jbluhm86 Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-house-passes-bill-allowing-student-answers-to-be-scientifically-wrong-due-to-religion "Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance, including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work." COLUMBUS, Ohio (WKRC) - Ohio lawmakers are weighing in on how public schools can teach things like evolution. The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs. Instead, students are graded on substance and relevance. Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 Penalized nor rewarded. Is that a key for you JB? WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 Also JB if I may I'm going to add this. it does seem to me that the United States and the world is at a Crossroads where it comes to religion. But as long as we hold on to the idea that there is still freedom of said in this country I think that ruling is perfectly justified. There will always be a portion of society that hates religion and hates religious people and wish to completely remove it from society. It's going on forever . I understand that and quite possibly as decades and centuries go by they will achieve that goal. Just not quite here yet. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted November 15, 2019 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 Steve, the science classroom is for science: testable hypothesis' that can be demonstrated or falsified through testing by non-subjective, objective observations. Religious beliefs are none of those things. Unless Sunday schools and other religious institutions are willing to give equal time to teaching evolution in their lessons to, then religious beliefs have no business in a science classroom. If parents have problems with their kids learning evolution, then enroll them in a religious school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 38 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said: Steve, the science classroom is for science: testable hypothesis' that can be demonstrated or falsified through testing by non-subjective, objective observations. Religious beliefs are none of those things. Unless Sunday schools and other religious institutions are willing to give equal time to teaching evolution in their lessons to, then religious beliefs have no business in a science classroom. If parents have problems with their kids learning evolution, then enroll them in a religious school. Information for Students about the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List A public school science instructor recently contacted Discovery Institute to let us know that the required biology curriculum in the teacher’s district includes an inaccurate article from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Titled “Why Teach Evolution?,” the article attempts to frame the debate over Darwinian theory as one of science versus religion. The article tells students that opposition to evolution is religiously based, and denies that there is a real scientific debate over modern Darwinian theory. It also makes fallacious objections to the Dissent from Darwinism list, signed by 900 PhD scientists and registering their disagreement with orthodox evolutionary theory. I attended public schools from kindergarten through my master’s degree, and over the years I took many classes that dealt with the subject of evolution. I’m painfully aware of the censorship and false framing of the evolution debate to which public school students are subjected. My long-standing view is that students absolutely do need to learn about evolution, but they should do so in a complete, objective, and balanced manner, rather than having scientific challenges to Darwinism censored and caricatured as religiously based objections. So, I felt it necessary to write an accurate framing of the issue, which I hope will be beneficial to both teachers and students. Why Is Darwinian Theory Controversial? Everyone agrees that Darwinian evolution is a controversial topic. But not everyone agrees on why. Many advocates of Darwinian evolution promote the stereotype that the theory is controversial only because a small religious segment of society has social, religious, or political objections. These advocates claim that there is no credible scientific disagreement with Darwinian evolution. This, however, is not true. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list shows that there is credible scientific dissent from Darwinian theory. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List includes hundreds of PhD scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution. The list shows that it is possible to hold legitimate scientific doubts about Darwinian evolution from a strictly scientific standpoint. Of course there are some people who have religious objections to Darwinian evolution. Conversely, some people make religious (or anti-religious) arguments for accepting Darwinian evolution. Religion isn’t the issue here. The issue is whether it’s possible to be a scientific skeptic of Darwinian evolution. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List shows that it is. What Is “Evolution”? Whenever talking about challenges to “evolution,” it’s vital to carefully define terms, otherwise confusion can result. There are three common usages of the term “evolution”: Evolution #1 — Microevolution: Small-scale changes in a population of organisms. Evolution #2 — Universal Common Descent: The idea that all organisms are related and are descended from a single common ancestor. Evolution #3 — Darwinian Evolution: The view that an unguided process of natural selection acting upon random mutation has been the primary mechanism driving the evolution of life. No one doubts Evolution #1, which is sometimes called “microevolution.” Some scientists doubt Evolution #2. But the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list only concerns Evolution #3, also called Darwinian evolution or Darwinism. The scientists who have signed the dissent statement say this: We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. I defined Evolution #1 by equating it with “microevolution” — small-scale changes in a population of organisms. Collectively, Evolution #2 and #3 might be termed macroevolution, which is defined as follows: Macroevolution: Large-scale changes in populations of organisms, including the evolution of fundamentally new biological features. Typically this term also means that all life forms descended from a single common ancestor through unguided natural processes. Unfortunately, evolutionists sometimes purposefully confuse these definitions, hoping you won’t notice that they have overstated their case. They will take evidence for microevolution (Evolution #1), and then over-extrapolate the evidence and claim it supports macroevolution (Evolution #2 or Evolution #3). Indeed, sometimes evolution advocates will equate microevolution and macroevolution, the idea being that macroevolution is just repeated rounds of microevolution added up. I will address these inaccurate claims. What Scientific Evidence Challenges Darwinian Evolution? The signers of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List have many scientific reasons for being skeptical of Darwinian theory. In writing this, I do not intend to speak for any of them in particular, but the following section briefly lists some of the types of scientific data that are often cited by those challenging Darwinian evolution: Genetics — Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity: Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”1 Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity'” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”2 Biochemistry — Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity: Our cells are like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA. As Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Science, observed: “[t]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”3 Darwinian evolution struggles to explain the origin of this type of integrated complexity. Biochemist Franklin Harold admits in a book published by Oxford University Press: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”4 Paleontology — The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils: The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and generally lacks plausible candidates for transitional fossils, contradicting the pattern of gradual evolution predicted by Darwinian theory. This non-Darwinian pattern has been recognized by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz states: “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”5 Likewise the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”6 Similarly, a zoology textbook observes: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.”7 Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists: Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims. Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany wrote in the journal Theory in Biosciences that “while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.”8 A 2011 paper in Biological Theory stated, “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope,”9 and in 2012, the noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in an Oxford University Press book that “the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”10 Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe likewise describes himself as “a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory,”11 which he insists “cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors”12 in organisms. Biologist Scott Gilbert has stated in a report in Nature that “[t]he modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest,” and evolutionary paleobiologist Graham Budd admits: “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land, . . . ut these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”13 Eugene Koonin writes in Trends in Genetics about the increasingly undeniable reasons to doubt core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution,” indicating that “the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” He concludes: “Not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.”14 Because of such criticisms, Cornell evolutionary biologist William Provine believes the Darwinian claim that “Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution” is “false.”15 There are many scientific objections to Darwinian evolution, and again, this is not to say that any particular signer of the Dissent from Darwinism list makes any one of these specific arguments. Instead, I have simply indicated some of the common scientific objections to Darwinian evolution. In a subsequent post, I will address the question: “Is Darwinian Evolution ‘Just a Theory’?” https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/information_for/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted November 15, 2019 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 OBF, if you're trying to have some "gotcha" moment here about evolution, then I hate to disappoint you. I agree that Darwinian evolution is a theory; however, the preponderance of objective observations and evidence to support it far exceeds any religions' "evidence" of being true. Again, once Sunday schools are made to give equal time in study of evolution along with their biblical lessons - as science classes are now being made to give time and credence to religious dogma - then you'll have an argument. The science classroom is for science, not religion. Religious ideology has no business in a science classroom. Full stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 12 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said: OBF, if you're trying to have some "gotcha" moment here about evolution, then I hate to disappoint you. I agree that Darwinian evolution is a theory; however, the preponderance of objective observations and evidence to support it far exceeds any religions' "evidence" of being true. Again, once Sunday schools are made to give equal time in study of evolution along with their biblical lessons - as science classes are now being made to give time and credence to religious dogma - then you'll have an argument. The science classroom is for science, not religion. Religious ideology has no business in a science classroom. Full stop. Not a gotcha moment Jbluhm just making a valid point that it is not only a religious argument against evolution and all scientific sides of theory of evolution should be taught with both the arguments for and against. I agree with you to only say the bible doesn't support something is an argument that should not be made in a science class but if there are differing scientific views that should be presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 Jblu is barking up the wrong tree on this one. Modern Scientific Discoveries Verify the Scriptures | The ... https://www.icr.org/article/modern-scientific-discoveries-verify-scriptures Matthew Maury undertook a research project based on Scripture, and once again confirmed the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Maury was in charge of the Depot of Charts and Instruments in the Hydrographic Office of the United States Navy from 1841-1861. He was a … Author: DUANE GISH, PH.D. Scientific Facts in the Bible: 100 Reasons to Believe the ... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_Facts_in_the_Bible:_100_Reasons_to_Believe... Science and the Bible. The Bible and Earth's Free-Float in Space Job 26:7 while the common belief … The Incredible Book of Job. Book of Job (1520 B.C.)— Filled with Scientific Facts Comfort provides … Medical Science and the Bible. The Bible and the Laws of Hygiene Here, Ray tries to portray Dr. … Science and Genesis. Scientists Admit Genesis is "Close to the Truth." Ray quotes several … See all full list on rationalwiki.org 6 Archaeological Discoveries That Support the Bible ... https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/christianity/6-archaeological-discoveries-that-support... Author: Stephanie Hertzenberg Age of Christ’s Tomb. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher sits in Jerusalem’s Old City and is visited … Honorable Burial of Crucified Man. Biblical skeptics love to try and disprove the Resurrection, and … Seal of the Prophet Isaiah. Isaiah is one of the best known prophets in the Bible. His work, … The Pool of Siloam. One of the numerous miracles detailed in the Book of John describes how … See all full list on beliefnet.com Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible Science Confirms the Bible (bear in mind that the Bible is 2000-3000 years old!) The Bible Science now Science then The Earth is a ROUND sphere (Isaiah 40:22) The Earth is a sphere: The Earth is a flat disk Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22) Incalculable number of stars: Only 1100 stars Free float of Earth in space (Job 26:7) List of Scientific Insights in the Bible – Seeing God's Breath https://godsbreath.net/2007/08/07/list-of-scientific-insights-in-the-bible Aug 07, 2007 · Maury knew a head of time that scientific discoveries lay in the very pages of the Bible. Also, Ignaz Semmelweis did discover much regarding the hygeine. Pasteur established the Law of Biogenesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 God, Science and the Bible: Discoveries at Goliath's ... https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/god-science-and-the-bible-discoveries-at-goliaths... Oct 13, 2010 · This summer two significant discoveries at Tell es-Safi, identified as the site of biblical Gath, have been announced that support the historical accuracy of the Bible. Gath is one of the largest tells (mounds formed from successive building over the ruins of ancient cities) in Israel. Biblical Archaeology: Factual Evidence to Support the ... https://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-t Mar 30, 2009 · Biblical Archaeology: Factual Evidence to Support the Historicity of the Bible. Second Samuel 11 tells of David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. A century ago the Hittites were unknown outside of the Old Testament, and critics … Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 6 hours ago, jbluhm86 said: OBF, if you're trying to have some "gotcha" moment here about evolution, then I hate to disappoint you. I agree that Darwinian evolution is a theory; however, the preponderance of objective observations and evidence to support it far exceeds any religions' "evidence" of being true. Again, once Sunday schools are made to give equal time in study of evolution along with their biblical lessons - as science classes are now being made to give time and credence to religious dogma - then you'll have an argument. The science classroom is for science, not religion. Religious ideology has no business in a science classroom. Full stop. I don't think Sunday school is in a credited form of Education. If it was kids could opt out of public school and just go to that right? But it no more relates to public school then piano lessons or dance classes outside of school property. Just saying. Of course unless the idea is to just Crush religion and keep it out of schools all together a workaround might be this... You would ask the questions about Darwinism or whatever and freeze them as such. What do the darwinists believe about evolution? And the Christian Child could answer that without betraying his faith. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Of course unless the idea is to just Crush religion and keep it out of schools all together a workaround might be this... You would ask the questions about Darwinism or whatever and freeze them as such. What do the darwinists believe about evolution? And the Christian Child could answer that without betraying his faith. WSS but that gives up the indoctrination by the left factor. Home schooling works excellently if you can arrange it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted November 16, 2019 Report Share Posted November 16, 2019 good fucking luck J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 16, 2019 Report Share Posted November 16, 2019 1 hour ago, MLD Woody said: good fucking luck J more nothing from a nothingpecker. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 16, 2019 Report Share Posted November 16, 2019 13 hours ago, calfoxwc said: but that gives up the indoctrination by the left factor. Home schooling works excellently if you can arrange it. Of course. My proposal would only work if the actual point of this was an equitable compromise in a country that still pretends to care about freedom of religion. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 17, 2019 Report Share Posted November 17, 2019 On 11/15/2019 at 7:40 PM, MLD Woody said: good fucking luck J Anybody wonder why nobody misses the sparkling political commentary of the wood man? Me neither. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted November 17, 2019 Report Share Posted November 17, 2019 On 11/15/2019 at 7:50 PM, calfoxwc said: more nothing from a nothingpecker. 42 minutes ago, Westside Steve said: Anybody wonder why nobody misses the sparkling political commentary of the wood man? Me neither. WSS Lovely examples of exactly what I said a couple of weeks ago. This is why this is not a political discussion board, but a trumpy supporters only board. EDIT: BTW the Discovery Institute is a joke when it comes to scientific work. It's a back to the Scopes trial institute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted November 17, 2019 Report Share Posted November 17, 2019 Trumpy supporters only? Come on Tex you post here and you have a bad case of Trumpy Derangement Syndrome..I'm trying to cure you but you are a tough case Counselor...😊 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 17, 2019 Report Share Posted November 17, 2019 32 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: Lovely examples of exactly what I said a couple of weeks ago. This is why this is not a political discussion board, but a trumpy supporters only board. Somebody hurt your feelings? You're still here right? I was just pointing out the level of intelligent discussion the wood man brought to the table and why it's not really missed. Just for the record our old pal die hard just got the boot. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted November 17, 2019 Report Share Posted November 17, 2019 2 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Somebody hurt your feelings? You're still here right? I was just pointing out the level of intelligent discussion the wood man brought to the table and why it's not really missed. Just for the record our old pal die hard just got the boot. WSS I'm here only to save you all from the liar in chief👺👱♂️. Sooner or later you will understand he is the Great Kahn!🤴 LOL! 😇 And ketchup baby tomato. Die Hard was granted a reprieve by Kathy & Zombo. 30 day suspension and then he may return . See Z's post of last Wed. on the FB board thread near the top, "Reporting posts to me........." I'm glad they granted his reprieve because I personally like the guy.👍 He's equally good at baiting everyone.🐟🐠🐡😁 And even though I know what he's doing, I've been had on more than one occasion.🎣😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted November 17, 2019 Report Share Posted November 17, 2019 Yes Tex at the present time most of the posters are on the right. That's how it goes. It hasn't always been that way but it is now. People with any position are free to post and B is rational or is assholeish as they care to and get responses in about the same vein. And once more I'm not going to start banning guys because they don't agree with your opinion. Guys get the boot for a very small number of infractions. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted November 17, 2019 Report Share Posted November 17, 2019 What Tex is saying, really, is that the left demands to control the narrative, but they can't here, and "it isn't fair"... so they left, only to have Tex whine about the majority of posters being on the right.... because Tiamsies organized a mass walkout. LOL Living solely on emotions just doesn't work correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.