• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution Teaching Provision Fails First Test in Texas! Yeehaw.

Note to self: Do not read the comments, do not read the comments, do not read the comments.

Sorry. I was about to asplode.

And it's good news that they're talking about it, questioning it, and so far voting to change it. I hope it sticks. :)
 
Ken Mercer, R-San Antonio, who voted to keep “strengths and weaknesses,” said he wouldn't rubber stamp recommendations from the experts.

“This is a battle of academic freedom. This is a battle over freedom of speech,” Mercer said. “It's an issue of freedom of religion.”
Click to expand...
Somebody didn't get the memo.
 
I had to read the front page of the newspaper 5 times... I am not exaggerating... FIVE times to make sure I read it correctly this morning.

I was all prepared to be pissed off and was confused and distraught when I didn't need to be.

Mercer... ew.
 
Well, I'm gonna make slingblade's head asplode and show you a few comments. Some of the comments are pretty good. Particularly the one referencing the "Great Spaghetti Monster" [sic]. I won't smite them for the error since it was a good point.


whoknows11:29 -- The theory of evolution proposes a mechanism for biological change and variation that can be tested and observed. Observations can be made that disprove or support (but never 100% prove) a hypothesis. Empirically tested results can then be used to add on to, remove parts, and change as new data is collected and tested. This is what makes evolution a scientific theory. The same cannot be said about creation "theory." Creationism's hypothesis can never be tested empirically because it implies and presupposes supernatural phenomenon. In fact, for creationism there is really not a need to test a hypothesis because they already know the answer. This makes creationism not a scientific theory. The point of my earlier post was to draw attention to the difference in epistemologies (ways of knowing) between a science and religion. One is based on testing and observing empirical verifiable data and the other is based on faith. To use the common phrase, we are comparing apples and oranges when in comes to science vs religion or evolution vs creationism. Are either of these mutually exclusive? I believe not. The problem is when a group of religious activists attempt to conflate religion as science in an attempt to indoctrinate one religious viewpoint in PUBLIC schools (private schools go for it, you can teach whatever you want). Again science and religion are two completely different ways of knowing and religion does not belong in a biological science class at public institutions. To address Renasie's question . . . I learned about what makes science science, a scientific theory a scientific theory, and the difference between scientific and religious epistemologies at UTSA and I'm sure your kid could learn this as well at any institution of higher learning.


Anonymous10:33 whoknows: Have you ever OBSERVED the process of Evolution? Oh that's right you can't because it takes millions of years. What's that? The fossil record you say? Oh, well there are GAPS in the fossil record, and that my friend is one of the "weaknesses" of evolution. To not be allowed to mention the scientific fact that there ARE gaps in the fossil record is simply trading the dogma of seven literal days of creation for the dogma of Darwin. Why are people so afraid of discussion and debate? It was this kind of attitude that kept us in the dark ages thinking the sun circled the earth or that the earth was flat. Just because a it is a school board and not a bunch of cardinals running things does not make this situation any less of a regression to an Inquisitional court. FREEDOM MEANS PEOPLE GET TO STATE THEIR OPINIONS!


Rooster Cogburn10:27 But what about the Great Spaghetti Monster? (Google it).[/I]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom