thanks ... I keep hoping for explanations from "the other side" though ...
We're keeping it simple. Think vertibrates.
I like fungi. They're not mentioned in Genesis. That might mean they don't exist.
But, we can be sure it's not "REAL" (wink, wink) chemistry and biochemistry...right?...
I'm sure Gish did the chemistry and biochemistry to get his degree (from Berkeley, I believe), and probably did very good work as a graduate student.
What peer-reviewed work has he published since then, is the real question. I'd be glad to give the man credit for any work he has done that has been published in referred journals - that's how scientific credibility works. As far as his rants about evolution, they really don't have much scientific relevance if they don't directly reflect actual accomplishments in science.
Well it works like this. First you decide you don't like the idea of one type of animal turning into another type. Then you decide to draw the line at species because...well because you have heard the word species and that sounds like it will do.
That's it - sorry
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.