Teach Darwin Honestly
michael...@worldnet.att.net
Kansas Web site called, "Teach Darwin Honestly." While it talks
about "objective" standards in teaching science, it has the
requisite winks and nods for the faithful. As in the following
excerpts, discussing the new state standards:
"Q: Do the changes seek to criticize evolution to advance religion?
"A: No. They seek to eliminate rather than advance a religious bias
that permeated the old standards.
"Q: Are the changes legal? It has been argued that they insert
religion into the standards.
"A: Yes, they are legal. They insert scientific objectivity rather
than a bias that favors a particular religious perspective.
"Q: What changes did the Board make about origins and evolution?
"A: The following reflect most of the key changes:
"· Added a reminder to teachers that: 'Although science proposes
theories to explain changes, the actual causes of many changes are
currently unknown (e.g. the origin of the universe, the origin of
fundamental laws, the origin of life and the genetic code, and the
origin of major body plans during the Cambrian explosion).'
"· Added an indicator about the evaluation and testing of
historical claims, a concept important not only to origins, but also to
geology, paleontology, archeology, and forensic sciences.
"· The Board added material that more completely describes the core
postulates of evolutionary theory, so that students will know that
'Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has
no discernable direction or goal....' with new traits arising 'from
new combinations of genes and from random mutations or changes in the
reproductive cells.' "
http://www.teachdarwinhonestly.com/faq.html
-- Mike Palmer
Mark Nutter
michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> "· The Board added material that more completely describes the core
> postulates of evolutionary theory, so that students will know that
> 'Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has
> no discernable direction or goal....' with new traits arising 'from
> new combinations of genes and from random mutations or changes in the
> reproductive cells.' "
>
> http://www.teachdarwinhonestly.com/faq.html
Yeah, the creationist board *did* add material to re-frame biological
evolution as "an unguided natural process with no discernable direction
or goal." The original standards were much more friendly to theistic
evolution.
And not only did they add material to force evolutionary theory to have
a materialistic bias, they also tried to blame this change on the NABT,
even though they had to concede that they had already been informed
that their twisted reading of the NABT statement was not an accurate
reflection of the NABT's intended meaning.
http://www.alethian.org/wp/archives/18
m
Noone Inparticular
I see nothing wrong with these changes on their face. Addition one is a
statement of fact. Addition two is so vague as to be useless. Addition
three is also a statement of fact.
Of course I'm aware that the goal in these changes is to allow
sympathetic creationist/IDiot teachers and school boards to teach their
myths as science. But it's going to be hard to argue against these
changes as stated.
Oh, and the answer to question one is a bald faced lie, but that is to
be expected from creationists.
Ron O
It is pretty sad when you have to create your own controversy to make
it look like you have something to argue about.
Ron Okimoto
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Well, just in case everyone's forgotten the clearly-stated (and clearly
illegal) motives behind this:
Board member Kathy Martin: "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We
are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian
conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let
our voices be heard. (Pitch.Com, May 5, 2005)
Board member Steve Abrams: "At some point in time, if you compare
evolution and the Bible, you have to decide which one you believe.
That's the bottom line." (Lawrence Journal-World, Sept 24, 2005)
Game over. (shrug)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
Chris Krolczyk
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> Board member Kathy Martin: "Of course this is a Christian agenda. We
> are a Christian nation. Our country is made up of Christian
> conservatives. We don't often speak up, but we need to stand up and let
> our voices be heard. (Pitch.Com, May 5, 2005)
Heh. What do you expect from somebody who can't stomach -
or seemingly understand - parody in the first place, though?:
http://www.venganza.org/response.htm
(It's at the bottom, which is exactly where it belongs.)
-Chris Krolczyk
Inez
michael...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Those interested in keeping up with the Wedge may wish to peruse a
> Kansas Web site called, "Teach Darwin Honestly."
I'm just glad they're named after misbehaving underwear.
> While it talks
> about "objective" standards in teaching science, it has the
> requisite winks and nods for the faithful. As in the following
> excerpts, discussing the new state standards:
>
> "Q: Do the changes seek to criticize evolution to advance religion?
> "A: No. They seek to eliminate rather than advance a religious bias
> that permeated the old standards.
Q. Does war = peace?
A. Yes.
> "Q: Are the changes legal? It has been argued that they insert
> religion into the standards.
> "A: Yes, they are legal. They insert scientific objectivity rather
> than a bias that favors a particular religious perspective.
Q. When is your side going to do any science?
A. Look! Over there! A Wombat!
> "Q: What changes did the Board make about origins and evolution?
> "A: The following reflect most of the key changes:
>
> "· Added a reminder to teachers that: 'Although science proposes
> theories to explain changes, the actual causes of many changes are
> currently unknown (e.g. the origin of the universe, the origin of
> fundamental laws, the origin of life and the genetic code, and the
> origin of major body plans during the Cambrian explosion).'
...how the board got it's head in there...
<snip>
Codeb...@bigsecret.com
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
The day after Judge Jones' ruling, I emailed Martin a message of just
one word:
"Dover".
Never got a response.
Dana Tweedy
"'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:1152751878.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
snip
>
> The day after Judge Jones' ruling, I emailed Martin a message of just
> one word:
>
> "Dover".
>
> Never got a response.
She probably thought you were inviting her to the NASCAR race in September.
DJT
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
I dunno, that would require a sense of humor.
Fundies don't like humor very much. It could lead to dancing, ya know.
Chris Krolczyk
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
> The day after Judge Jones' ruling, I emailed Martin a message of just
> one word:
>
> "Dover".
>
> Never got a response.
*Snicker*
-Chris Krolczyk
michael...@worldnet.att.net
Noone Inparticular wrote:
>
> I see nothing wrong with these changes on their face. Addition one is a
> statement of fact. Addition two is so vague as to be useless. Addition
> three is also a statement of fact.
>
> Of course I'm aware that the goal in these changes is to allow
> sympathetic creationist/IDiot teachers and school boards to teach their
> myths as science. But it's going to be hard to argue against these
> changes as stated.
>
off the bat.
-- Mike Palmer