It's not Baboon or Orangutang. The answer is "C" Mandrill
Posted on 08/02/2006 9:17:33 AM PDT by JCEccles
Columbia, SC –- After months of debate, today the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee unanimously ratified high school biology standards requiring students to understand why "scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The South Carolina State Board of Education adopted the standards unanimously last month, and submitted them to the EOC for approval. South Carolina’s new evolution standard does not require teaching the theory of intelligent design.
The biology standard approved requires students to be able to, “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” This falls under the overall biology standard which says that “The student will demonstrate an understanding of biological evolution and the diversity of life.”
“This victory is an important milestone towards improving the quality of science education, by ensuring that students learn the full range of relevant scientific evidence, including the scientific criticisms of evolution,” said Casey Luskin an attorney and public policy analyst with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “South Carolina is the fifth current state to require students to learn about scientific criticisms of evolution and this policy helps remedy the problem that most biology textbooks today largely ignore scientific challenges to Darwinism.”
South Carolina State Senator Mike Fair, a member of the Education Oversight Committee, and Terrye Campsen Seckinger, a member of the South Carolina Board of Education, issued a statement applauding the approval of the new high school biology standards: “It is impossible to meet this standard without the discussion of the meaning of critical analysis as it applies to evolutionary science. This is a great improvement over our 2000 standards. Students will now have the opportunity to wholly learn about the theory of evolution. This means that students will have the opportunity to fully discuss all aspects of evolutionary theory instead of limiting discussion to only evidence that might support it.”
No rest for the Darwinists and the ACLU thugs that abuse the legal system to protect Darwinist dogma from free and open inquiry. Light keeps creeping into their dark Victorian dungeons.
Heh. In my son's public high school biology class they discussed the problems with the ToE just this year. Can't be everywhere at once to stamp this kind of thing out, I guess.
A real and substantial backlash against Darwinist thuggery is gathering strength among independent and critical-thinking young men and women across this nation. The Internet helps a lot.
BTTT
'Twont matter. These folks have probably attended a Church service once or twice---so this initiative will instantly mean that it is worthy of the Evo-left's scorn on that alone.
It seems like the private Christian schools and the Christian homeschoolers who teach both creation AND evolution, are turning out consistantly better educated students than the public schools. Which makes me wonder how so much great science could have been produced before the ToE was introduced if believing in creation is such a handicap to learning.
> A real and substantial backlash against Darwinist thuggery is gathering strength among independent and critical-thinking young men and women across this nation.
At least one study ahs shown that when college freshmen are confronted with open and honest discussion of the scientific arguements for and against both Creationism and Evolution, more incoming Creationists turn Evolutionist than the other way around.
Critical-thinking is the nemesis of Creationism.
Darwinism ceased being science decades ago. It has become a religion that Darwin himself would likely find abhorrent.
“This victory is an important milestone towards improving the quality of science education, by ensuring that students learn the full range of relevant scientific evidence, including the scientific criticisms of evolution,” said Casey Luskin an attorney and public policy analyst with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. “South Carolina is the fifth current state to require students to learn about scientific criticisms of evolution and this policy helps remedy the problem that most biology textbooks today largely ignore scientific challenges to Darwinism.”
If they actually teach science, the ID folks are not going to like it one bit as there is no scientific evidence for ID and a tremendous amount of scientific evidence for evolution.
But with the Discovery Institute involved, it looks like another deceitful attempt to sneak religion into science classes, and a particular branch of religion at that.
So, what do you do when some student says ID is a bunch of junk trying, but failing miserably, to reach the level of junk science? Most likely the student would be criticized for bashing religion, just as we see on these threads. But, ID is not religion, right? (Wink, wink.)
Will the standards work both ways? In science classes, all ideas are open to challenge, so the purported global flood should be fair game too. That should be funny, as the only evidence for a global flood is the bible; there is no support for this notion in science. Teach the controversy?
> It seems like the private Christian schools and the Christian homeschoolers who teach both creation AND evolution, are turning out consistantly better educated students than the public schools.
A logical explanation for that is that public schools on the whole *suck* at teaching *anything* of value. Ask a public school graduate what the definition of "science" is. What does the "scientific method" entail. What, *exactly*, are the concepts in Darwinian evolution. Like as not, they will be *woefully* ill-informed.
Good decision in South Carolina... Unlike the Dover Schoolboard case a couple of years ago when the ACLU convinced Judge Jones to deny any competition to the TOE.
Can you provide a link for this "study" that you say favors evolutionism?
I say we support your 'at least one study' position to assuage any evolutionist concerns and help perpetuate the myth that 'critical thinking' is actually more dangerous for Creation.
That way the evos won't mount much opposition and won't figure it out till the 'barbarians are at the gate'.
Whoops.
So....
what *exactly* is the definition of science,
what *exactly* does the scientific method entail,
and what *exactly* are the 'concepts in Darwinian evolution'?
If you knew anything about evolution you would know the answer to that.
Denying it won't make it not so.
>>If they actually teach science, the ID folks are not going to like it one bit as there is no scientific evidence for ID and a tremendous amount of scientific evidence for evolution.<<
Take your best shot. Please provide one example of what you consider compelling evidence for evolution. Since there is a "tremendous amount..." this shouldn't be a problem for you, should it?
http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/051101_engaging_prior_learning_on_creationism_and_evolution_may_benefit_college_biology_students.html
An educational intervention that included reading books sympathetic to and opposed to "intelligent design" (ID) prompted students in a college introductory biology course to report that they had become more accepting of evolution as an explanation for life, according to a study in the November 2005 issue of BioScience. The intervention, which was studied by Steven D. Verhey of Central Washington University, encouraged students to read parts of an ID-friendly, anti-evolution text, as well as an online refutation of the text and parts of a book presenting evidence for evolution.
Students in the study's two intervention streams read from "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells, which attacks evolutionary theory and is sympathetic to ID, and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which supports the theory of evolution. Students in the intervention streams also read "Icons of Obfuscation" by Nic Tamzek, an online refutation of Wells' book, and discussed current thinking about the nature of science. Students in the two non-intervention streams read from and discussed "The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" by Matt Ridley, which describes evolutionary explanations for sexuality.
Verhey asked the 103 enrolled students to classify their beliefs about evolution and creationism before and after the course. Most of the 66 students who completed the survey had previously been exposed to both evolutionary and creationist accounts of life. Sixty-one percent of students in the intervention streams reported some change in their beliefs; most of these students were initially sympathetic to creationist explanations and moved toward increased acceptance of evolution. Only 21 percent of students in the non-intervention streams reported change in their beliefs.
See? You don't even know.
When a "science" has to rely on the courts, the thugs of the ACLU, and politicians to protect it from scrutiny, it has no claim to the honorable title of "science." It is humbuggery pure and simple.
Darwinism is not the same thing as evolutionary science. It is humbuggery pulling out all the stops to avoid public exposure and humiliation.
The barbarians are *already* at the gates. The anti-Darwin Jihadis are pounding away. Since they don't have the weapon of science in their arsenal, they have to use the weaposn of deception, distortion and fear.
It's not Baboon or Orangutang. The answer is "C" Mandrill
Set these skulls out on the desk in the bone lab and arrange them any which way. As you begin to notice more and more of the morphology of various traits, even you would start to arrange them in this approximate order. Really!
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
And I don't so that's why I'm asking an expert.
OMG, evolution submitted to scientific scrutiny!? Oh, the horrors!
I used the chart in #26 and see that you came from a chimp.
That wasn't my experience. In college I was an incoming evolutionist, and eventually decided the claims for the theory were bogus. And, no, I didn't go to some cracker religious school...I went to the University of California.
And I don't so that's why I'm asking an expert.
Not an expert but I did study it a lot in grad school.
If you are serious about an answer: humans and chimps both evolved from the same common ancestor, separating some 6 or so million years ago. Chimps remained in the forested environments so evolved much less than our ancestors, who apparently were forced to the edges of the forests then the grasslands.
This appears to be a very "evolution friendly" assessment of the conclusion of this "study"... It would be helpful to see the questionaire that was used in this "study". Is it possible to see the actual test results that this conclusion was based on?
The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth Out of Darwinists
Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference
Whether Intelligent Design is Science
Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity
The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design
Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge
The Problem With Darwinian Solutions
In Defense of Intelligent Design
Uncommon Descent (William Dembski’s blog)
”Intelligent Design: The Future” blog
”Evolution News & Views: News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution” blog
Recommended Reading
Uncommon Dissent. If you’ve never heard the term "post-Darwinian," welcome to the world of thinkers who reject evolutionary theory and its reliance on the notion of chance (i.e. "random mutation"). In this provocative volume, biologists, mathematicians and physicists as well as theologians and other intellectuals argue, as editor Dembski writes, that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." The contributors invoke mathematics and statistics to support their theory that an "intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life." In other words, the degree of diversity and complexity in life forms implies the need for an intelligent designer. The nature and identity of this designer is not discussed by all the writers; others call this intelligence God. Supporters of intelligent design differentiate themselves from creationists, but they, too, argue that their theory should be taught in high school biology courses. Anyone interested in these debates and their implications for education will find this collection to be important reading.
Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Woodward's account shows that the problem with the template of "religion versus Darwin" is that it simply doesn't fit the ID movement, although many detractors try to insist otherwise. The founder of the movement, Phillip Johnson, was, until his recent retirement, a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. While on sabbatical in the late 1980s, he studied the scientific case for and against Darwinism and concluded that the empirical case for Darwinism was surprisingly weak. He then presented his findings at a symposium held through his law school and was further encouraged to pursue his criticism of Darwinism. As Woodward documents, the proponents of ID argue that Darwinism lacks crucial evidence, begs important questions, and often caricatures alternatives unfairly. They make their case against Darwinian evolution by pointing out flaws in the arguments and gaps in the evidence, not by citing religious texts.
There are a growing number of books defending and criticizing ID, but Woodward's book is unique in that it assesses the history of this movement of the past decade from the perspective of the classical discipline of rhetoric. Given the book's rhetorical angle, the reader is treated to both the straight arguments for and against Darwinism, as well as an inside look at the personalities and persuasive strategies used on both sides of the debate. (For example, when noted Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould first met Phillip Johnson, he dispensed with pleasantries and said, "You're a creationist and I've got to stop you.") In Woodward's account, Johnson emerges as the rhetorical mastermind of ID, who, though an outsider to the scientific guild, nevertheless mastered the scientific case against Darwinism and helped develop a consistent strategy for the ID movement. His simple charge is that Darwinism is driven more by a commitment to a materialistic worldview than by the actual evidence of biology. This book details the rise of the intellectual, scientific, and philosophical challenge to Darwinism.
“Doubts About Darwin is a delightful chronicle of the ways a small group of doubters are reshaping the debate and bringing out the inadequacies of natural selection to the general public. Doubters and believers alike ought to read Doubts About Darwin. It has much to teach them.” – Murray Eden, professor emeritus, MIT.
Darwinian Fairytales. Philosopher David Stove concludes in his hilarious and razor-sharp inquiry that Darwin's theory of evolution is a ridiculous slander on human beings. But wait! Stove is no creationist nor a proponent of so-called intelligent design. He is a theological skeptic who admits Darwin's great genius and acknowledges that the theory of natural selection is the most successful biological theory in history. But Stove also thinks that it is also one of the most overblown theories of science and gives a penetrating inventory of what he regards as the unbelievable claims of Darwinism. Darwinian Fairytales is a must-read book for people who want to really understand the issues behind the most hotly debated scientific controversy of our time.
Darwin’s Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement. This book honors Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor whose 1991 publication Darwin on Trial and later books helped intelligent design emerge as a highly visible, and highly controversial, alternative to Darwinism. While it may be premature to hail Johnson as "Darwin's Nemesis," these essays reveal him as an influential strategist and mentor within the ID movement. Contributors to the 2004 symposium that spawned this collection include leading ID advocates Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich, as well as Darwin defender Michael Ruse, who has engaged Johnson in debate. Other contributors address cultural and political questions beyond evolution itself, such as Francis Beckwith's timely review of legal controversies over ID in the classroom, J. Budziszewski's discussion of naturalism and the Natural Law tradition and editor William Dembski's commentary on the professional—and often personal—"backlash" against ID advocates. Readers who are familiar with the basics of ID and curious about the movement's development and inner workings will find much of interest, although for an account of the most recent and current controversies over ID, they will need to consult other sources.
Privileged Planet. Is Earth merely an insignificant speck in a vast and meaningless universe? On the contrary. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery shows that this cherished assumption of materialism is dead wrong. Earth is more significant than virtually anyone has realized. Contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, it is not an average planet around an ordinary star in an unremarkable part of the Milky Way.
In this original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards present an array of evidence that exposes the hollowness of this modern dogma. They demonstrate that our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe, as if Earth-and the universe itself-were designed both for life and for scientific discovery. Readers are taken on a scientific odyssey from a history of tectonic plates, the wonders of water, and solar eclipses, to our location in the Milky Way, the laws that govern the universe, and the beginning of cosmic time.
Review of The Privileged Planet (The Royal Astronomical Society)
What Darwin Didn’t Know. This book has to do with medical facts and how they conflict with the theory of evolution. Darwin may have made a sincere effort to explain the life around him in the nineteenth century, but he knew little, if anything, about the human cell, heredity (why a child resembles his parents), immunity, hormones, blood pressure and scores of feedback loops that tell the body when it's too hot or too cold, hungry or full, sick or well, and tired or refreshed. These examples and many more are discussed. They all speak clearly for Intelligent Design, a discussion that needs to re-enter mainstream American dialogue. "There is a tide of data mounting against the Darwinian concept that randomness can explain the wonder of life. In What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons converts the tide into a tidal wave of evidence." Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D.
Intelligent Design. "Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." This statement, quoted by William Dembski, is a way of summarizing intelligent design theory, which argues that it is possible to find evidence for design in the universe. The author of The Design Inference (a scholarly exploration of this topic published by Cambridge University Press) aims in this book to show the lay reader "how detecting design within the universe, and especially against the backdrop of biology and biochemistry, unseats naturalism"-- and above all Darwin's expulsion of design in his theory of evolution.
Intelligent Design is organized into three parts: the first part gives an introduction to design and shows how modernity--science in the last two centuries--has undermined our intuition of this truth. The second and central part of the book examines "the philosophical and scientific basis for intelligent design." The final part shows how "science and theology relate coherently and how intelligent design establishes the crucial link between the two." This suggests that Dembski is not simply rejecting Darwin and naturalism on fundamentalist or biblical grounds. While grounded in faith, he wishes to show how "God's design is accessible to scientific inquiry."
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician who has been an important theorist for the intelligent design movement, handles a wide range of questions and objections that should give both fans and detractors of ID plenty to chew on. While most of the core arguments of this book will be familiar to readers of the ID literature, they are presented here in (if one may say so) a more highly evolved form: explanations are clearer, objections are borne more patiently, distinctions and concessions are artfully made. Without denying the theological and cultural implications of ID, Dembski is more concerned with ID's future as a scientific enterprise: a point where despite some successes the movement continues to struggle. The book's format makes for a clear read. Chapters can focus on a single issue and adopt an appropriate tone: basic questions get basic replies, pointed objections get forceful rejoinders, and technical questions allow Dembski to unleash a faculty for technical detail that can only be called impressive.
”It will not do for those to whom Dembski has issued his challenge to rely on their standing or authority within the scientific and academic establishments to wave him away. The truth is that the honor and integrity of science really are at stake.” – Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University.
Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Joining the ranks of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, Cornelius G. Hunter gives us Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, the latest must-read installment of scholarship on human origins. Beginning with the provocative statement that "evolution is neither atheism in disguise nor is it merely science at work," Hunter denies evolution's claim to be pure science, beyond the "entanglements" of faith or belief. Ultimately, he shows how Darwin's theological concerns-particularly his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with the cruelty, waste, and quandaries of nature-led him to develop the theory of evolution.
Hunter provides the crucial key to engaging the intelligent design debate in the context of modern theology. He addresses the influences of Milton, rationalism, the enlightenment, and Deism, quoting extensively from Darwin's journals, letters, and scientific writings. Readers of history, science, philosophy, and theology will enjoy this honest telling of a complex and engrossing story.
Not By Chance. Physicist Lee M. Spetner's book has biologists and geneticists praising this book as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution. "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"--Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue University.
Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Often invoked as justification for unbelief, in this book modern science provides the basis for an unusual and provocative affirmation of religious faith. A professor of theoretical particle physics at the University of Delaware, Stephen Barr deploys his scientific expertise to challenge the dogmas of naturalistic materialism and to assert his belief that nothing explains the order of the universe better than divine design. To be sure, Barr recognizes that Darwin's work has swept away the arguments of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century theologians, who traced the handiwork of God in birds, flowers, and seashells. But the old argument-from-design reemerges with new sophistication after Barr presses evolutionary theory for a plausible account of the origin of what quantum physics demands – that is, a conscious observer – and comes away with nothing but skepticism about the skeptics. Barr indeed relishes the irony of a skeptical logic of random chance that forces unbelievers who balk at one unobservable God to accept, on doctrinal faith, a myriad of unobservable worlds on which the matter-motion lottery has not produced the winning ticket of conscious intelligence. The absurdity grows even more palpable among astrophysicists who avoid acknowledging the human-friendly pattern in subatomic and cosmic architecture found in the observable universe only by theorizing the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes in which sovereign randomness has dictated other and more hostile architectures. Neither religiously sectarian nor technically daunting, this book invites the widest range of readers to ponder the deepest kind of questions.
In the Beginning Was Information: A Scientist Explains the Incredible Design in Nature. Information is one of the most fundamental parts of our world, yet we don’t often think about it. This classic book demonstrates the importance of information to life of any kind. More to the point, it demonstrates the necessity of an Organizer and Originator of the information necessary for life. The author shows that the highly complex information present in DNA mitigates a non-intelligent beginning for life.
Werner Gitt has a doctorate in engineering, and has been a professor at the Federal Physics-Technology Institute in Braunschweig, Germany, since 1971.
Kicking the Sacred Cow Galileo may have been forced to deny that the Earth moves around the Sun; but in the end, science triumphed. Nowadays science fearlessly pursues truth, shining the pure light of reason on the mysteries of the universe. Or does it? Best-selling science fiction author James P. Hogan turns his creative mind to science that is more bogus than fiction. He demonstrates in this thoroughly documented study that science has its own roster of hidebound pronouncements which are Not-to-be-Questioned. And those who question them may face a modern-day Inquisition. Science in the early 21st Century, however, seems to be driven by ego, political funding, and dogma. Among the dogma-laden subjects he examines are Darwinism, global warming, the big bang, problems with relativity, and holes in the ozone layer. Through his writing, Hogan has developed a reputation for his philosophical view on how science should be done – theories should be formulated based on empirical research, not the other way around. If a theory does not match the facts, he postulates that theory should be discarded, not the facts. While his views on the topics discussed in this book are controversial, they are consistent with the view that scientific theories should not be accepted simply because they are widely held.
"Hey, Orel. What answer did you get for #3 on the science test?"
"Jesus."
And you, a seemingly intelligent person, actually believe that the modern difference between chimps and humans was due to where they lived, forests vs grasslands??!!
At least one study ahs shown
One? That's the best you can do?
I don't feel bad. I feel liberated. Every scientific theory since Newton has depended upon open evaluation and has been required to stand up to evidence. Evolutionists take evidence and interpret it in a way to shoehorn it into the theory. As a result Darwin's theory of evolution is unassailable; any evidence or intepretation of the evidence which violates the theory is rejected. This isn't science; it's a philosophy. Actually, it's a religion. Richard Dawkins has said that Darwinism gives an intellectual basis for his atheism. That why he's a Darwinist -- not because the theory is true, but because it gives him comfort in his rejection of God.
Different environments lead to different adaptations. In a forested environment, brachiation is a good form of locomotion; in a grassland bipedalism is good. Why the surprise that over a few million years these changes occurred?
Dentition changed a lot also. So did the feet, knees, and innominates.
>>Set these skulls out on the desk in the bone lab and arrange them any which way. As you begin to notice more and more of the morphology of various traits, even you would start to arrange them in this approximate order. Really!<<
If you are interested in furthering your "education" I suggest that you read the information on the following link.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/preview/part4.asp
And a thump for ACLU thuggery.
The Disco Institute pulled out all the stops to maintain their ID majority, and spent big bucks, but they lost.
So let me guess, living a grassland you talk more and hence that explains modern man's tremendously advanced gift of speech, as compared to modern chimps. Sigh... I'm sure with the great imagination you evos have( evidenced by imagining the intimate traits of entire civilizations from a single bone fragment), there's going to be a real duzie of an explanation...
a) requiring the student to critically analyze evolutionary theory
and
b) requiring the student to “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”
It seems to me that if students are required to understand how scientists critically analyze theories, they are defacto required to understand the scientific method. Understanding the scientific method is, I think, a good thing for searchers of the truth.
"( evidenced by imagining the intimate traits of entire civilizations from a single bone fragment)"
Please provide a cite for this.
And I'll bet you had a good time while you were there.
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.