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

Skip to comments.

Anticreationism legislation in Wisconsin
National Center for Science Education ^ | 08 February 2006 | Staff

Posted on 02/09/2006 4:08:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 521-534 next last
To: PatrickHenry

A squirt bottle of acetone is quite effective if you're a good shot.


41 posted on 02/09/2006 7:21:24 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Can the big bang theory, string theory, and plate tectonics be evaluated via the scientific method?

Are "the big bang theory, string theory, and plate tectonics" supernaturalistic pseudoscience?

42 posted on 02/09/2006 7:28:54 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JHBowden

The FSM will show his wrath at having been excluded. So grab your parmesan and head for the hills.


43 posted on 02/09/2006 7:34:21 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Baxter4562
Scientifically speaking creation and evolution are both theories.

Creation is only a scientific theory if you have absolutely no concepetion or comprehension of what a scientific theory is.

44 posted on 02/09/2006 7:39:56 AM PST by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Looks like an attempt by religious atheism to shut out inquiry and debate.

More like an attempt to honestly define science by the realistic parameters within which it is actually practiced by trained professionals and to keep superfluous politics away from the essential core principles of a quality science curriculum.

It's good to see the push for quality science education on the offensive instead of the defensive for once.

45 posted on 02/09/2006 7:41:50 AM PST by Quark2005 (Creationism is to science what the 1967 production of 'Casino Royale' is to the James Bond series.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
It's good to see the push for quality science education on the offensive instead of the defensive for once.

It's kinda like a "no Ebonics" rule for English class. O how insensitive!

46 posted on 02/09/2006 7:48:16 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Cold fusion -- teach the controversy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ironwoodchuck; SeeSalt; R.W.Ratikal; TXnMA; Jacquerie; fishtank; kittymyrib; Baxter4562; ...
What is it with you folks? You post a little bumper-sticker comment to the effect that evolution (1) equals atheism, (2) equals communism, (3) has no supporting evidence, and/or (4) is "just a theory," and when you are asked to explain your comments, or when the explicit nonsense in your comments is pointed out, you vanish.

How about defending your position? Or is articulate defense a nonexistent skill in this age of "sound bite discourse"?

47 posted on 02/09/2006 8:00:51 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I suspect they're trying to smoke out some Republicans to oppose this. If they do, then they push the ball down the field in attempting to paint Republicans as ignorant mouth breathers.


48 posted on 02/09/2006 8:03:29 AM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

wiscon-SINNER


49 posted on 02/09/2006 8:06:01 AM PST by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
[ For lots of fun and fireworks, I wonder if we could turn the atheists' attack toward the other religion that is trying to eliminate all opposing views (Islam)? ]

Only way to attack atheism and islam at the heart, is to attack ALL religion as irreligious..

To wit; Jesus came to make all religion obsolete, AND DID..

He must've known then that all religion would one day blurr into an amorphous uniformity.. and a convoluted mess.. Theres really not much difference between an atheist and worshipping a God that ain't God.. Whats the difference.. I say they know at a deep level each other, and are allies against the real God..

50 posted on 02/09/2006 8:06:14 AM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

your fsm has been boiled way way past the al dente point. tis a choice for its followers whether or not to follow suit in eternity.


51 posted on 02/09/2006 8:07:14 AM PST by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone

And my point is made in flashing neon by a drive-by poster. Sheesh.


52 posted on 02/09/2006 8:10:27 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone

When you get whacked upside your haid with a meatball, you'll change your tune.


53 posted on 02/09/2006 8:11:29 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: narby
I suspect they're trying to smoke out some Republicans to oppose this.

One can only hope that Wisconsin has a few Barry Goldwater-type conservative Republicans who surprise the opposition. Can't say I know the cast of characters in this one.

54 posted on 02/09/2006 8:13:28 AM PST by Quark2005 (Creationism is to science what the 1967 production of 'Casino Royale' is to the James Bond series.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Berceau's bill would "require that anything presented as science in the classroom be testable as a scientific hypothesis and pertain to natural, not supernatural, processes.
According to stringers then String Theory, being not testable, could not be taught as officially-approved science. See FR Thread A scientific leap, but without the faith .

Also, even natural selection is not rigorously testable according to Karl Popper. Therefore it is NOT officially-approved science either.

55 posted on 02/09/2006 8:15:16 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Take your squirt bottle of acetone. When you see one scurrying across the floor squirt a circle around him. He won't cross until it evaporates. Next ZAP him - one squirt will do. He'll stop wriggling in a few minutes. Then kick him over into a corner where the janitor won't get him and no one will flatten him. Then step, gently, just enough to crack his exoskeleton. Watch. Within 2 hours the ants will have hauled his entire carcass off. Very efficient. Graduate students have a lot of time on their hands :-)


56 posted on 02/09/2006 8:17:08 AM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

There's almost certainly at least one member of the state legislature who feels it's his holy mission in life to smite the "godless scientists." I long for the old days when, like William Jennings Bryan (of the Scopes trial), such people were in the democrat party.


57 posted on 02/09/2006 8:18:03 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Cold fusion -- teach the controversy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SeeSalt

Mostly, no. What is sometimes called "microevolution", or adaptation with species or near-species bounds has, of course, been demonstarted. But that is NOT the core of Darwin's natural selection hypothesis -- there the claim is that all mega-evolution occured by purely naturalistic means. Karl Popper, the guru of science definitions himself, said that in that regard natural selection may be impossible to test.


58 posted on 02/09/2006 8:19:28 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Come back to watch the fun.


59 posted on 02/09/2006 8:23:24 AM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

Everybody knows what a new "kind" of animal means. I'm not going to sit around here wasting time arguing with people who think that going from a green moth to a brown moth which looks just like it other than for color or from a finch with beak A to the same finch with beak B proves the theory of evolution.


60 posted on 02/09/2006 8:24:43 AM PST by ironwoodchuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 521-534 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