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

Skip to comments.

Texas State Board of Education Votes To Require Students to Analyze and Evaluate Evolution
Discovery Institute ^ | January 22, 2009

Posted on 01/23/2009 9:39:39 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last
To: atlaw
I think we should apply this new-found freedom across the board. We should definitely let the children question the periodic table Simply: *Only if one is free to question the periodic table can one discover a new element to add to the table. Or are you trying to say all the elements were there from the start? I'm done with this thread.
41 posted on 01/23/2009 12:03:31 PM PST by Troll_House_Cookies (Ironically, Chancellor Obama's first re-education camp will be in Alaska.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
I fail to see how further undermining the teaching of basics in American high schools serves to correct this problem.

We don't teach true science and math, rather, we teach them this ToE stuff and tell to believe it or their never be scientists! Who needs critical thinking when you have this!?

42 posted on 01/23/2009 12:03:45 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

HOOAH!!!


43 posted on 01/23/2009 12:16:34 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
See the chart below--which is the "missing link?"

See if you can find the missing link in this series. I can figure what order they go in, could you help. I can't provide ages for the rocks each skull was discovered in, though.

NOTE: Skull pictures size is not idicative a relative sizes of actual skulls.

44 posted on 01/23/2009 12:45:01 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I think we need to clarify what we are talking about when we refer to “evolution” - pure Darwinism or simply the change in inherited traits of an organism from one generation to the next. There is no doubt that the latter description of evolution is scientific fact. But pure Darwinism has a huge problem with its belief in random mutation being the cause of the change in traits. No scientific evidence backs up the random mutation aspect of Darwinism and I think logic dictates that the change in traits is better explained by intelligent design (since random mutation is easier to refute).


45 posted on 01/23/2009 12:45:43 PM PST by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

mmm yes- that’s exactly what we are advocating- having hte children quesiton established laws- Yup- you pegged us- our secret is out- We’re anti-educaiton- Darn it- and I htought out secret was safe- but you cracked our secret code- what we REALLY mean when ask that students be taught the TRUTH about Macroevolution, and to discover the impossibilities and high imporbabilities, and to discover how macroevolution violates many key established laws of biology, mathematical statistics, natural laws, and chemistry, is that we mean we really want htem to deny all the other established laws in other fields of science too- Golly- Guess we weren’t as trickily sneaky as we thought!


46 posted on 01/23/2009 12:46:56 PM PST by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

Comparing the certainty of the truth of mathematics and grammar as taught in schools to the theory of evolution is absurd, even if you believe in evolution. You sound like a global warming alarmist now.


47 posted on 01/23/2009 12:48:21 PM PST by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
I may be incorrect, of course, but you seem to be operating under the impression that the simplistic caricatures of evolutionary biology tossed around on this forum by creationists actually reflect the state of the science. Perhaps some time spent browsing through current scientific literature would help disabuse you of this notion. There is a great deal of it available. You can start, for example, with this searchable, free archive (I plugged in the word "evolution" for you, so you can choose from more than 109,000 journal articles to start).

In addition to the NCBI free archive linked above, you can prowl through various biological abstract archives like the one available here; various university molecular and cellular biology archives like the one available here; and various fascinating sites addressing genetics and genetics related evolutionary research, such as the human gene mutation database, the Metazome project, the NCBI human gene master list, the Blast assembled genomes database, and the EMBL nucleotide sequence database You can also, of course, browse through the many fossil databases available, with just a few of them here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here here and here, and with a pretty good overview of "Paleontological Evidence to Date the Tree of Life" located here.

As you can see from the available literature, evolutionary biology overlaps many scientific fields, including organic chemistry, genetics, paleontology, geology, cell biology, zoology, etc. The point being that there is a great deal of "evidence to weigh," and if high school students will eventually be expected to "weigh" that evidence and "decide for themselves," they will need a solid grounding in it.

This means, of course, a solid grounding not only in biology and the theory of evolution itself, but also in the the scientific fields it draws upon and influences.

"Let the children decide" is all well and good, but give them the children the evidentiary ammunition first so their decision will at least be informed.

48 posted on 01/23/2009 2:12:43 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: atlaw; GodGunsGuts; metmom

“let them know there are no wrong answers”...

IOW when it comes to the cult of evolution...there simply can not BE any OTHER answers...

I see.

Anytime the cult is challenged, the challenge is attacked as a religious insult to science.

Yep, I’m sure the kids will come to respect the cult....errr...theory of evolution with that cozy little caveat.

And if they don’t fall in line, you can always enforce science via the courts.

NO WONDER public NEA godless liberal run schools are such unmitigated DISASTERS!


49 posted on 01/23/2009 2:49:46 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; metmom; GodGunsGuts

Thinking critically is what science is all about.


Except when it comes to the cult of evolution.

Can you show us any instance, ever, of where your cult was challenged and you didn’t attack the challenge as a science hating religious attack?


50 posted on 01/23/2009 2:55:54 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Circuar NON-reasoning.


51 posted on 01/23/2009 3:02:38 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: metmom

They need to break out of their boxes and stretch their brains a little bit.


They need to break out of their cult with the help of a deprogrammer!


52 posted on 01/23/2009 3:12:28 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

It’s been a while, but could you recite your scientific qualifications, training and experience that should lead any person to believe you actually know anything about the subjects on which you comment.

If I recall correctly, you have no background in biology, chemistry, microbiology, or biological chemistry; isn’t that correct?


53 posted on 01/23/2009 3:14:38 PM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; GodGunsGuts; metmom; YHAOS

But you are missing the point. When you question a scientific theory you need to bring scientific evidence, not religious belief, as creation “science” does.


You’ve been debunked on this point a million times, so why do you continue lying like this?

Is there something science-hating or even religious in these observations?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry


54 posted on 01/23/2009 3:15:25 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org

click on the scientists link to see your lies for exactly what they are.


55 posted on 01/23/2009 3:22:22 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
But I guess all that rote "learning" stuff is old hat these days.

I think they should come up with a catchy name for this new approach. Call it something like "Whole Science" or "New Science" or something like that.

56 posted on 01/23/2009 3:26:18 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Heck, I'll even give it a try! This series finishes at the top with the common Shetland Collie,...

I know you think you're being funny, but you're really embarrassing yourself. You have no idea what kind of work goes into figuring out how old a skull is, do you? Let me ask the thing I always wonder: do you have any expertise in anything? Has your study or work made you more knowledgeable about anything than your average Internet user? If so, wouldn't you think that someone who just dismissed everything you know was acting pretty foolishly?

57 posted on 01/23/2009 3:34:22 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Check out this list of scientists and compare your qualifications to theirs.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

At least your screen name is appropriate. All you seem to accomplish here is howling at the moon, which serves no real purpose.


58 posted on 01/23/2009 3:35:54 PM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
As you can see from the available literature, evolutionary biology overlaps many scientific fields, including organic chemistry, genetics, paleontology, geology, cell biology, zoology, etc. The point being that there is a great deal of "evidence to weigh," and if high school students will eventually be expected to "weigh" that evidence and "decide for themselves," they will need a solid grounding in it.

I will go you one step further. Darwinian Evolution is the bedrock premise of the aforementioned sciences, and the current state of the science will be severely affected (biology) if not destroyed (paleontology) by the removal of the foundation.

Did I intentionally simplify the skulls, you betcha. However, reading of the articles you have posted, will not "disabuse" me of anything. Each time I read one, and carefully disect it, I realize it is built on a series of assumptions, postulations, assertions and conjectures, that might explain the state of the evidence examined. However, I don't buy it. There is so much guessing and back patting, it is silly. For example if you click the second "here" link, click the "evolution resources" link and then click the first link and then click the first article, you will find the following, of which I pulled the first 2 questions as an example:

Animals: Tracing Their Heritage
Nicole King
An ActionBioscience.org original interview

Do animals have a common origin?
King: Yes. All animals, from sponges to jellyfish to vertebrates [animals with a backbone], can be traced to a common ancestor. So far, molecular and fossil evidence indicate that animals evolved at least 600 million years ago. The fossil record does not reveal what the first animals looked like or how they lived. Therefore, my lab and other research groups around the world are investigating the nature of the first animals by studying diverse living organisms.

Wow. We know they evolved 600 million years ago, but we don't have any "proof" in the way of a fossil record, so we will "guess" what the looked like by looking at things that are alive 600 million tears later. Now THAT is science! It get better.

You study multicellularity. Is there a connection to animal origins?
King: Eukaryotes [organisms with membrane-bound nuclei] range from those with a single cell, such as the amoeba, to complex multicellular animals, including humans. The vast majority of life on Earth has been dominated by unicellular life. At some point in the lineage leading to animals, multicellularity evolved. Multicellular organisms are those that have many cells. Their cells depend on each other, functioning in concert to sustain the life of the organism. So, the common ancestor of animals was a single cell.

No proof, just more gobblygook cause and effect effect reasoning. "At some point...multicellularity evolved...So, the common ancestor of animals was a single cell." No proof, no data, never been replicated in a science lab, just belief in the magic of genetic mutation and natural selection.

Every so called journal article I have looked at, while scary and full of big words that hurt to read, are full of the same silliness.

59 posted on 01/23/2009 3:37:44 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute) Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

He's not a real scientist, he does not BELIEVE!

60 posted on 01/23/2009 3:48:56 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 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