;^)
Posted on 10/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PDT by RCW2001
| The Associated Press
|
| COLUMBUS, Ohio Oct. 14 — A state school board panel Monday recommended that Ohio science classes emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity.
The committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether to include in the debate the concept of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence. The guidelines for the science curriculum simply put into writing what many school districts already do. The current guidelines do not even mention evolution. "What we're essentially saying here is evolution is a very strong theory, and students can learn from it by analyzing evidence as it is accumulated over time," said Tom McClain, a board member and co-chairman of the Ohio Board of Education's academic standards committee. Conservative groups, some of which had tried and failed to get biblical creation taught in the public schools, had argued that students should learn about intelligent design. But critics of intelligent design said it is creationism in disguise. On Monday, the committee unanimously forwarded a final draft without the concept in it to the full 19-member board. Board member Michael Cochran, who had pushed for intelligent design in the standards, said, "The amendment allows teachers and students in Ohio to understand that evolution really is a theory and that there are competing views and different interpretations. This allows them to be discussed." The Ohio school board will decide Tuesday whether to adopt the new standards or order that they be revised.
On the Net: Ohio Department of Education: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ |
This is a nice little rhetorical racket the evolutionists try to pull. To support their theory they say that no one disagrees with evolution. If one points to a biologist like Behe who disagrees with it they say his statements are irrelevant because he is a 'creationist' and therefore cannot be believed. If one points to an admission by an evolutionist which contradicts evolution then they claim it is an 'out of context quote'. Thereby they 'win' either way. It shows quite well that evolution is an ideology not science.
Aaaah, another evolutionist 'refutation'! When evolutionists cannot disprove a statement they always attack the messenger. How lame! How dishonest!
That evolution and Communism are tightly joined ideologically is beyond doubt. Marx was so impressed with the Origin that he wanted to dedicate it to Darwin. The reasons for it are abundantly shown in the paragraph below:
When Marx read the Origin, he enthusiastically declared it to be "a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history". In 1873 he sent a copy of the second edition of Das Kapital to Darwin, who politely acknowledged the gift. "Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge; and this, in the long run, is sure to add to the happiness of mankind." If Darwin had not the least idea of what Marx was up to or what they might have in common, Marx knew precisely what he valued in Darwin. Recommending the Origin to Lasalle, he explained that "despite all deficiencies not only is the death-blow dealt here for the first time to teleology in the natural sciences, but their rational meaning is empirically examined." The other reason for his interest in the Origin emerged in Das Kapital, where he complained of the abstract materialism of most natural science, "a materialism that excludes history and its process." It was his hope that by focusing attention on change and development, the Origin would destroy both the olf-fashioned supernaturalism and the equally old-fashoned materialism.
From: Gertrude Himmelfarb "Darwin and the Darwinian Evolution", page 421.
Another way to put the above is that Marx himself viewed evolution as the basis for scientific materialism.
Seems that while you do not have the time to show what you claim are errors in my statements, you do have the time and desire to insult. How lame. How dishonest.
Interesting that you (and sometimes other evolutionists) give as examples of evolution things which have doubtlessly come about through the actions of intelligent human beings. Have you considered that perhaps the terms evolution and randomness are opposites? Have you considered that perhaps you need intelligence for anything to evolve? The whole history of science is an example of humanity learning from prior discoveries.
Problem is that unpredictability does not mean randomness. The economy is unpredictable because there are 6 billion people trying to find a better way to make money, a better way to save money, a better way to make a living and so forth. It is unpredictable because there are so many people looking for ways to better their economic lives that it is impossible to make a model of it. The unpredictability is therefore the result of intelligence, not randomness.
Do you know them? Does not seem like it since all you post is insults but never refute any scientific statements made on these threads. Want to take a shot at one? Let's see you show it to be wrong:
Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.
Some people never learn.
So true! I am truly amazed how so many evolutionists after spending so much time on these threads, after posting so many links which supposedly support their views, are unable to discuss the issues rationally and instead need to resort to insults.
Yeah yeah - implementation details. Just stick it in the Functional Spec document. :-)
Wow, your attempt to wiggle out of this is impressive! By your logic the flagellum does not exist. Only the proteins exist. (But wait: A protein is a collection of amino acids; so maybe the proteins themselves are abstractions too!)
Yes, and the whole history of evolution is an example of species "learning" (in a passive sense) from prior selection events.
;^)
Who is wiggling? You can see a flagellum under the microscope. Show me the oil industry. Economies exist by definition ---The system or range of economic activity in a country, region, or community:
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.