The Louisiana House of Representatives voted 94-3 Wednesday to pass a bill that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.
The measure, which is expected to cruise easily through the upper house, is the latest measure in a series of “Academic Freedom” bills that have swept across several states, including Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan. A similar measure was also under review in Florida earlier this year before stalling in the state’s legislature.
Lawmakers say that the efforts to pass the bills are a response to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.
Louisiana’s version of the bill, the “Science Education Act,” will help to supply teachers with supplementary textbooks that will give greater freedom in the classroom to analyze and critique existing scientific theories concerning evolution.
Supporters of the bill said that the measure would be an important step in securing safe academic environments where “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories” would be welcome.
“This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, in a statement.
Detractors of the bill, however, claim that the recent measure is nothing more than a masked agenda to install religion in schools.
In a statement, Americans United said that it would not rule out legal action against the bill on the grounds of violating the separation of church and state.
“Americans United and other groups contend that [the] ‘supplemental materials’ (textbooks) are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries,” the group said.
“The measure is being pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other Religious Right forces,” the group added.
West, however, denies this assertion, noting that the language of the bill is clear, objective, and fair.
“Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on,” he said.
“The proposed Louisiana law expressly states in Section 1C that it ‘shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion,’” he continued.
“Americans United conveniently neglects to mention that section of the bill,” he said.
In total, at least six states have considered passing "Academic Freedom" legislation this year, according to the Discovery Institute.
RSS
The academic bill of rights resolution sailed through the georgia with a sweeping of vote.the system of fundamental forces and natural constaints essentially requires that life. the bills are a response to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging. thank you
===============
danica
<a href="http://www.treatmentcenters.org/louisiana">Louisiana Treatment Centers</a>
"What arguments from Behe, for instance, are busted flushes? "
Oh, I don't know, the bacteria flaggella, the blood clotting cascade system, and on and on Basically all the instances which he espouses are IC (Ireducible Complex) and which were show in Dove rin 2005 (3 years ago already) to be, well, not quite so IC after all. I have been saying to you for quite some time HAWK that though Behe's arguements sound legit to most laymen, they don't work to well under critique. Here, review this 9 part series, only 1 1/2 hour long, and research more on them if you'd like. I know they have some archieved on Panda's Thumb.org as well.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A
Steve,
Have a great weekend. I suppose we have pretty much exhausted this thread and won't be back. Sure to catch up with you elsewhere, however.
Your banded iron formations sound interesting. I do miean that as I do have an interest, to some extent, in geology, as an engineer.
Here's a couple sites to look at for your studies and consideration; maybe they're busted flushes. The truth will finally prevail one way or the other.
http://www.icr.org/article/203/
http://www.halos.com/
God Bless
Hawk
Been there, done it, see other forum.
I've just added this discussion to the article:
"The Video - Louisiana Coalition for Science - is afraid of!"
http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/news/062008b.html
I would define a busted flush as an arguement that really no longer holds water, it has had its time, it maybe held sway for a long time, it maybe had great influence but now, well best to say its time has past and the world has moved on, its normally at this satge that those who held that point of view and once had power through it start to use the "balanced enqiry etc.." arguement.
I propbably would enjoy that book but I have a reading list as long as your arm...I'm really enjoying studying / reading on "banded iron formations" at this time, they testify to the time when free oxygen levels started to rise (due to bacteria) in the atmospshere of the Earth.
Its all in the rocks.
Steve
The LA legislation conforms to Darwin's statement, not that Darwin's statement was the cause for the legislation. The philosophy behind it is pretty much what an open academic environment is all about, or at least should be. You used the term "busted flushes" so it is only natural to determine what a "busted flush" is in your view. Sorry that you took my previous question so hard
God Bless
Hawk
Steve
You'd probably enjoy reading Nigel Brush's The Limitations of Scientific Truth. He earned his PhD at UCLA and is an assistant professor of geology at Asland University in Ohio. He has done archaeological, geological and environmental work around the world.
All you asked me was if I had any problems with it, and I told you what I honestly thought, who said I was talking about Behe? I was just commenting on what I have over many years observed.
What I did find interesting is the desire to use quotes of Darwin as if they are some sort of holy scripture, its not a view I hold too myself.......
Steve
Flagged myself
What arguments from Behe, for instance, are busted flushes?
P.s Yeah, I do have a problem with that quote because some people hide behind it when their arguament is a busted flush............
Thanks for the reccomendations, but my reading list is full with books for my geosciences degree, I'm doing it not just talking about it.
:-)
Steve
RAVI ZACHARIAS - ATHEIST KILLER EXTRAORDINAIRE....
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Watch.aspx
Steve,
I can understand why you gave up the ministry with the overwhelming barrage of evolutionist explanations (anywhere from excellent to just so stories) from a field that purports to be totally factual, [assuming that's how you saw things]
That is a problem with creationism and the truth of scripture when facing the scientific stories of the day.
The fact is, there are many qualified scientists educated to the PhD level who have been fully exposed to the exclusive claims of Darwinism in their formal education; yet these scientists were not convinced of the claims and interpretations for Darwinism and accepted ID as a better explanation for certain aspects of life (even in the face of firing or ostracism). It is reasonable for a layperson to conclude that there is validity to ID and there are profound shortcomings with Darwimism.
I suggest Nigel Brush's The Limitations of Scientific Truth if you haven't read it already. It places a proper perspective of science with the rest of the body of knowledge. Brush is a Christian scientist and applies an even handed analysis from God's perspective.
Behe's The Edge of Evolution places an excellent balance to the state of Darwinism and ID at this time without the dogmas of naturalism or supernaturalism impossed.
Here is an excellent link that addresses ID Theory and the Discovery Institutes position of science education.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
Please note the statement attributed to Charles Darwin at the beginning pages of this pdf file and tell me if you have any problems with it.
God Bless
Hawk
.
Dear CP readers.
Some may have noticed that a large number of comments have disappeared from a number of articles. We would like everyone to know that we are currently in the process of launching our new site within this week and experienced a minor glitch. We apologize for the inconvenience and hope to be able to restore the comments to the site.
Thank You
CP Admin
"Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God"
No it doesn't evolution simply states biological changes over time, for all we know god poofed the replicating organics and from that point it they began evolving. Or the system of fundimental forces and natural constaints essentially requires that life come about, just as it requires gravity to come about.
The premise of no god being involved is how science works, as in the scietific method we're not allowed to explain X by appealing to 'god dun it' or ' a miracle happened here'.
This is how ACTUAL knowledge is gained. We could simply wrongly appeal to 'god dun it' to explain how rainbows form, or how electricity and magnitism works, which as you note explains nothing. OR, we can used science reductionism to find what causes and controls electricity, magnitism and rainbows.
"philosophy of naturalism "
it's called the scientific method, and some of the fruits of it you're using right now.
HAWK49,
" intelligent design and coincide with many qualified scientists who have acknowledged ID or Biblical creation in life and the cosmos using their scientific knowledge, reasoning and logic"
Ok, so you're refering to the Disco Institutes (what have they discovered by the way?) 'list of 700 scientists who desent darwin'. Now, you should also know that NCSE did a similar signing by scientists, and they have over 800, and they are only featuring those with the first name of 'Steven'. So, the NCSE has a list of 800+ scientists, all using the same first name would agree with evolutiionary theory, just to give you an idea of how many others agree with it based just on the name. Also, the list the Discovery Inst. uses has only a handfull of biologists, most are mathmaticians or engineers, nothing to do with biology at all.
Ok, Hawk here is your chance, blow me out of the water with the great facts as presented by Hovind, AIG, ICR, Discovery Institue or whoever else you can dig up. You cna copy and paste directly from AIG for all I care, but I will show you how frivolous their arguements are on just these 2 topics.
Explain the following vids using the 'designer did it hypothesis' in 1) Scientific & 2) Falsifiable manner. Cheers.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
HAWK
Don't mind cut and paste, don't like it when it just covers up lazyness.......
Naturalistic evolution makes no assumptions about the existenece of God (unless you believe everything AIG says). Naturalistic evolution deals with the bio diversity on this planet, the existence or non existence of God does not come under the remit of naturalistic evolution.
One of the reasons I left full time Christain minisitry was because I could not continue peddling this scientific falsehood to people, when I stopped it I slept well.
We have the same evidence its just at the end of the day you have come to the wrong conclusion.
Steve
Flagged myself, somehow it suddenly submitted twice, but then we all have the same submit button?
"You give up your freedom when you say that a reasonable alternative to evolution cannot be taught. "
Doc, you speak as if the ID hypothesis is as well tested and equally, or more supported by all forms of evidence compared to evolutionary theory, but this isn't so. ID makes no claims for extinct life forms and their explanation for new emerging life forms which become extinct is as follows: 1) designer poofs/makes X organism. 2) X organism goes extinct. 3) Designer comes back and respawns another organism, organism X1, which is very, very similar to the now extinct organism X. The sort the species to species evolution many creationists say is impossible.
This process is what ID hypothetical implies as they (save for Behe) implicitly say no common descent has occurred or can occur. So the only logical explanation using their 'designer did it' hypothesis is that the designer periodically comes back all the time and instantly poofs a revision of the extinct organism into a habitat. Hmmm, call me weird, but how does one define a design 'intelligent' much less the designer intelligent if some 99% of everything he's ever made is extinct?
Now this is just one branch of evidence, paleontology, which can’t be explained at all using the ID hypothesis. Wouldn't a truly intelligent designer make something which wouldn't require his constant nanny supervision and would live on without his periodic care taking? One would think so.
Now, have we ever even observed anything remotely like this? Animals poofing into existence? And even the founder of ID, Philips has openly and repeatedly stated, ID as a hypothesis doesn’t have the same level of explanatory power nor the same amount of evidence to back it. So why then should we teach it I n classes? We should teach what is BEST supported by evidence.
Steve,
Don't like the cut and paste? Oh well. When it fits I'll use it. J's remarks about the elephant in the living room are spot on wrt intelligent design and coincide with many qualified scientists who have acknowledged ID or Biblical creation in life and the cosmos using their scientific knowledge, reasoning and logic. This is the worldview I have accepted as I too see the elephant in the living room.
The other theories from qualified scientists? Try Discovery Institute, AIG or CRI for starters and read what scientists who rely on other than the philosophy of naturalism to interpret the facts and observations.
"Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began. Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe. Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are very different. The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted."
God Bless
Hawk
I am all for an alternative to evolution being taught when one comes along.
Steve, This sounds so Orwellian.:-) You lose freedom by granting those who wish to teach about intelligent design the legal permission to do so? You have it backwards. You give up your freedom when you say that a reasonable alternative to evolution cannot be taught.
No you are not the rebel I referred to. I was talking about me since I live in the part of the British Empire that rebelled. :-)
Academic freedom is such a weird concept these days. If you walk on a college campus you are free to speak if you are a liberal democrat pro abortion, pro gay rights, anti Christian. You are free to speak in the science department if you swear allegiance to evolution. Unless you toe the line and are politically correct, you really dont have academic freedom.
That is where this conversation began. The Freedom to dissent. The Freedom for intelligent people to look at what is being taught and disagree.
I will stick with Freedom since I am the great great great great grandchild of rebels.
Paul in his letter to the Galatians 5:1 Stand firm in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.
runningdoc
runningdoc
The academic freedom acts actually destroy freedom as it makes all teaching in science a matter of personal opinion, everything becomes relative, which is quite ironic for those who like to concentrate of absolutes so much.
Thank you for your compliment about being a rebel ( ah, you where talking about me.....:-p)
Steve
All this stands completely counter to faith, and religious assumptions cannot withstand any of these rigors. But evolution can, and does, and has. For 150 years so far the greatest minds of the modern age have collectively failed to controvert the essence of evolution. It is a study which neither requires nor desires faith, and doesn’t even permit it, nor is it needed, because evolution is easily indicated and evidenced, measured and tested myriad ways without it –and even against the harshest scrutiny. And remember that evidence must be objective, meaning that it can still be verified whether you want to believe in it or not. Evolution has all that in spades, and is a unifying theory which has enhanced our knowledge of many different aspects of biology enormously, and that’s why so many religious as well as non-religious scientists endorse it.
Believe what you want about the supernatural realm. But those beliefs have to rely on faith because there’s no way to know whether any of it is true or not; because science can’t look at the metaphysical. It can only help us understand the material world we can actually study.
Science is completely opposite in every respect. Rather than any need-to-believe, science is driven by a desire to understand. And the only way to improve your understanding of anything is to seek out errors in our current position and correct them. You can’t do that if you claim your initial assumptions are already infallible, and you can’t even begin to seek the truth if you won’t admit that you might not already know it, or that you don’t know it all perfectly already.
While scientists themselves may be religious men of many different faiths, their methodology was designed to be the antithesis of faith because it requires that all assumptions be questioned, that all proposed explanations be based on demonstrable evidence, and that all hypotheses be must be testable and potentially falsifiable. Blaming magic is never acceptable because miracles aren’t explanations of any kind, and there has never been a single instance in history when assuming the supernatural has ever improved our understanding of anything. In fact such excuses have only ever impeded our attempts at discovery. This is one of many reasons why science depends on methodological naturalism; because unlike religion, science demands some way to determine who’s explanations are the more accurate, and which changes would actually be corrections.
Science is a self-correcting process which changes constantly because its always improving. Only accurate information has practical application. So it doesn’t matter what you wanna believe. All that matters is why we should believe it too, and how accurate your perception can be shown to be. So you can’t just make up stuff in science (like you can in religion) because you have to substantiate everything, and be able to defend it even against peers who may not want to believe as you do. Be prepared to convince them anyway. Its possible to do that in science because science is based on reason. That means you must be ready to reject or correct whatever you hold true should you discover evidence against it.
According to a consensus of every authoritive or definitive source available anywhere -including theologians, dictionaries, scriptures, hymns, sermons, -everything; faith can be accurately defined as a complete and unwavering conviction; a positive belief –which is not dependant on evidence, and will not change because of evidence.
“That is unreasonable, and it's unscientific. That is the definition of blind faith;
I believe something even though there is no evidence to support it.”
Faith is often a belief in things which are impossible according to everything we know about anything at all. The belief is sacred, meaning that it is never to be questioned or critically examined, but must be believed no matter what. Skeptical inquiry is strictly forbidden, and apologetics exists only to obligately rationalize away any criticisms so that they may be dismissed without consideration.
In other words, faith assumes its own conclusions, believes impossible things without reason, and defends those beliefs against all reason to the contrary. So it can’t help but be wrong to some degree to start with, and any errors will never even be acknowledged, much less sought out or corrected. So that situation can never improve. However wrong it already is is however wrong it will forever be. So faith offers no way to discover the real truth about anything, but it’s a great way to stay wrong forever and never admit it –even to yourself.
“ Unlike the Bible which does not change”
And that is the principle strength of Science. It continually appeals to more and more testing, more and more evidence and uses a form of philosophical reductionism to strip away ignorance to reveal ‘what is’ in all cases. The revelation of ‘truth’ isn’t an instant process; it’s a slow, long term and collective one in which an idea which is well supported and continually passes the same tests and future tests can be based on such tests to produce falsifiable results. Therefore, this process is a knowledge building process, collectively removing bad and wrong ideas, observations, and errors and improving on those ideas which are most supported and tested.
In Newton’s day, Gravity was understood to operate in an instant manner across all space and time and only till certain technology became available and the great mind of Einstein figured out gravity doesn’t quite work this way. He found out about ‘relativity’ in which there is a fundamental speed limit for all matter in the Universe, namely the speed of light ( c).
Did Einstein’s discovery destroy gravity? Absolutely not, rather it enhanced it. It revealed where Newton was indeed correct and expanded further on it to reveal more about our Universe as it actually is.
“Science comes and goes”
And yet all the fruits of science all still here. Our entire western civilization is founded on such knowledge.
Dear Steve, British science is committed to what it thinks the truth is at this moment. Given time a good bit of that truth will change.. Unlike the Bible which does not change.
The sad thing is that you seem to value freedom less than you do the changing truth of British science. I will take Freedom anyday. Science comes and goes. Once it is gone, Freedom is hard to get back.
But, then what would expect a rebel to say anyway. :-)
runningdoc
I should also add that the beauty of education in England is that you cannot teach your kids that the Earth is flat because it simply is not true, no matter what a parent might think.
British science education...committed to the truth, not teaching both sides.
Steve
"Steve, that remains the beauty of living in the United States. Freedom to educate your children that the world is flat without a bureaucrat to tell you otherwise"
Yes, but if its not flat, its not flat, sod what the bureaucrat or anybody else says says, period.
Kind regards
Steve
"flagged myself for inappropriate use of the English language."
it's ok, you can say it, soccer/footbaaaallll isn't a sport, nothing foul there =)
In the words of one famous football manager
" Football...Its not a matter of life or death,it's far more important than that....."
Steve
Steve, 3of 4 of my kids played footballllllll/soccer, two in college and I still dont understand the game too much. runningdoc. flagged myself for inappropriate use of the English language.
Agent, The meaning is not there. It was not there when the constitution was written. The people who wrote it did not view it the way it is interpreted today. My undergrad degree is in history. I can refer you to some good books on the subject, or you can take my word for it.
BTW, taxes for public education do not pay for the public library, museums, city parks and the like. Those come in separate taxes in the state of Indiana and most other places.
I sent all of my children to private Christian schools and paid the taxes and did not complain. I was financially able to do that. Most parents are not. The taxation or the education without academic freedom to discuss ID is tyranny.
runningdoc
NO!!!!!!! Its not soccer (spits) its footballl!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
Steve
steveh20,
in the states we call it soccer, and its not really popular here. if we hear 'football' we think NFL football.
Steve, that remains the beauty of living in the United States. Freedom to educate your children that the world is flat without a bureaucrat to tell you otherwise. We can homeschool our children here and many do. Their children do not seem to suffer much as a result. My son inlaw was homeschooled through High school and went right on in to college in engineering. He now works on aircraft engines for a company you may be familiar with, Rolls Royce Engine.
I know of no one here who wants to teach their chidlren about a flat earth, and frankly I think you can be a great doctor, accountant, lawyer, teacher, nurse, investment banker, and research scientist and believe in a very Intelligent Designer.
I know lots of them. runningdoc
“The phrase, separation of church and state does not appear in the US constitution”
No duh, but it’s meaning and implicitly is there and in other articles. I do agree with you, at least partly. If the kids aren’t going to use the govt system for public education, the parents shouldn’t be required to pay the regular taxes for such a public education. They also wouldn’t be able to use other such public educational institutions also, like museums, libraries and recreation (sports) parks, as they aren’t contributing to funding it. I guess it doesn’t matter too much, there is the YMCA.
Runningdoc
Thanks for the reply.
I appreciate that as a cousin across the Atlantic I have in some ways "no" right to comment on your education system. Now, I don't wish to set up a straw man but I am going to use an extreme example here, but I am sure you will understand the spirit I use it in. What if some parents wish to use the voucher to send the kids to a school that teaches the world is flat? Its a point of view which certain skewed evidence will support, the important fact being, its what the parents want. How do we (all) cope with that, where is the line drawn? I will nail my colours to the mast, I do believe there is a line, I believe that on some scientific subjects there are no "two" points of view, there is only one.
As an aside it Italy 1 France 0 in the Euro 2008 football tournament, how I love the beautiful game....If anybody wants to talk football, I'm up for it
Steve
Flagged myself, poor grammer
Steve, the solution is a voucher. Let people educate their children the way they see fit with their own tax dollars or dont tax them at all. The founders did not forsee a public education system that would be funded in the way that education currently is funded by mandatory taxation. Thus, they would not have forseen the conflict that might arise from a revisionist historical interpretation of the 1st amendment and the establishment clause. The phrase, separation of church and state does not appear in the US constitution. Thomas Jefferson authorized the printing of Bibles to give to the Indians while he was President, If I remember correctly.
Let everyone pick their own school and take their voucher to it. Then nobody will be mad about Christmas programs or Easter vacation or what the teacher said in biology.
runningdoc
runningdoc
Thanks for that, I'm sure you will understand that due to not a having a seperation of church and state issue in England the points you raise concerning tax dollars etc.. are peculier to America and not here.
What happens to those who don't want their tax dollars giving an audience to ID proponants?
Reagards
Steve
Steve
Steve, currently the only thing being taught in the classroom of public schools is the billions of years to do this model. My education started in 1955 so, I have listened to origins explained in a variety of ways by the teacher in charge. I had teachers remind me at the end of the educational movie, that Genesis one tells us that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I have had zoology professors tell me that God used evolution to create things the way they are. I had professors for whom god was not an issue.
The problem with the current education structure is that as long as the child is in control of the public education system which currently only teaches evolution, the parent has no option if they are going to recoup the tax money they pay for their childs eduction.
Thus I said, public educators want me and other taxpayers like me to guarantee them an audience with our tax dollars.
The folks in Louisiana are probably just as smart as anyone posting on the website.(at least they have something important to do) They want their children to understand that there are good numbers of people who disagree with the religious evolutionary dogma. They do not want their children educated in a setting where God is part of the null curriculum.
runningdoc
Should add, back to writing my paper on the origin of Banded Iron Formations, 2.5 Ga...
Hawk
I think the thing I find so disrepuatble about your cut and pasteing is the lack of knowledge you have concerning this subject, you can speak so little from personal knowledge, from personal study of this subject that have to resort to this.
I can respect those who disagree with me but have studied, who have put in the hard work, who have sat the exams and know the joy of sucess and the tears of failure, who can write from experience. But cut and pasters, they show them selves for what they are, lightweights in a field of heavy hitters.
Feel better now.
Kind regards
Steve
"christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html"
well, it seems HAWK/Parrot's source has been found. Oh dear, direct parroting again.
Your right, I do know, but one hopes that it may not be so....
“if it starts with evolution and then moves on to other scientifc matters in the classroom.”
You know it. Consider how the Imams of the Islamic golden age instantly removed any advancement in science simply for theological reasons. Those here would no doubt act in the same manner should they gain controls of school curriculums. Some whom I am spoke with don’t see an issue with the BB theory, while others (those most ignorant of science) somehow see it as a disgrace as it doesn’t involve god directly forming planets, stars as such.
So you take one mans personal opinion retarding the structure of DNA and for you it supersedes all others views regarding its origins? Not very logical Parrot, not logical at all. But by this logic I could surmise that b/c Francis Collins suggests DNA is and does evolves means it must be true, but this too is a logical fallacy. Facts determine what is and what isn’t, not a persons personal views on the matter.
Who is the scientist in this conversation, I notice you left the name simply as ‘scientist’. ‘Ok, so he’s a molecular biologist, or so we’re told, but what’s his name? and why does he go by 'J', what, does he work at the' Men in Black'?
Again I ask, please explain how such evidence as provided earlier by me can be explained by the notion of ID. Explain it using the ‘designer did it’ hypothesis and in a scientific manner. Good luck.
“Let the students decide each of the merits based on the facts and reasoning’
So let me get this straight. You would be open to teach both sides, in everything then? Should we teach both sides in classes in regards to astronomy and astrology? Or in chemistry and alchemy? Should we teach both sides with regards to the outcome of such well-known events like the Civil War, or the Holocaust and simply just leave it up to the kids to decide? Would you be open to churches doing this type of ‘teach the both sides’ by teaching Christianity alongside numerous other religions?
Does it sound logical or reasonable to simply ‘let the kids decide’ in matters of scientific accuracy instead of the current method where only the BEST supported theories which are supported are facts, heavily critiqued and tested are to be taught? You want kids to decide, kids who lack the very basic understandings on how to determine if something is or isn’t scientific, that’s not very smart. The professors and experts as they battle it out to support theories are those we should teach in classes.
I suppose AOX, that I really want to know if the issue with evolution is really the thin edge of the wedge, if it starts with evolution and then moves on to other scientifc matters in the classroom.
Steve
HAWK
What does this article with J prove?
All it says is that a journalist has an interview with J (a molecular biologist) who has a particular point of view, we know nothing about J what so ever etc...
Can you come up with something better?
Steve
“I'm interested ,because I like to know the views of those who disagree with evolution concerning other aspects of science.”
To answer your question Steve, if HAWK is a biblical literalist like Star, he/she would most certainly not accept the notion of a universe older than 6,000 years, perhaps 10,000 at most. I’ve tried explaining this to star dozens of times; she thinks its only evolutionary theory. And don’t tell them the science also doesn’t support the notion of earth forming before all things, much less those in our solar system., this too they would have to reject. They despise evolutionary theory b/c it, unlike cosmology and other sciences, which don’t conform to their views, has, in their eyes at least, has strong theological consequences. In their eyes, if they weren’t magically, specially created, then in their eyes ‘god lied’ and it becomes hard to identify things like purpose in their lives as this is the stemming source for purpose in their lives. They think, if they weren’t magically poofed into being, that this somehow means life is without meaning/purpose. They are so worked up with only seeing ultimate purpose in an after life that the notion of an actual purpose in the here and now becomes nearly impossible to recognize. Science is there friend, so long as it doesn’t infringe on their theology.
Agentorange,
What do we do with the elephant in the living room?
Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.
J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.
G: What elephant?
G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!
Thanks Hawk
What in particular are the other theories when it comes to solar system formation?
Regards
Steve
Flagged myself, spelling mistaek (joke)
Steve,
I believe all theories should be taught including their strengths and weaknesses both from the naturalism interpretation as well as the ID and creationist interpretations. Let the students decide each of the merits based on the facts and reasoning. Let them understand the reality and limitations of scientific truth claims and processes.
God Bless
Hawk
Ga = Giga anum (its a geological term), 1 Ga = 1 billion years.
Steve
Steve,
"There are those who do not think the Earth s 4.5 Ga, do you think therefore that in science classes (or where this is taught in American schools) this alternative point"
What is the Earth s 4.5 Ga.
Is this in reference to the question about how old the earth is? Old planet versus Young Planet?
runnindoc, I will be out running for a while and get back to it after lunch.
Runningdoc
Thank you for that particular definition.
I have a question.
There are those who do not think the Earth s 4.5 Ga, do you think therefore that in science classes (or where this is taught in American schools) this alternative point of view should be explored so students can make up their mind as to the age of the Earth?
I have asked this question but can never seem to get an answer, it does'nt seem that difficult.
Kind regards
Steve
Steve, Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good for the use of edification, that it might minister grace to the hearers.
Paul in his letter to the Ephesians 4:29.
That is the Biblical definition of free speech. Say things that benefit others. No corrupt communication. I suppose that means profane, unkind, name calling, untruth, slander and gossip.
The Biblical definition of free speech for Americans is important, because our rights were endowed to us by our creator not by our government or king. Such Free speech requires restraint that speaks in the interests of others. James Madison said that such restraint required a Christian people. He did not think we could abide by our laws if we were not a Christian People.
Freedom of speech was not intended to license individuals to say unkind, hurtful, slanderous things about others. Free speech was not intended to protect pornograpy. Free speech also does not guarantee you an audience.
That is the issue here. Evolutionary biologists want their audience guaranteed at taxpayer expense. The people of Louisana just want free speech to apply to all biology teachers, parents and students and to all viewpoints on the subject of origins.
runningdoc
Hello runningdoc
As an aside, what is "free speech"? Is it the freedom to say and teach anything?
Regards
Steve
Dear CCCCCCCCCC, I am smiling while I write this. I am not unhappy or upset.
I dont think you understand the establishment clause. Congress shall make no law with regard to the establishment of religion of the free exercise thereof. :-)
Free exercise of religion is just as much a part of the clause as the establishment issue. Taken in the context of the times, the establishment clause was not written to limit the influence of Christianity in our government or in our schools. It meant that no Christian denomination such as catholic or episcopal or baptist or methodist would become the state religion. Your understanding of the establishment clause is born out of a revision of history. In the long run, it is religion, not science, that is most important to the survival of any society.
Now Go set your hair on fire and say 1000 times, Christians are stupid. That is mostly what you did in your last two posts. I would flag them, but you would just complain about Christians who flag them. Saying that people who disagree with you are stupid does not lower their intelligence. It is merely a reflection on those who taught you manners.
The problem is that evolutionists just cant stand free speech and free people who vote for free speech. Evolutionists seem to want free speech only for those who worship the religion of evolution.
runningdoc.
"Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution, covers quite well the limitations of Darwinism to only the micro level (one or two changes to a gene) and the inability for randomness to carry on the continuous changes in the face of irreducible complexity."
Behe's irreducible complexity is a joke. Real biologists laugh at Behe.
Irreducible complexity means "Behe is too stupid to understand how something evolved, therefore it was poofed into existence by a magical sky fairy."
Guess what, magic is not science and Behe is not a real scientist. He's a wacko who makes a living lying to his gullible Christian customers.
"the inability for randomness"
Natural Selection is NOT random.
Natural Selection is NOT random.
Natural Selection is NOT random.
Natural Selection is NOT random.
Understand? No, probably not.
What works accumulates. What doesn't work disappears.
Now do you understand?
Mutations are random, but non-random natural selection selects what works. If something doesn't work the animal drops dead before reproducing. If something does work, it's likely to spread throughout the species. Minor changes accumulate and life gradually changes over vast periods of time.
I know creationists are too lazy to study science. It's too bad. They don't know what they're missing.
Yesterday, 6/16/2008, the same religious attack against science education won in the Louisiana Senate. The vote was 36 for and 0 against destroying science education. The know-nothing creationist governor is expected to sign this bill that cheats the students of Louisiana.
It's amazing there are exactly zero pro-science politicians in the Louisiana Senate and only 3 pro-science politicians in the Louisiana House of Representatives.
Louisiana wins. They now have the title of the most backward hick-infested state in America.
I look forward to a repeat of the trial that the creationists lost in Dover. The creationists will lose again, and the taxpayers of Louisiana can expect at least one million dollars of legal bills.
The creationist hicks will probably never learn how to respect the Establishment Clause of our constitution. It's even less likely the creationist hicks will ever understand science.
Thanks for that HAWK49.
I hope they have a good conference, its important that ideas are discussed, you never know something new may come out of it that can then be tested to see if it might be true, ii not then it will be back to the drawing board. We shall await the papers and the tests.....
There is a question I would like to ask you here as it comes more under my remit and will go someway to show me peoples views on the "bigger picture". In England in science classes the solar nebular theory is taught for the origin of the solar system, that 4.6 Ga a fragment of interstellar cloud collasped forming the sun, planets, and all other bodies contained within it(short version). Is this something that should be taught in school, together with, that the Earth is about 4.5 Ga.
I'm interested ,because I like to know the views of those who disagree with evolution concerning other aspects of science.
Steve
HAWK49,
“Evolution has no viable mechanism by which it accomplishes change.”
Sure it does, the mechanism is Natural Selection. Part of the collective process if genetic drifting in which gene pools become isolated, another is per generational mutations in which genetic information is added and made available for adaptations by the host depending upon the environment. You want others, I got time.
“is purported to be a "theory of everything,"
Ummmm, no it’s not. It’s science theory pertaining to biological changes over time and that’s about it. Evolutionary theory isn’t applicable to say gravity or atomic matter, nor can it describe evidence regarding the Big Bang theory. Each theory in science is separate and as such can only adequately explain such relevant facts.
“Isn't it ironic that evolutionists (scientists and philosophers) can question the adequacy of Darwinism without fanfare; but when these questions are considered for presention to PS students you better run for cover or if a competing theory that fits the model better”
This is b/c the new controversial ideas aren’t well supported enough to be taught in class this is why. In science we hold conferences to debate, usually way larger than 16, and publish letters, articles and books which adhere to standardized testing.
At no point is a single observed fact given leniency and just allowed to pass critical critique by other associate scientists before being taught as such. In order to ensure the highest level of scientific accuracy on what is what, it’s important all ideas and facts are ruthlessly tested and shown to be repeatedly reliable prior to being taught. How exactly does ID fit any of the evidence better HAWK? How would ID, in a falsifiable and scientific manner explain such evidence as theses?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Steve
here's the additional details of "the Altenberg 16" you requested:
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/features/03-08/features948.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008/03/a_messy_affair_indeed.php
Isn't it ironic that evolutionists (scientists and philosophers) can question the adequacy of Darwinism without fanfare; but when these questions are considered for presention to PS students you better run for cover or if a competing theory that fits the model better is proposed the vitriol and venom really flies.
God Bless
Hawk
HAWK49
I've been to the site and read the article, all I read about the conference was this
"This summer at an exclusive meeting of leading evolutionists, the fact that natural selection does not help evolution will be the only agenda item. Evolution has no viable mechanism by which it accomplishes change. The scientists' purpose is to reformat evolution to operate without natural selection. Evolution is purported to be a "theory of everything," but a theory of everything without a mechanism cannot stand."
You have certainly given a reference but the details are quite hazy, I'm left with some questions....
Where is the conference?
When is it?
Who are these evolutionists?
Is anybody sponsoring it?
II don't think it's to much to ask for a little more detail.
Kind regards
Steve
viking
Here's the article regarding the evolutionists' conference this summer; http://www.icr.org/article/3876/
BTW; Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution, covers quite well the limitations of Darwinism to only the micro level (one or two changes to a gene) and the inability for randomness to carry on the continuous changes in the face of irreducible complexity. You may gain a much better perspective of ID upon reading this book.
viking, no apologies needed and thanks for getting back to me, have a good night, believer
Hi believer sorry bout that
Yes evolution does not discuss the origin of life
Yes there were no human eyewitnesses prior to the existence of human beings
viking, with all due respect you gave me a whole lot more info than I asked for and I really do appreciate your willingness to do that, but all I really wanted was a simple yes or no to what I shared or asked, but it sounds like from your answer the answer is yes to my questions, let me know if I'm correct in my assessment, thanks believer
Hawk49 could you give the citation or reference on this conference so that we could keep updated on their dialog. Thanks
Thanks for the thumbs up and being open to reason. I for one see no conflict with my faith in God and in salvation through Jesus Christ and the scientific discoveries associated with the theory of Evolution
Hi Daniel Paul,
I would agree with you that the statement attributed to the Grandson is not only unscientific it is shallow and arrogant. It misses the fundamental understanding of God. The accuracy or inaccuracy of any scientific theory can have no bearing on man's need or lack of need for god. The need for God in our lives is not to explain the natural universe. As I am sure you know the need of God is as philosophers would say to resolve the essential existential question of existence not the workings of the universe. In this same vein I would frame the essential question somewhat more existentially as. Is this all there is? Is there nothing more? Even a person never exposed to the Gospel or even the OT will ultimately come to this question. I find that a naturalistic view of existence is simply inadequate to explain existence as I experience and is in fact fundamentally unable to sustain itself logically. Descartes stated "I think therefore I am" He began his philosophy with this irreducible axiom not because of absolute certainty in it but rather any other position made all consideration of philosophy or anything else for that matter irrelevant and pointless. For if I do not exist what is the point of any contemplation and how can any thought be valid. Taking the next step one must ask is my thinking rational or irrational. If it is irrational then I can no more rely on it leading me to wisdom, knowledge and truth any more than I could rely on throwing dice and using that as the basis of determining what is or is not true. If humans are not at bottom capable of rationality then science is at its heart a fraudulent concept. Only if humans have the capacity for rationality does science of any kind have validity. So then where does this rationality come from. If one contended that it arises as a survival trait through the processes of evolution then it would be by its nature unreliable. By this I mean it would simply be an artifact of the interaction between species mutation and adaptation to environmental conditions. As such one could not be sure that the reasoning arising from it were actually valid rather than an artifact of survival behavior. So if rationality by definition can not arise from nature (otherwise it is not truly rational) it must come from some other source. Now you can call this source whatever you want but it is beyond nature and thus by definition supernatural. Therefore in reality only if the progeny of Darwin believes that he is a non rational product of evolution with no way of intelligently insisting on evolution or any other scientific theories validity can he validly contend that there is no need for God. But then if he is such a non rational animal rather than the transcendent being I believe him capable of being his thoughts are irrelevant since by his own views they are not rationale rather only an artifact of the interaction between natural processes and the environment at his moment.
Believer,
Hi you and Steve have covered some of this ground since I was on. I would concur with Steve that evolution does not even attempt to describe the process of how life originated on earth only the processes of change in life through time. You are also correct that no human being has personally witnessed the evolutionary processes which have stretched over tens of thousands of life times. Also no human being has personally witnessed the formation of oil or coal deposits but they are there nonetheless. Different theories have been conceived and explored regarding how petroleum deposits got to the Earth. In the 50s a fellow named velokovsky came up with an interesting idea that was romantically attractive. Unfortunately for his theory the evidence and mathematics did not support his speculation so it was (appropriately) never taught as an alternative to the best understanding of geology. The issue with science is that it can only show us whether the evidence and facts that can be gathered are consistent with an explanation of something (a theory) or not. Whenever a theory best fits all of the evidence we have around a topic we consider it to be the best working explanation of reality and teach it as such. In order for a new theory to replace an existing one it must do a better job of being consistent with the evidence and predicting new evidence before it is found. ID's real problem is not the entrenched inertia of establishment science (which can be an obstacle to scientific progress the excessive resistance to patetectonics being an example) but rather the fact that it does a very poor job of explaining the evidence and facts available and in predicting additional evidence. In fact the only way ID works at all is if thousands of data points and pieces of physical evidence and observations are either ignored or discounted. In order for a new theory to be given equal footing with an existing one not only must the existing explanation have flaws, inconsitencies or inadequacies but the alternate must do a better job of explaining all facts in evidence. Similarly no human being was present to serve as an eyewitness to the process of the formation of our sun yet still it happened and we have a good working theory that fits all of the available evidence and accurately predicted what we subsequently observed once we developed sufficiently powerful telescopes to observe star formation in the heavens. For myself I not only am constantly in awe at the majesty of the universe that the creator formed (including evolution) but also at the fact that we are endowed with the rationality through Gods grace to progressively increase our comprehension and appreciation of this creation.
BTW, viking. I gave you the thumbs up. I don't have to agree with someone to respect an honest arguement! Actually, the Bible talks about 'reasoning together'. Now there's a Biblical concept the world has turned it's back on!
I learned that starting with the concept that I really am not all that bright is a good place to start when looking for what is right and wrong. The Bible says "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." There's a brass plate at the hospital my wife works at with a quote from Albert E himself which says something about science without God is foolishness. I think he had the IQ to know!
I worked in printing for quite a number of years. Colors are determined by 'hue' and 'tone'. It's determined by 3 dimensional color mapping. In laymans terms there are variations of 'red' and then there are differences between colors. One is variations on a theme. One is not.
There is no dispute of changes within species. In fact, the Genesis states such. It's the between species 'evolution' where there is a problem. "Science by its nature is explicitly unable to render any opinion on the existence or non existence of god." In this we agree. However, at the Darwin Centenial convention the grandson (or greatgrandson) said "because of evolution we have no need of God or a god". Sounds right unscientific to me.
The bottom line question is...did God create man or not? Is the Bible true or not? Are we accountable to the God of the Bible. My belief is both sides of the issue tend to share an equal ability to display ignorance! We think were so smart but we can't even drive the speed limit...just how are we suppose to understand the wonders of the universe?
Steveh20...on that day everything we believe that isn't what God says will be rendered academic..... :-)
Cheers believer, thanks for the explanation.
Steve
At least there are still some truly "free thinking" leading evolutionists who admit that their foundation has crumbled and they need to seek another viable mechanism; thnk they may come to the conclusion of an Intelligent Designer and Almighty Creator?.
"Another remarkable "coincidence" is coming. ICR has long pointed out that natural selection is incapable of bringing about the major changes needed by evolution, even though educators grant it almost godlike powers. ...
This summer at an exclusive meeting of leading evolutionists, the fact that natural selection does not help evolution will be the only agenda item. Evolution has no viable mechanism by which it accomplishes change. The scientists' purpose is to reformat evolution to operate without natural selection. Evolution is purported to be a "theory of everything," but a theory of everything without a mechanism cannot stand.
steveh20, after I pondered on your question of me I think I finally got your question. In both high school and college the biology and physical science textbooks we used never seperated the two issues when they discussed the origin of life as well as the origin of mankind to the best of my knowledge they did support the theory of evolution as opposed to either intelligent design or creationism. Plus my major only required I take basic science courses as opposed to the advanced courses.
steveh20, as I have said before I am a novice in the science arena, so I need you to ask me your question in a way a novice like myself can understand and answer, thanks believer
Believer, I read with intrest your question concerning the origin of life and evolution and wonder if you could help me by clearing up some confusion it has called me. My understanding is that abiogenesis concerns the origin of life and evolution via natural selection concerns life after that, so the two issues are entirely seperate, but you seem to feel that evolution concerns abiogenisis as well, could you explain how you came to this understanding?
Kind regards
Steve
Flagged myself
viking, would you have to admit however that science has only been able to observe micro-evolution as opposed to macro-evolution in the present tense and all their evidence for macro-evolution has been in the past tense in which no human being was present to serve as an eyewitness, plus is it not also true that those in the evolution camp have never specifically shown how life as we know it began?
Daniel Paul,
Unfortunately for your thesis you simply have your facts wrong. The processes of evolution have been repeatedly directly observed and measured in controlled experimentation. This observation and recording of data in relation to a hypothesis is in fact "doing science" of course nothing in this or other science denies the existence of God. Science by its nature is explicitly unable to render any opinion on the existence or non existence of god. To try to use science as a tool for proving or disproving the existence of God is like trying to use literature or art as a means to prove or disprove god. Science is a tool for our comming to a better understanding of the natural world. When ID proponents discount scientific evidence and gin up pseudo science to denounce the science that supports the theory of evolution they not only display their ignorance of science but also the weakness of their faith. If their faith in God was truly strong and humble it would not be shaken by the scientific discoveries that help us to better understand the universe which God has created.
"Hopefully, they will look at the data objectively and learn from it."
Is'nt it amazing that there are people who think others are objective "only"if they come to the same conclusion as them
"EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tounge shall confess that Jesus the Christ is Lord."
I take it then that there is no room for academic freedom then on that day?
Isn't it amazing that those who support "free thinking" and "freedom of speach" only want THEIR thinking and speach to be acceptable?
Darwinism isn't science. It only uses scientific concepts. The same is said for Creationism. Science is something that can be measured. Experiments can be done and data gathered. Evolution is nothing more than a hypothisis based on what data is left to support it.
Again, Darwinism is nothing but an excuse to not give God the credit He is do. Never the less, the Bible says EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tounge shall confess that Jesus the Christ is Lord. Sounds like evolutionists view will do some serious 'evolving' on that day. Unfortunately, then it will be to late. Hopefully, they will look at the data objectively and learn from it.
SEPARATE_CHURCH_AND_STATE
You are absolutely correct. Dogmatic religious indoctrination in public schools is wrong. Darwinism is a dogmatic religion as it is a belief system grounded within the religious worldview of humanism.
Please keep religion out of the public classrooms. Sunday school is for teaching alternative views to Darwinism NOT the public school sector!
We are ahead of you in the UK, both my children have studied ID in their philosophy class, it was discussed openly with the pro's and cons (for and against) of it being discussed, having spoken to them and their friends it would be fair to say that none of them felt is was a good explantaion for the bio diversity on this planet, and we have no academic freedom act in this country.
Steve
Just read all the posts. It is amusing to watch this group jump from article to article. It started with a bunch of you setting your hair on fire because Ben Stein had the audacity to make the ID movie. Now you are setting your hair on fire because the people of Louisiana wish to have the freedom to teach whatever they wish in the classroom regarding origins. Imagine that. IN a free country free people can vote to extend that freedom to the classroom.
Education in the United States has been in steady decline since the mid 60s. I know you have to be old enough to know. :-) During that period, creation has been systematically excluded from the classroom and evolution has been taught exclusively as the only explanation for the origin of life unless you want to include alien abduction.
During this period, anyone who believes creation or intelligent design has been systematically rooted out of teaching science. Quoting the current biology faculty of the state of Lousiana as they attack teaching intelligent design or creation is about the same as asking for an unbiased opinion about the destructive nature of abortion from Planned Parenthood.
This is typical liberal nonsense. Freespeech for everyone but Christians. Open academic minds for inquiry except for intelligent design. It is this kind of closedmindedness that is destroying literacy and education in the US, not creation.or intelligent design.
Now set your hair on fire and tell why in a country that values free speech i should never say such things because it might harm "the children." :-) LOL
runningdoC
steveh20 - No need to apologize. I appreciate the lesson in pop culture. To think I actually thought myself a walking jukebox, too. Ah well.
Song
Blur where one of the biggest britpop bands of the 90's, one of their biggest hits was called song2 so thats why I though you may be a fan of them, egg on my face, when all along you meant the Song Of Solomon which , if my understanding is correct is a type, of the love of Christ for his bride the church?
Apologies
Steve
Song2vs4 I wish to commend you on your last post. Abuse is never necesary. When I see such it always reminds me of the quote regarding the young debater.
Instead of raising your voice you should reinforce your arguments. I find that abuse is usually a sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
I join you in your call for self restraint in this forum. Perhaps if all would excercise such we could agree that we would not flag any message unless it contained abusive, personally offensive (directed to ourselves), illegal, racist , libellous or spam content as requested by CP
Regarding censorship, there are limits to speech. Let's face it, you can't just type anything on this or any other site. There are rules. Whatever comments were made to me I don't mind reading as long as they don't include profane words and such. My feeling won't be hurt. I can only imagine it was some sort of personal attack. Big deal.
steveh20 - I don't have a clue what song you are referencing. My name comes from the Song of Solomon 2:4.
"You should apologize to song2vs4 because song2vs4 will never be able to read what you deleted."
That just proves that it was rant, ccccccc, if it was a legitimate arguement you would be able to remember what you said.
cccccc
If you will accept my apology it will free you from me. Accepting an offender's apology has a way of freeing you from the one who has offended you. That means that what they did won't bother you anymore.
song2vs4
I flagged cccccc's post to you at 12:45 am. I apologize for doing that. You had a right to read what he said to you. Please forgive me. thank you for your forgiveness in advance.
Well, on second thought, maybe you did address the 12:45 am post to song2vs4. So, I will apologize.
When are you going to accept my apology?
I only deleted your 12:45 am entry, no others. It wasn't addressed to song2vs4.
ccccccc
No, none of those things are ungodly. But name calling like you are doing is!
You seem to be smarter than that. Why not just discuss your ideas instead of resorting to name calling. People who name call only show what a shallow thinker they are. You don't want to give people that impression do you?
You should apologize to song2vs4 because song2vs4 will never be able to read what you deleted.
"your ungodly rants"
So being in favor of science is ungodly? Having the ability to think and the desire to study science is ungodly? Being against censorship is ungodly?
cccccc
Ok, I apoligize.
don\'tknowjesus
So you're the one who has been censoring me. You should be ashamed of yourself.
ccccccc
You are lucky Jesus hasn't censored you with all your ungodly rants.
West, however, denies this assertion, noting that the language of the bill is clear, objective, and fair.
“Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on,” he said.
That's interesting. Mr. West of the Christian Discovery Institute talks about censorship, but nobody can reply to anything written on the Discovery Institute websites, so their constant lying can never be challenged.
Meanwhile, on this Christian blog, the Christians love to censor people for no good reason. Nobody loves censorship more than Christians.
song2vs4 said "This is good news! Now, hopefully, other states will follow suit. Education wins and fear loses. Boy, you guys are sure sore losers."
song2vs4, I replied to your comments but one of your cowardly Christian friends deleted it. So you won't see it and nobody else will see my comments, because some worthless Christian coward deleted it.
song2vs4, perhaps you would like to say something to the worthless coward who deleted my reply to you for no reason.
I don't understand what all this censorship is for. Do Christians want to be hated? Is that your problem, Christians? Do you enjoy being despised?
Come on Christians. What's your problem? What are you afraid of? Do you think Jesus would censor people like you do? Jesus would be disgusted with the Christians here who censor people for no reason. Every time you censor me or somebody else, you prove to everyone that Christians are cowards.
mathetes, what part of "censorship is bad" don't you understand?
Darwin^2, what's your problem? Your impersonation of somebody who was several thousand times smarter than you is disgusting.
agentorangex
"it is after all your reputation on the line "
- that is why I won't tell you. It would be stupid of me to say I stole someone else's ideas and put my name on it. I could be sued you know.
"Depends how you look at it. Certaintly Darwin wasn't the only one at that time hinting to the idea of animals and life changing over time. "
- yes, you are correct here.
"If Darwin didn't point it out, another would have," - you are right here
" so it matters not on who found it," - this is true
" just that it was found. "
What matters, though, is who is taking credit for the idea.
"and in science that's all that is praised, we don't praise the man, we praise the noble idea he laid down. "
- you obviously don't do research.
If you were a researcher and someone took your ideas, put their name on it , and published it as their own I believe you would sue them in a court of law. Would you not? Man has a big ego and they want credit for what they do.
"(I would be stupid to tell you what I stole from him. Research it and figure it out yourself.)"
actually it would be stupider to claim you (he) stole it when in fact you (he) didn't only to then rudely ask another person (me) to 'reseach it for themselves'. you're the one making the claim, therefore the honus and burdern of proof is on you to back such a claim, it is after all your reputation on the line and after all Mr. Darwin, such a astute scientist/naturalist would see this obvious logic. so by all means, lay the sources on us.
"You know, it is a dog eat dog world in the scientific community."
Depends how you look at it. Certaintly Darwin wasn't the only one at that time hinting to the idea of animals and life changing over time. If Darwin didn't point it out, another would have, so it matters not on who found it, just that it was found. and in science that's all that is praised, we don't praise the man, we praise the noble idea he laid down.
ccccccc,
What part of "no personal attacks" do you not understand?
Steve, can you help him understand we're here for discussion, not name-calling?
Hello angentorangex, it is good to meet you.
Now, let me explain.
Alfred Russel Wallace , who was born in Llanbadoc, Wales, in 1823 and became an explorer, collector, naturalist, geographer and biologist who studied nature in the Amazon and the Malay Archipelago, from where he wrote to me. He came up with the idea of evolution by natural selection at the same time as I did. We both presented our theories to the scientific Linnean Society of London in 1858.
Afterwards, Wallace was went to Indonesia. He came down with malaria. He sent me two letters where he discussed some of his ideas of which I used in my Origin of Species. (I would be stupid to tell you what I stole from him. Research it and figure it out yourself.) I lied about when I received those letters. I said that I received them after I published the Origin of Species. However, if you will look at the shipping records you will see I got them before I published my book.
You know, it is a dog eat dog world in the scientific community. You do what you have to do to be successful in the eyes of your peers even if it means you have to be decietful, dishonest, and steal someone else's ideas. It happens all the time. It is a part of our fallen (sin) nature you know.
Now, I was raised with different ideas about God. I really wasn't a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. My dad wanted me to be a clergyman so he makes me go to school to become one. Oh I did good in school but I really didn't believe and I didn't want to be a minister. But I started rejecting what was written in the Bible as I rejected the Genesis account of creation. It was over a period of time but I came to reject the Bible altogether.
Darwin^2,
you stole ideas from Wallace which ones? I could of swore your writings on Origins were dated some 2 decades by the time Wallace and others began speaking openly bout publishing his findings before finally you published your works in Origins.
"I started losing faith in God and eventually became an unbeliever. "
I thought you only becmae an agnositc/unbeliever only following the untimely death of your 10 year old daughter? Such a tramatic event no dought sways one, it's hard to see how god could have wanted the poor girl to die and in this your found yourself in utter disbelief.
Hi song2vs4
Changing the subject (as a brief aside) I'm intrigued. I take it that by your tag, song2, you are a fan of Blur, I looked up the lyrics for verse 4 which are
"When I feel heavy metal
And Im pins and Im needles
Well I lie and Im easy
All of the time but Im never sure when I need you
Pleased to meet you"
Its a great song, but why do you name yourself over it?
Regards
Steve
cccccc
Man you are giving me a bad name. Stop with the put down of the Christians. You know I use to be one. I wasn't real good at theology so I wanted to do something else in life. I started to read a book that an atheist wrote about the evolution of life and I was forever hooked.. Then there was a guy, a Welch naturalist by the name of Alfred Wallace who was about 14 yrs younger than me that I stole some ideas from. I used his ideas in my Origins of Species. I get credit for the ideas although they were his. So I am dishonest, deceitful, and a plagerizer. Oh, well....It is a dog eat dog world you know.
But I paid a price for turning away from God and pursuing atheistic ideas about why things are the way they are. I started losing faith in God and eventually became an unbeliever.
God is real you know and I wish I hadn't been so foolish.
This is good news! Now, hopefully, other states will follow suit. Education wins and fear loses. Boy, you guys are sure sore losers.
I have to keep adding a "c" to my name because the liars for Jesus who work for the Christian Post keep censoring me. My disdain for Christians grows every day. If only they would keep their childish fantasy world in their churches and out of our schools.
One thumb down for the Louisiana Coalition for Science. I'm not surprised. Any organization that promotes the teaching of science would be an enemy of Christians. At least they didn't delete my comments. Not yet, anyway.
Academic Freedom, LOL. Academic Freedom will only last as long as it take for a teacher to introduce a faith based version of creation other than the Christian one, into a science class. Jesus must be shedding a tear over the weakness of faith and deception exhibited by so many of his purported followers.
steveh20,
I agree. America's downfall, will in part be related to its inability to eduate its populace at or above the levels of its rivals. It's simple, those countries with leading thinkers are always the inovators, creators and engineers of tommorows technologies. We already pale in comparison to the number of engineers and science graduates from China and India, so in the next generations or so, don't be too suprised if we will be on the lower end of the pecking order and if knowing Mandarin is required to service as your job stems from China.
Betsy Irvine, a Presbyterian minister in Baton Rouge, explains, “Evolution is very strong science, and its place in science class should be uncontroversial. Many Christian traditions, including Catholicism, acknowledge the compatibility of evolution and Christian faith. It is shameful to see people sowing division on this subject. The spirit behind these attacks isn’t just bad science, it’s bad theology. This bill is an attack on the millions of faithful Christians who accept evolution. The best way both to protect the teaching of science in our public schools and to show respect for the religious freedom of all Louisiana residents is to unequivocally reject SB 733.”
Louisiana Coalition for Science
http://lasciencecoalition.org/
Patsye Peebles, a veteran biology teacher from Baton Rouge and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, agrees that the bill should be rejected. “I was a biology teacher for 22 years, and I never needed the legislature to tell me how to present anything. This bill doesn’t solve any of the problems classroom teachers face, and it will make it harder for us to keep the focus on accurate science in science classrooms. Evolution isn’t scientifically controversial, and we don’t need the legislature substituting its judgment for the scientists and science teachers who actually know the subject.”
Louisiana Coalition for Science
http://lasciencecoalition.org/
Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS), says, “The legislature shouldn’t be allowing creationists to undermine Louisiana public schools. The House of Representatives just gave the Religious Right a green light to use other people’s children for their own agenda.”
Louisiana Coalition for Science
http://lasciencecoalition.org/
ccccc
I may be a hick but I am not uneducated.
This bill protects the freedom of bad science teachers to be incompetent. I heard that education in Louisiana is already so terrible that it couldn't get much worse.
It's amazing that there are only 3 politicians in Louisiana who are pro-science. The 94 to 3 vote to attack science education with magical creation myths is disgraceful. Louisiana can now be considered to be the most backward state of the backward South.
It's too bad it's impossible to have a conversation on this blog. Everybody wants to be a censor man, and most people here are uneducated hicks.
And so the decline of America starts not with a war but with the academic freedom act, the freedom is a mere illusion, China and India will forge ahead as major powers with America becoming a backwater of intellectual thinking, but hey at least you'll have academic freedom....
CP censored my comments. Liars for Jesus love censorship.