Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:07:14 pm ET

Education|Fri, May. 29 2009 12:50 PM EDT

Texas Senate Rejects Confirmation of Creationist

By Audrey Barrick|Christian Post Reporter

The Texas Senate rejected on Thursday the re-appointment of Republican Don McLeroy, a creationist, as chairman of the State Board of Education.

The Senate voted 19-11 for McLeroy, short of the two-thirds majority required.

Opponents say the board has become increasingly divided under the leadership of McLeroy, who has pushed for the teaching of "weaknesses" of evolution in Texas public schools.

Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin) argued in a debate that McLeroy is more concerned with fighting his ideological battles than with leading the board.

Senate Republicans rejected the criticisms and accused Democrats of turning the nomination process into an "inquisition" unfairly attacking McLeroy's views, according to The Dallas Morning News.

Earlier this year, the state Board of Education approved new science standards that require teachers to encourage students to "critique" and examine "all sides" of scientific theories. McLeroy had also introduced amendments requiring students to study the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of common ancestry and natural selection of species but the proposals were rejected.

McLeroy, a devout Christian, has been criticized by the Texas Freedom Network – which monitors and works to counter "the religious right" – for dragging the board into a series of divisive and unnecessary culture war battles over such issues as evolution and sex education.

Although the Republican has pushed for science classes to cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution, he has not supported the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the classrooms and has expressed no desire to change the curriculum requiring that evolution be taught in high school biology classes.

The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, said the move to reject his nomination "can only be attributed to political retribution."

"The travesty here is that, to my knowledge, no one has put forth any legitimate charges that McLeroy was not fair-minded in how he chaired TSBOE meetings," the institute said in a statement, noting that Texas evolutionists are making power grabs to promote their agenda.

Watson insisted on Thursday that the debate over McLeroy's nomination to continue chairing the board was neither about evolution versus creationism nor about partisanship, but rather about his leadership as chairman.

However, Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) believes "there will be a perception ... that we are applying a religious test for serving in this state," intentional or not, as reported by the Houston Chronicle.

"If we vote against Dr. McLeroy, the perception among many Texans will be that if you are a conservative and believe in the infallibility and literacy of the Bible, there is no need to apply to be on the State Board of Education," Ogden said.

McLeroy was appointed chairman of the board in 2007 by Gov. Rick Perry, who nominated him to a second term. After the rare rejection by the Senate, Perry will now have to appoint a new board leader.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
  • Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Darwinism is Still Unscientific and Mythical

    http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

  • Tue Jun 09, 2009 3:15 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    Good. It's a wonder he got any votes at all.

    The last time people thought all the wisdom they needed came from stuff written down centuries ago, we now call the Dark Ages.

    If any of you had taken a real science class at a decent school within the last few decades, you'd already know that one of the major goals of science is to determine what the important unanswered questions are. So we don't need to be told to "question the science" -- questioning is what science does.

  • Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Viking, Thanks for your thoughtful response. However, you and I can go back and forth as to what each of believe the limits of science may or may not be and come to only partial agreement. You view science somewhat philosophically, I view science more from a practical standpoint. I see science at work as it advances and finds answers to questions such as what powers the sun, the age of earth and the universe, the structure of the universe, the atomic structure of matter and the evolution life on our planet. Science will answer the question: where did we come from? and eventually allow humans to create life forms of its own. Science has brought us cures for disease, modern medicine, medical imaging such as MRI, the Hubble telescope to allow us to pear billions of light years into the history of the universe, has brought us supercomputers and the internet. Most of this in the last 50 years. In the next 50 years, what science will bring us will be even more fantastic. So you see, I have trouble with the notion of placing limits on science. Will science bring us wisdom? NO. Will science solve all our problems? NO. Does science create problems? SOMETIMES. Does science solve more problems than it creates? I believe so. As I stated earlier, virtually all things are possible....... hide

  • Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks viking...I(who/what, ever that might be)understand what you are saying.

    As for seeing a white rabbit around, don't worry about that, the important thing to realise is that there is no spoon...

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi steve,
    thanks for skipping a stone across the pond. I think that as I have mentioned in a few posts there is a qualitative distinction between the faith in the assumptions underlying science in that when held properly they are methodological rather than philosophical. For example for the purpose of doing science a scientist accepts the apriori assumption that all phenomena have natural causes. He has no way to validate this assumption he just has to accept it (faith) in order to do science. But simultaneously he can hold that outside of doing science not all phenomena have natural causes (i.e. reason). So long as the first science is treated as a method of describing, explaining and predicting the natural universe and not raised to a philosophical understanding of human existence and the nature of reality there is no conflict.
    It is when science is elevated to a purpose which it was not designed for that problems arise. In other words when the methodological assumptions of science are treated as philosophical absolutes (i.e. all phenomena have natural causes) that problems begin. It is ironic to me that those most likely to make this error are also very likely to be unaware that they are even doing it. They slip unknowingly from the scientific method into philosophical naturalism or materialism often unconsciously and without realizing it. Another great irony is that one of the fundamental assumptions of methodological naturalism (e.g. the scientific method) is that humans can truly reason yet philosophical naturalism/materialism denies that human reason or even identity as persons rather than artifacts of nature even exists.
    By the way didn't I see a white rabbit around here somewhere.

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hello one and all...

    I hope nobody minds if I make a brief comment, and I welcome returns on it, as it's just a thought I had.

    Re the "faith" assumptions that have been discussed in the post today. I have to be honest that whilst I certainly agree we make these assumptions i.e there is an external reality etc.. The word faith makes me wince, but I think I know why this is, and believer summed it up earlier. When these faith assumptions where first raised a few days ago, believer asked about why it is wrong when faith i.e creationism is bought into the science class, but it seems to me that the faith assumptions are not the same as religious faith. By this I mean that religious faith has its creeds, scriptures that cannot be changed in any way be it Christian, Muslim etc..The scientific faith assumptions can be though, but the likelyhood is most likely next to nil, but the possibility still exists. I'm sure you understand where I am coming from even if not to well put.

    Do we require a diffrent word to faith and have I got completely the wrong end of the stick?

    BW

    Steve

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Johnzon, you state
    Viking, Yes I agree, science has its limits, which is related to our ability to understand due to the limited knowledge we have and the limitations of our brains at this time in human evolution.
    Well some of the limits of current scientific understanding are due to limited knowledge etc. However what you seem to fail to recognize is that Science is also limited by the nature of science. Science is only one modality of understanding and is primarily concerned with the external natural universe. But literature, art and music are other modalities for human beings to understand and express themselves within the frame of the natural universe. Science is incapable of exploring these in any meaningful way. This is not a criticism of the scientific method or science it is simply a recognition of what science is and is not.
    I will point out that contrary to your assertion quantum physicists do have to have faith in order to do their work.
    You state that you do not agree that certain assumtions made in science are faith based. Please then tell me what is the basis for a scientist beginning with the assumption for example that
    there is a reality independent of us or our viewpoint
    or
    that all phenomena have a natural cause
    or
    That nature is regular (i.e. it follows laws)
    Since these can not be validated without accepting them first how does the scientist accept them but by faith.
    By the way I don't object to these assumptions I just insist that to be intellectually honest they must be acknowledged.
    I take no insult. In fact I am not a scientist. However all reference authorities I consult and all scientists I have discussed this with agree that in fact they must and do accept such fundamental assumptions as givens (on faith) in order to do science.

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Johnzon,
    By the way You may be unaware that nowhere in either the old or new testaments is anything resembling the Hell you refer to described or put forward as existing. The concept of a place of eternal punishment for those who are not saved is neither biblical nor Christian.
    Those who put forward to you the thought you related are unfortunately misinformed due to faulty English translations such as the King James and due to popular culture and pagan concepts intruding on Christian theology.

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 3:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hi johnzon thanks for clarifying.
    Sure I will share with you. First I hold that belief in the supernatural is a logical necessity for any entity which holds that it has identity, rationality, and/or free will/capacity to make actual choices (non deterministic). To better understand this you should refer to what is known as The Argument From Reason. That being given I consider that since as pointed out both by naturalist/materialists and supernaturalists reason, identity, and the capacity to choose can not arise from nature (you can corroborate this by a review of materialism) then they must by necessity arise from supernature. Given that whatever exists in supernature is the origin of these phenomena. For the sake of this discussion let us consider that originating phenomena to be represented by the term God.
    Now let us consider then if God is the origin of identity, reason and free will then when a person chooses to reason in effect God has impacted the natural world. So in this context does god know all things with 100% certainty. The usual paradox is presented in a deterministic universe in which if you knew all of the rules of the universe well enough and you knew the conditions at the origin sufficiently then you would have perfect capability to predict all events. In such a universe then God would know all things with 100% certainty. But this is not how I believe the universe operates (and as you point out in referencing Hiesenberg) neither do physicists. Instead we must think about this in terms of a universe with quantum physics in short a non deterministic universe. In such a universe God (as defined above) could know but would not be logically required to know all of the possible futures.
    My belief is that all possible futures are known to god and that the beachhead of the human mind provides a means for those futures to be impacted.

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    I am sincere in my question as to whether you believe God is all knowing, including pre-distination. I know many believers that tell me God is all knowing and for example God knows from the very moment of conception whether a trip to hell is the final fate for that person . My question to you is I think independent of whether I believe the existance of God, I'm just curious about your view.

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Johnzon,
    Hi thanks for the response.
    You ask me if God knows all things with 100% certainty. Well of course you are being rhetorical setting up the dialog to introduce the paradox of predestination. But ok I'll play. First please define your terms. Specifically start with God. If you use this term to refer to a phenomena which you deny has existence then you pose a question logically equivalent to asking does a unicorn know the secrets of the universe and your question is not sincere. Rather you might ask would a supernatural creator of the universe have know all things with 100% certainty. Next post will respond to the limits of science issue you raise.

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking, Yes I agree, science has its limits, which is related to our ability to understand due to the limited knowledge we have and the limitations of our brains at this time in human evolution. However, as time goes on and humankind & technology advance, the unknowable become knowable. Can we ever know all things with 100 % certainty, no. Is it possible to know anything with 100% certainty, probably not, only in terms of probabilities.

    In the quantum world, Heisenberg developed the uncertainty principal- we cannot know the exact position and momentum of a sub atomic particle at the same time, we can only understand them in terms of probabilites. From that standpoint, I would agree with you, but we understand those limitations in probablistic terms. Quantum physicists operate with those limitations factored in, they are not working on a "faith" level.

    Question for you: Does God know all things with 100% certainty?

    Your posts suggest a philosophy background, right?. Do you have any formal training in science? My guess is its limited. I dont mean this to be insulting, your posts are very thoughful and logical. I just dont agree with your premise that certain assumtions made in science are faith based. I dont know any working scientists that would agree with that. Do scientists admit limitations? Of coures they do for the aformentioned reasons.

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi DP and johnzon,
    Yep there is a philosophy of science and any philisophy of course has certain basic assumptions which can not ever be proven regardless of "enough time, research and the evolution of the human mind." They are by the definition of science itself ultimately unknowable.
    Johnzon you asked for me to give you one of the assumptions of science which is based on faith (believing without proof or demonstrable evidence) I did exactly that and then also pointed you to where you could find independent corroboration of my assertion. Either you didn't check the corroboration or you have been given a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and what its limits are.
    The basic assumption of science that I gave you
    that there is in fact a real external reality
    Is in fact a very concrete and universal assumption of all sciences which in fact must simply be accepted on FAITH since it can not actually be proven.
    I will give you another one if you like
    All phenomena have natural causes
    This is also a concrete and fundamental assumption of science that one must accept (methodologically within the work of science though not necessarily philosophically ) in order to do science. Again however it must be accepted on FAITH since again it can never be actually proven.
    This is the crux of the issue which divides many pseudo scientists from scientists with supernatural (including religious and christian) beliefs.
    Any individual who does not accept the above assumption while "doing science" is by definition doing something other than science. However science is fundamentally methodological not philosophical. It is quite consistent to for an astronomer to say that he believes in a supernatural creator of the universe and at the same time to say that all phenomena that I observe have natural causes. In fact the majority of all scientists in the history of the world have had this basic framework.
    The person who states that science makes no faith based assumptions is equally misunderstanding of science as the person who does not accept the limits of science as dealing only with natural causes and rejecting a priori any supernatural explanations for phenomena.

  • Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP

    <<philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct>>

    Yes, There is after-all philosophy of science. I was referring more to a vague philosophical reference that was made rather than something more definable which I was looking for. Science is philosophy, but philosophy may not necessarily be science. Philosophy can be "fuzzy" and is more about ideas and speculation. Science of course is about ideas and speculation but then seeks confirmation. For example, philosophers used logic to conclude the earth to be flat and stationary. Science disproved both of those notions.

  • Fri Jun 05, 2009 11:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    <<...that the foundations of science is a set of assumptions which are accepted without proof and thus are faith.>>

    Please provide me with some concrete example of an assumption in science based on faith. So far as I can tell you either have me "Google" or have given some philosophical phraseology. Of course its true there is much science does not know or understand, but afterall isnt that what science is about. To learn and discover otherwise science would not be interesting. There is virtually no limit to what man can ultemately understand about the world and the universe given enough time, research and the evolution of the human mind.

  • Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "That will teach him to eat cheese before night nights. "

    That's right...you guys do have some pretty funky cheese on that side of the pond don't you.... :D

  • Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "You are really talking philosophy, not science.... "

    philosophy is science.

    philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct

  • Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    johnzon,
    Hi. Google assumptions of science and check out the foundaitons of the scientific method and methodological naturalism then you will better understand that the foundations of science is a set of assumptions which are accepted without proof and thus are faith. However you may note that these faith positions are qualitatively different than many religious faith statements as I pointed out to believer.

  • Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:17 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer

    <<.....why is the faith concept allowed in the science >>

    ANSWER: Its NOT....

  • Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    <<The assumption that there is an external reality and that the percieve universe is not just the dream of a brain in a vat>>


    You are really talking philosophy, not science....

  • Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:00 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    That will teach him to eat cheese before night nights.

  • Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Do the characters in a dream believe they are real? Could this all be God's dream?

  • Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:29 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking, your posts have indeed helped me to better see where evolutionists are coming from, so thanks for your input.

  • Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:53 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer,
    Hi I just hope that my poor attempts to respond to your questions has given you a clearer view of the nature of science. Of course your faith must be led by the spirit of God working through your reason.

  • Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:20 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    viking, and I say this with all respect, based on what you just shared I'm beginning to believe it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism.

  • Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer regarding faith in science.
    You ask.
    why is the faith concept allowed in the science arena, but if creationists introduce faith in their reasoning they are no longer seen as acceptable by many in the scientific community?
    The major reason is that the scientific assumptions that are accepted on faith (believed but unprovable) are all methodological rather than philisophical.
    In other words Science says
    We do not know these assumptions to ultimately be true however we are going to treat them as true for the purpose of doing science because they are the assumptions that work in the natural world to produce results which are effective in describing explaining and predicting natural phenomena.
    Where religious faith is not subject to confirmation by consistency with the nature.
    Many scientists have strong religious faith deeply held at the core of their being. However if they are doing science they do not introduce there religious beliefs as substitutes for the methodological (not philisophical) naturalism. The reason is that every time that scientists have used supernatural explanations for natural events the observed results have ultimately disagreed with the explanation based on religious belief.
    For a scientist to propose a supernatural agent as the cause for a natural phenomena is by definition self contradictory because then the phenomena would not be "natural" but rather "supernatural" by definition. In other words since science is exclusively concerned with the examination of "natural" phenomena then to introduce supernatural explanations is by definition to not be doing science.
    This in itself does not prove that the supernatural explanation is wrong it just means it is by definition not science. All legitimate scientists know and accept this. Those who do not, regardless of where they got thier degrees are by definition of the word itself not doing science.
    This is why for example when I put forward the "Argument from Reason" regarding the inherent fallacy of philisophical naturalism (materialism) I do not claim to be doing science rather I am doing philosopy through logic.

  • Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer,
    Hi you state
    no, I meant the major players prior to the neandrethals are still in play, so why aren't they continuing to evolve to the forms that eventually became neandrethals? And if they can't what's changed to keep that from replicating itself?
    Believer re neandertal question.
    Well first what you call the major players prior to the neanderthals are not still in play they are extinct. Those are the early hominids which we replaced. So there is no original stock for the Neanderthals to evolve from. This is similar to asking why you can't breed an arctic wolf out of a chihauau. While they both descend from a common anscestor the original stock is gone and can't be bred back to.
    Secondly even if the original stock still existed the environmental conditions that that stock lived in and was subject to natural selection through no longer exists. Think how much the earth's eco systems have been altered in the last two hundred years then extend that out for another 150,000 years.
    Third though (and this is going to make some people scream) it is not really certain that Neandertal were really a fully seperate species from Homo Sapiens some scientists class them as a sub species from Homo Sapiens which did not survive sufficiently to fully seperate as a group incapable of interbreeding with homo sapiens.

  • Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:21 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    viking, in reading your response to johnzon I need to ask you a question, why is the faith concept allowed in the science arena, but if creationists introduce faith in their reasoning they are no longer seen as acceptable by many in the scientific community?

  • Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    viking, no, I meant the major players prior to the neandrethals are still in play, so why aren't they continuing to evolve to the forms that eventually became neandrethals? And if they can't what's changed to keep that from replicating itself?

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    johnzon,
    You asked me to offer one faith based assumption underlying science. How about this.
    The assumption that there is an external reality and that the percieve universe is not just the dream of a brain in a vat.
    If you google basic assumptions of science you will find there are a basic set of unprovable assumptions which underlie the scientific method. These simply have to be accepted on faith in order for science to work. All scientists understand this.
    Think of them like the axioms of mathematics. They seem obvious and incontestable but in truth can not be proven and have to simply be accepted on faith for mathematics to work as well.

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer,
    Ok thanks for expanding I see one reason for your confusion. You ask If all the major players (meaning us) are still in place then why don't neandertals evolve from us again. The error is that they didn't evolve from us in the first place. We both evolved from a common ancestor which is now extinct so the root stock is unavailable to evolve from. Also as mentioned before the conditions that favor one natural selection over another have changed.

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Your "let there be light" makes a cute Sunday school story, but has no place in the science classroom."

    Have you ever heard me say I thought creation should be taught in the science classroom? I don't think any assumption based on extrapolation (evolution) should be taught either. That's the part where I posted there are much more critical things to be taught in science class. Thus I posted: "The teaching of evolution, ID or Creation in science class is a political thing...nothing more based on what cannot be taught do to the time it takes up. "

    Example: my wife and I went out on a date tonight (yeeeehaaa!) and I noticed a spray bottle of cleaner they were using to clean the tables had a full wrap label about the cleaning product and in big letters running from top to bottom it read "DO NOT DRINK" on the bottle. Are we THAT st*pid? Obviously someone is or it wouldn't need to be put on the bottle....

    This is a splended example of how using science class to teach evolution, ID or creation is a waste of time. We have a society that doesn't know better than to drink cleaning products!

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:07 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    DP,


    Dude, your comments concerning star(sun) formation via magic is the reson creationism has no place in the science classroom. Your "let there be light" makes a cute Sunday school story, but has no place in the science classroom.

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    By the way, Michael j, Coyne's book was reviewed in the DI site. It makes for remarkable reading, when the weaknesses of Coyne's argument are pointed out.
    Best wishes to the posters.

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Let me provide examples. Our school district (and state) are controlled by Republicans. Our school buildings are falling down. We have the 'corridor of shame' in the eastern part of the state. Some encourage business to locate here in SC but the majority don't want industry that will compete with them. We borrowed $350 millon to build new schools at 2% locked in for 30 years. It was a special loan for public schools. We have the money sitting in an account at 4%. Yet, this is a problem for the Republican party. Why? We would have facilities to actually educate children to the point where anyone might be able to compete with "old money".

    Meanwhile, the Democrats push sex education, abortion, evolution and the like in our public schools. Guess what the number say. It wasn't until absinence was introduced into society to combat the "free love" nonsense of the 60s that the teen preg rate has dropped. In short, this generation wants to be more responsible then the last.

    Exactly what will the majority of HS Grads use the teaching of evolution for? How much better could all that time from grades 1-12 be used if it were replaced with far more useful concepts like how cleaning chemicals work? Do you know how many people don't know you can't mix large quantities of most laundry powders with large quantities of bleach? Yet, those people are stocking our grocery store shelves.

    The teaching of evolution, ID or Creation in science class is a political thing...nothing more based on what cannot be taught do to the time it takes up.

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    It's been 24 hours. Nobody bit. So as I see no hands raised for this one ...
    RELIGIONIST - a person motivated to qualify all components of life and living in terms of faith, (with one dictionary I visited in my study as qualifying such individual as zealous, perhaps overly so).
    If we move with this definition, we can procede:
    Of course I would accept the point that such a person would be a hindrance to science. A creationist who points out the level of moondust on Luna is making improper conclusions on the evidence and should knock it off. But equally religionist, IMHO, is the person who accepts the "evolution as fact" proposal and in turn reject all criticisms of Darwin's theory on the face of this. Scientific inquiry should be open to cover the perceived difficulties of the theory (advanced scientifically and perhaps philosophically) without name-calling and vindictiveness. I have followed the posts on this article, and it has been a mixed bag. So,...
    I wish to offer C. P. Steinmetz an apology if my interpretation of your posts were inaccurate. But I've felt that two gentlemen (unless the C. P. doesn't indicate a male name, oops) can discuss the difficulties in a calm, rational fashion.
    That said, play on ...

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "The Republicans continue to prove they are a political party for the most uneducated people in America."

    Actually, being a lay advocate for special needs children in the public schools...are you saying the Repubican party represents the majority of America? We are graduating children who can't read or make change! The vast majority of Americans are "uneducated" when you get right down to it.

    It has been my observation that the Republicans want to pay as little as possible for what education is needed to work in their businesses. The Democrats want to pay for whatever education is needed to conduct social engineering. Neither side is really all that interested in real educaiton.

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    A book Don McLeroy has obviously never read (he wouldn't be able to understand it anyway):

    "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne, published in 2009.

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:39 am Agree: 9   Disagree: 1

    "The Texas Senate rejected on Thursday the re-appointment of Republican Don McLeroy, a creationist, as chairman of the State Board of Education. The Senate voted 19-11 for McLeroy, short of the two-thirds majority required."

    There are 19 Republicans in the Texas Senate and every single one of them voted to let a creationist (the entire universe was magically created 6,000 years ago) control their science education and science textbooks.

    The Republicans continue to prove they are a political party for the most uneducated people in America. The Republicans continue to show their complete disrespect for our constitution (google Establishment Clause).

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:34 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    The Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think tank, said the move to reject his nomination "can only be attributed to political retribution."

    Translation:

    The DISHONESTY Institute, a CHRISTIAN CREATIONIST ORGANIZATION, said the move to reject his nomination "can only be attributed to political retribution."

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I guess the state legislature can do something right.
    And I wonder why the words religious right are in quotes, as if it didn't really exist or as if it were some obscure term that needs to be introduced in quotes first.

  • Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "With all that hydrogen squeezed together under the influence of gravitational compression, it could not have just sat there without thermonuclear fusion (light). "

    "science has data"

    Dude!!! You ever packed a snowball? You make the assumption that gravitational compression was there before God said "let there be light". The very basis of science is to bring understanding up to the level of reality. When one limits science to what one understands then one is quite limited indeed. God commanding light created gravitational compression. The next few vs talk about God dividing the day from the night. The events of that day set physics into motion.

    You have not considered the entire concept I've put forward. A good scientist would wrap (or at least try to) hie entire brain around a concept to understand it as not to dismiss it out of hand.

    Let me see if this helps.... You are refering to a theory of physics. Physics, as it exist, is a created thing. Everything within our time/space reality are created things. Therefore, an arguement based on a created thing (such as our understanding of physics) to somehow argue that which is outside the creation doesn't exist is SO limited in ability to comprehend outside of oneself. It is like a computer making its own arguement that mankind doesn't exist simply because it has no concept outside of it's own circuits and programming. The only way it would know is if it were told.

    Simply put...all of your data is based on our understanding of what God created. It's less scientific than an 8088 vs Einstein.

  • Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    DP

    <<The sun was there...it just wasn't lit yet>>


    With all that hydrogen squeezed together under the influence of gravitational compression, it could not have just sat there without thermonuclear fusion (light). Your understanding of star formation is lacking. Star formation is a gradual process, it is not like turning on a light switch.

  • Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:11 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    DP

    <<and all people who don't believe in God have a non-creation mythology. What's your point? >>


    My point is, science has data, all you have is a single source for your "data"- a book of tales written by people long ago.......

  • Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking

    <<You must admit that evolution like any scientific theory relies on faith in the assumptions of science which of course as assumptions ..>>

    No, not really. Of course few things are known with 100 % certainty, but in science there has to be a basis for an assumption, otherwise its not science. The theory of evolution, like any theory, is based on what is observable and testable, not faith.

    Suppose you provide me with an example of a scientific principal (or assumption) that you would regard as faith-based..

  • Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    viking, I guess that's where my confusion comes from when you say science says this can't happen with regards to the reappearence of neandrethals, if once again all the major players are in place that eventually evolved into neandrethals then what has happened since the first group of neandrethals were evolved to that keeps it from happening again? Is science saying that this was a one time phenomena which can never happen again and if that is the case then is this really an example of natural selection, because my sense is that if the neandrethals were a result of natural selection then the appearance of neandrethals should reoccur since once again all the major players are still in place today.

  • Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi believer,
    thanks for the responses. Thank you for the clarification regarding witnessing I agree and support the approach you take.

    Regarding reemergence of neanderthals. You ask if evolution were true why would this not happen. Actually if this did happen it would make us question our understanding of evolution because the science would predict that this would not happen.
    Your question is somewhat similar to someone asking if the theory of gravity is true why doesn't the moon fall out of the sky. When in fact it is only because of universal gravitational attraction that the moon stays in orbit.
    But digging underneath the specifics what you might really be asking is why if evolution is correct we don't see branchings of current hominid lines. Why for instance doesn't the equivalent of a Neandertal emerge today from the current human population. etc. and why don't we see this in other species as well. There are three reasons. The first and simplest is that we do see it happening in other species. Thus the examples of speciation which you have been reffered to. The second reason more specific to humans is that we are interfering with the normal evolutionary process by eliminating isolation of members of our species for long periods of time in significantly different environments. Some conditions are more likely to result in speciation than others. In particular when members of a species are isolated from eachother in dramatically different environments then beneficial traits for the differing environments begin through natural selection to produce greater divergence in the subsequent generations of the species. However if the populations continually intermix and the environments are similar then natural selction does not favor one particular mutation much over another.

  • Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    C. P. Steinmetz,
    I repeat my request I made in a previous post: define religionist.

  • Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:49 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    re: "
    So you concede that the whole defense of evolutionary theory rests on a foundation of logical fallacy?

    Please, science is better than this. It is the reason that the majority doesn't take evolution (or rather, macro-evoltion) seriously. Such an approach as stated above is the makings of madcap and swindle."

    abhodim, you sure have the standard religionist tactics down cold, viz, taking statements out of context, inferring totally misleading meanings, making false claims, etc.

  • Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 5

    C. P. Steinmetz,
    So, it is just and no wonder that the "usual responses [from the scientific community] degenerate to ad hominum ([my] post, for example) or ad bacculum (end your tenure as professor)."

    So you concede that the whole defense of evolutionary theory rests on a foundation of logical fallacy?

    Please, science is better than this. It is the reason that the majority doesn't take evolution (or rather, macro-evoltion) seriously. Such an approach as stated above is the makings of madcap and swindle.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links