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

Skip to comments.

Darwinists Trick Themselves in Texas
Discovery Institute ^ | March 29, 2009 | Bruce Chapman

Posted on 03/30/2009 12:58:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Darwinists Trick Themselves in Texas

The New York Times got the preview story wrong, and the Washington Post editorial writer probably was too rushed to question the charges of "creationism" coming from the National Center for Science Education, the Darwin-only lobby. So this week's important decisions by the Texas Board of Education (TBOE) on how to teach evolution were predicated in the media by the big question of whether teachers should provide both "strengths and weaknesses" of Darwin's theory. Those words might sound benign, readers were told, but they really are "code words" (take the press' word for it) for creationism and religion.

To the media left, any questioning of Darwin is reserved for denizens of Dogpatch.

So, what did the TBOE do? Well, it turns out that they are fairly adroit politicians. They did remove language providing for "strengths and weaknesses" and then added new language--quite a lot of it--providing that students will learn, for example, to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations…including examining all sides of scientific evidence… so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Perfect! A policy distinction without a difference! In fact, the new standards are just fine, an improvement, in fact. Now teachers can tell the kids about the scientific evidence in a variety of fields that seems to contradict the Darwinian account as well as the supposed evidence in support.

Once again the NCSE was too-smart-by-half. It ran blogs making fun of religion, while organizing public speakers who gave fulsome testimony to their Christian faith and how compatible it is with "evolution" (meaning Darwinian evolution). To the purists like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers it probably makes them look like toadies.

In the end, the rhetoric meant to evoke fundamentalist cranks was mixed with pious statements doing the very kind of religious posturing the Darwinists project onto their foes, and reminding me of the church scenes from Blazing Saddles. It all backfired.

By demonizing specific words--and making the elimination of them the test of "science"--the NCSE and its state distributor, the Orwellian-named Texas Freedom Network, simply allowed the Board to do the obvious word shuffle. Okay, no "strengths and weakness, " but instead, we'll pass similar ideas in different words, and everyone will be happy. Except, of course, the NCSE and the TFN.

Don't expect the media to figure this out from the NCSE Talking Points memo, but the insiders get the picture. Dawkins must be enjoying a caustic chuckle at the expense of the NCSE.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antiscience; antiscienceevos; board; coloringbooks; crackerhead; creation; education; evojihadists; evolution; evoshatescience; flatearth; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; jihadists; marvalcomics; materialistjihadists; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-199 next last

1 posted on 03/30/2009 12:58:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 03/30/2009 12:59:47 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Do you oppose the teaching of Evolution?


3 posted on 03/30/2009 1:03:22 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

==Do you oppose the teaching of Evolution?

I oppose the teaching of evolution unopposed. If Darwood’s materialist creation myth is forced to contend with its main competition on the merits, it will collapse like a house of cards IMHO.


4 posted on 03/30/2009 1:27:04 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“I oppose the teaching of evolution unopposed.”

Finally, I think we almost agree on something. I think that creation and evolution should both be taught.

I’ll ignore your use of the word “unopposed” for now in the spirit of kumbaya.


5 posted on 03/30/2009 1:31:30 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

global warming should also be taught with opposing views.


6 posted on 03/30/2009 1:35:54 PM PDT by ari-freedom ( Hail to the Dork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Do you oppose the teaching of the oblate spherical Earth unopposed? Should the spherical Earth and flat Earth both be taught?


7 posted on 03/30/2009 1:42:37 PM PDT by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze

“Should the spherical Earth and flat Earth both be taught?”

Not in science class.


8 posted on 03/30/2009 1:46:26 PM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

The earth ‘looks’ flat. Students should understand how we reached the conclusion that is is round before the advent space travel. They shouldn’t simply parrot off science facts.


9 posted on 03/30/2009 1:50:42 PM PDT by ari-freedom ( Hail to the Dork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
Do you oppose the teaching of the oblate spherical Earth unopposed?

I do not claim to be a scientist...but since the advent of space travel, have we not gathered enough conclusive evidence to conclude that an oblate spherical earth is a fact rather than a theory?

Once either evolution or intelligent design achieves the same level of conclusive evidentiary support, I would support unopposed teaching of the same.

10 posted on 03/30/2009 1:56:28 PM PDT by BoringGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Amen to that! I know teachers who teach both sides, but they try to keep it on the down-low.


11 posted on 03/30/2009 1:56:51 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer

Creationism should not be taught in any class that calls itself “Science” class. Creationism is the antithesis of science.


12 posted on 03/30/2009 1:59:04 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Fixed it: Evolution should not be taught in any class that calls itself “Science” class. Evolution is the antithesis of science.


13 posted on 03/30/2009 2:10:58 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’m sure your posts and comments wil go far to dispel the notion that teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution is not and in no way should be associated with “creationism and religion”.


14 posted on 03/30/2009 2:11:44 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is a religion. Creation Science is based on God’s Word. It is a very specific hypothesis that explains and predicts the evidence far better than does the Evo-religion. As such, they should both be taught so students can see for themselves that Darwood’s materialistic creation myth is no match for biblical creation.


15 posted on 03/30/2009 2:16:49 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is a religion. Creation Science is based on God’s Word. It is a very specific hypothesis that explains and predicts the evidence far better than does the Evo-religion. As such, they should both be taught so students can see for themselves that Darwood’s materialistic creation myth is no match for biblical creation.

You just keep repeating that, loud and often. In no time at all you'll have people convinced you're not really a religious fanatic.

16 posted on 03/30/2009 2:19:43 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Nope.

Science is based upon finding natural causes to explain natural phenomena.

Creationism is based upon discounting natural causes and attempting to explain any contradictions by supernatural agency.

Science is based upon not being married to any particular interpretation but being willing to go where the data takes you; thus no theory is ever “proven” but accepted provisionally awaiting further data to either reject or refine the theory.

Creationism is based upon blind adherence to a literal interpretation (where it serves), and attempting to fit the “round peg” of the data into the “square hole” of their adamant unchanging and inflexible assumptions of innerency in scriptural interpretation.

But it is not just Evolution you and your ilk oppose GGG. It is Astronomy, Physics and Geology.

Should those also not be taught in any class that calls itself “Science” for the identical reason that they also do not subject their data and theories to your literal interpretation?

17 posted on 03/30/2009 2:25:34 PM PDT by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

read later


18 posted on 03/30/2009 2:39:02 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
"providing that students will learn, for example, to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations…including examining all sides of scientific evidence…"

Great--that's what science class is for; this is hardly a great victory for creationism. Note, though, that I highlighted scientific above. Any alternative explanation that is based on Genesis will not be legal. As a proud Texas Christian, I'll work to ensure that the bible stays out of science class.

19 posted on 03/30/2009 2:47:12 PM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Blah, blah, blah...

So I thought we were going to debate the relative merits of Creation vs. Evolution. I’m still waiting for you first argument.


20 posted on 03/30/2009 2:53:06 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-199 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