Posted on 01/23/2009 9:39:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Texas State Board of Education Votes To Require Students to Analyze and Evaluate Evolution
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
January 22, 2009
AUSTIN, TX--The Texas State Board of Education today voted to require students to analyze and evaluate common ancestry and natural selection, both key components of modern evolutionary theory. The surprising vote came after the Board failed to reinstate language in the overall science standards explicitly requiring coverage of the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories.
"The Texas Board of Education took one step back and two steps forward today," said Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute. "While we wish they would have retained the strengths and weaknesses language in the overall standards, they did something truly remarkable today. They voted to require students to analyze and evaluate some of the most important and controversial aspects of modern evolutionary theory such as the fossil record, universal common descent and even natural selection."
According to West these changes to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills means that teachers and students will be able to discuss the scientific evidence that is supportive as well as evidence that is not supportive of all scientific theories.
"Analyzing, evaluating, any additional scrutiny of evolution can only help students to learn more about the theory," said West, who is associate director of the Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
You provided the link to resources that were supposed to disabuse me of my beliefs.
Convincing counterargument, that. Typical of the arrogance and condescension of those who provide unconvincing evidence, couple it with Argument from Authority, Appeals to Popularity, and a little Guilt by Association, mix in some Ad Hominem and you have the makings for widespread belief in Global Warming evolution.
There is no evidence whatsoever for abiogenesis, excepting the fact that we are here.
There is never been observed creations of new Genus'. All that has been observed in the laboratory is variation within the Genus, as predicted by Genesis 1:21, et al. Whenever we find an extinct species in the dirt, we arrange it in the sequence ASSUMNG descent with modification, and then offer it as proof of the same. Oddly enough, when a "living fossil" is found that did not go extinct, the explanations for why it stagnated in its current for for 50 million years are lame. Genetic Research, we do the same.
In summary, the most convincing arguments (to me) for mud to man evolution are: 1. Ages of rocks based on radio carbon and isotope dating, and the fossils found in them.
2. The somewhat exclusive distribution of different fossil types into the same rock layers. (however, to assert a T-Rex is more complex that a Trilobite is a leap, it's just bigger, with fewer appendages, and can't breath water)
The counter-evolutionist will argue that if observations are made without a premise of mud to man evolution, there are other viable and likely explanations for what we observe.
What we shpuld really be arguing is the ressurection of Jesus. Falsify that, and you will win the day for science! Christianty is total and absolutely premised on this one event, and if it is not true, then Christianity is a lie!!! Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, and all of his disciples died preaching this truth, 11 of them violently. The resurrection was offered by Jesus as proof of this claim. The only evidence we have for this is eyewitness testimony, and the changed lives of our contemporaries, and the validity of the Bible record.
I have investigated the claims of evolution thoroughly, can you say the same about the resurrection of Jesus? I suggest reading the first 3 chapters of the biblical book of John, and see what the Christian claims about Jesus really are. It won't take more than 30 minutes.
Show me where the belief in descent with modification development of new Genus' has brought similarly strong experimental results.
You make the logical leap from speciation to gesus-iation, with absoilutely no evidence for the latter.
For all of our detailed and glorious lab experimentation, e.coli is still e.coli and fruit flies are still fruit flies. The lab evidence is overwhelmingly AGAINST the develpment of a new gensus!!!
[[So what’s the creationist or ID experiment that will isolate the influence of God or the Designer?]]
You know- for osmeone who claims they are ‘curious’ about both sides- you show a stunning subjective agendist adherence to the silly petty arguments proposed by Macroevolutionists. As you have been otld many times here on FR- ID in NO way has to posit who or what hte intelligence is behind intelligent design- ALL they have to do is present enough evidence that hsows an intelligence is NEEDED for the IC and design that we witness in nature, and to hsow that natural causes are simply impossible and can NOT account for hte IC and design we know to exist.
It seems htough that the macroevolution proponents, who assure us how sound hteir hypothesis is, are so afraid of exposure, that they must resort to villifying their those hwo are simply trying to bring pure objective science BACK into the classroom, and who bring the evidnece necessary to establish a reasonable and alternative hypothesis based on the facts and evidence
It is NOT ID’s goal to posit anyhtign beyond the evidnece, and repeatedly stating that they are tryign to do so is not a valid counterargument tactic
[[What test should we perform, and what result should we look for?]]
You know very well how forensics works- and you also know, because I personally have given you the facts before myself, that ID is every bit as falsifiable, testable and predictable as any other branch of science, even htose the Popper induced ‘requirements;’ are not infact scientific requirements, and you know that science can and does reach conclusions abotu intelligence based o nthe evidneces without EVER havign to extablish who or what that intelligence is.
Again, you claim to be an objective observer, but your quesitons and demands, claims and accusations betray your claism about objectivity.
[[Basic creationist claptrap. Color me surprised.]]
Basic childish insults- Colour me coutner surprised
[[Like I said, I’m not arguing for the dogmatic rejection of new ideas.]]
Oh heck no- no dogma goign on here-
[[Bring an idea, form a hypothesis, devise and conduct an experiment that can distinguish the hand of God from the actions of nature]]
Again- ID isn’t abotu determining who or what the intelligence is- only that intelligence is needed and that nature is incapable- ID DOES bring the evidence- Yuo simply reject it out of hand because you SUBJECTIVELY beleive ID is a religious practice, and you SUBJECTIVELY beleive they must posit and prove God exists before they can receive any credibility i nthe scientific world- But fret not- you’re not alone in your impossible to satisfy demands- the majority of scientists who are married to naturalism also ostracise non naturalistic scientists subjectively and biasedly- just liek you do- all while falsely claimign to be objective- playing hte innocent routine- hoping peopel won’t notice hte blatant hypocrisy.
[[I don’t see creationists doing that, though.]]
Of course you don’t- your eyes are shut tightly, and all you can invision is that nature someone beat out incredible impossibilities, and miraculously evolved species simpyl because it’s a consensus BELIEF amoung scientists who can’t invisions anythign but nature being responsible for life. There are countless examples of biological impossibilities presented here on FR, but yet you ‘don’t see creationists presenting anyhtign that might indicate an intelligence is needed” huh? Why am I not surprised?
[[Bravo for your amazing ability to wave away a century of biology, geology, paleontology, physics and chemistry to name a few of the sciences involved in determining that progression of skulls.]]
Bravo- you’ve managed to IGNORE the myriad refutations of that chart here on FR for the past few years- You’ve managed to IGNORE the countless articles and evidences which have debunked the claims many times, and you’ve managed to impose yet another silly set of demands on Creationists by claiming:
[[1. They’re all fakes and scams
2. They’re all failed “designs” of the Designer
3. They all still exist somewhere, we just haven’t found them yet.
4. Satan placed them in the strata to deceive and confuse the less faithful
5. They are exactly what the chart says they are, but my particular brand of Christianity does not allow me to accept that.]]
Bzzzzt- Wrong! We don’t have to do any such thing- ALL we have to do is point to the very science which itself REFUTES the wild claims of some imaginitive scientists who can’t invision anythign but naturalism, and hwo’s imaginations run wild and ignore hte evidences agaisnt hteir claims.
While some were indeed fakes i nthe past, most are ligit- however they fall squarely into two distinct camps- fully human, or fully ape. There is NOTHING in either creation science or ID that claims there aren’t genetic variations WITHIN the kinds, and there certainly is nothign statign that various features can differ greatly due to disease, malnutrition etc. There is NO need to claim any one of your silly points.
The National Center for Science Education interviewed a sample of the signatories, and found that some were less critical of "Darwinism" than the advertisement claimed.[9][53] For example, Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but describes himself as an atheist, said that when he endorsed a petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, “I signed it in irritation.”[54] However, Salthe prominently appears on the list as "Emeritus Professor, Biological Sciences, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York."
I am confused.
Does he dissent, or does he not?
Are his opinions changeable based on who is doing the survey?
Does he blindly sign things regulary because he is irritated?
Is he not really a Professor?
In either case, this does not bolster the argument of the anti-petition Wikipedia writer, nor does it help the case of the Discovery Institue. The fellow seems to be unstable and unsettled in either case.
Ad hominem, no substance. Are lungfish and mudskippers "fully fish?"
Red Herring. Coelacanth are fully fish, so what? Are suggeting their skulls should be placed in Coyoteman's chart? :)
one more question: Define "kind"
I would assert the definition would be similar to that of Genus, and about as robust as our human abilities will allow. Try defining Genus in a way that all "scientists" agree and abide by it. I will acknowledge that defining "kind" is a very difficult thing to do. But I can provide a few: Cat kind (tiger, leopard, house cat, etc.), Dog, Turtle, Horse, etc.
Dr. Behe accepts common decent
Share with me your definition of "evolution". Needs to be much more specific than "Climate Change", BTW.
The theory of evolution has lots of strong experimental results backing it up. I'm not sure anyone has carried out an experiment aimed at creating a new genus. Do you have a reference to someone trying to develop a new genus in the lab and failing?
My objection doesn't rest on ID being a religious practice. You claim that Intelligent Design doesn't need to show who the Designer is or where and how they acted. I say that makes it a ridiculously weak competitor to the Theory of Evolution. Thousands of scientists are at work trying to figure out how evolution happens--what came first, what changed, what caused the change, how one organism is related to another, and so on. They're willing--even hoping--to find something difficult to explain, because that's what they live for. We just saw in another thread that many "evolutionists"--without rejecting evolution in the slightest--are challenging the picture of a family tree of species and trying to replace it with some kind of web or bush. That's because they found new facts that forced them to reevaluate how evolution actually happened.
And against that you propose a theory that just says "If you haven't seen it develop yourself, start to finish, you must ascribe it to a Designer." That's weak, weak, weak.
you really should look into a deprogrammer and learn to recognize your endless projections.
The only evidence I am aware of to support your claim is genetic research that show variation within a genus, an often within a species. For all of the experimentation on e.coli and drosophila melanogaster, the same species has been reproduced. Of the different types of speciation identified, and the barriers that are often erected between species, no new Genus', with new unique additional features, have been created. To do so would begin to support your claims.
Do you have a reference to someone trying to develop a new genus in the lab and failing?
When evidence is published that the "evolution" of new genus is being observed in the laboratory, with processes that simulate those found in nature, then you will start winning the argument!
On another subject, how do you define "evolution"?
More importantly, who did Jesus claim to be, and why did the disciples die violently preaching the samer claim about him? I have investigated evolution thoroughly, can you say the same about the central claims of the New Testament?
It looks like the chilrun of Texas are gonna have a lot of homework...they may have to shut-down their HS football and other sports teams.
Like I said, I don't think anybody's set up a laboratory that applies constantly but slowly changing selective pressure over thousands of generations to see what they can come up with. I don't know what the value of that would be, except to answer objections like yours.
I also suspect you'd then just quibble about whether the result was really a new genus. For example, I read that there are 35 genera of frogs--if a 36th appeared, wouldn't you just say "it's still a frog"? The animals we see alive today are the tips of the twigs of the evolutionary tree. Anti-evolutionists seem to want to see an animal jump from one twig to another, and every time someone points to the growth of a new twig, the response is "but it's still on the same branch." Of course it is, but how big does a twig have to get before you'll call it a branch? You're insisting there's this barrier between species, I think it's up to you to define it.
I have investigated evolution thoroughly, can you say the same about the central claims of the New Testament?
Not that it has the least bit of relevance, but yes.
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.