Special Interest Goes Nuts Over Course

In the world of special interests, you may attack anything which is not politically correct, but show any weaknesses in Darwinian theory then it becomes an abomination!

In a University at Amarillo Texas, Professor Stanley Wilson was teaching a course called, “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design” using a textbook written by “two microbiologists, two philosophers of science and a technical writer present for students a concise introduction to the cases, both pro and con, regarding major aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.”  The name of the textbook, “Explore Evolution.”

This course was authorized by the administration for Dr. Stanley to teach through the adult continuing program which means it wasn’t a regular course for students. One of the fears of special interests is that it may be offered that way. An atheist who wasn’t even taking the class nor could he, began a protest which got so intense that it lead to police action. He is a leader of a group called, “Freethought Oasis” where people are free to learn about all kinds of information, well except for intelligent design.

It was funny how one of the school’s administrators, viewed the name of the organization in light of the protest.

“He gave me a card about the organization, the link to their website is below. I don’t know where the free thought comes in though, seems more like the lack of…

Like any of these special interests, they use disruptive protests in order to intimidate people. This also follows along the line with certain political protests as well. Although, some of those were not as successful.

Due to my accident until my hand heals, I cannot type much more, it’s not easy doing this with mostly one hand…but I want to say this…Farren the leader of this protest used falsehoods to scare the university…His emails and a facebook comment went public even though he claimed he never went public with the case, showing how low he went and his ally…

“Thanks for the heads up. I don’t think the article was referring to you and your group; rather, anonymous phone calls promising disruption.

Emboldening Students With Critical Thinking In Science

How do mainstream science publications and special interests treat teaching critical thinking skills to students in science? A critical thinking skill lesson which doesn’t allow creationism or intelligent design to be taught. If you follow what happened in Louisiana while passing the “academic freedom” about two years or the Texas science standards. Much of what was said back then is once again being used by opponents who are in opposition to the majority of the State of Tennessee legisture which overwhelmingly voted to approve HR 368, the Teacher Protection Act!

They say, The Teacher Protection Act is going to allow creationism or intelligent design in the public schools with this typical claim often used…

“Alan I. Leshner, the chief executive officer of AAAS (which publishes ScienceInsider), said, “There is virtually no scientific controversy among the overwhelming majority of researchers on the core facts of global warming and evolution. Asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them.”

This bill has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory or how many scientists agree with evolution who are government funded which by the way only pays for the promotion of evolution.

The bill states the following…

“This section only protects the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.”

Do these same scientists believe they have every aspect of evolution solved based on observable data with their assumptions and predictions? This has to do with variants in evolution, not all theories or hypothesis within the framework of evolution are settled. In fact, many of them get falsified. We have observed this from what was found on Titan, for example. Where you have a couple of papers challenging other papers from an viewpoint based on the moon evolving, this would indicate things are far from settled on what is going on in Titan because they are only beginning to learn what is going on this amazingly designed moon. Of course what they are discovering there agrees more with the creationist model.

So what is it? It’s a question of what do scientists really know about reality. This is what the bill is all about. Yet, we see a bunch of crazy accusations which have no merit whatsoever!  In fact, they admit they don’t even know what the effects of the “academic freedom” in Louisiana after two years. It’s not that they couldn’t come up with one but so far it’s been a mute point after all that fuss they put up many months before the bill was passed.

Darwinists of the 19th century struggled to get academic freedom for their views; Darwin himself appealed to allowing both sides of a controversy to be heard but once they seized power, they took away the same principle in which they once fought for, just like communists or any other totalitarian government, religious or not. The only way to respond to their craziness and anti-christian position is to stand up to it with resolute firmness and courage, boldly speaking the truth with equanimity and without compromise!

Experts Invited To Speak About Texas Science Standards

Six experts who worked on recommendations for science standards in Texas are invited to testify on January 21, 2009.  The six experts were divided. Three experts were pro-evolutionists, and the other three were either pro-intelligent design, or creationism.

The pro-evolutionist side are; Hillis, Wetherington, and Skoog. And on the pro-ID and creationist side; Meyer, Seelke, and Garner. You can hear them testify live here, or you can listen to them at your leisure here when available. It’s important to know what’s going on with education so I encourage people to listen to the testimony.

It will not be surprising to hear that three of the experts want the “strengths and weakness” language removed,  while the other three experts want the language to remain. Here is one of the six expert’s take on it…

“According to one of the experts, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is a core part of the scientific process, and abandoning such critical analysis merely to satisfy ideological demands of Darwinists harms students by giving them a false view of scientific inquiry.”

“Science education that does not encourage students to evaluate competing scientific arguments is not teaching students about the way science actually operates,” emphasized Dr. Meyer in his written report. Meyer, a Cambridge-trained philosopher of science, directs the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.”

For people wanting to have their say in person about science standards in Texas better get there early. Public testimony has been limited to four hours says board Chairman Don McLeroy. Keep in mind, the January 2009 meeting is the final one for public opinion.

On a side not, it appears Texas Science Standards language is not the only problem. Test scores on the SAT test for Texas students has been declining the last two years…The decline is way below the national average in critical reading, math, and writing.

There is some good news much to the dismay of some militant atheists who are pushing for more dogmatic evolution in schools…

“According to the Texas Education Agency, is that Texas students who took a rigorous high school curriculum scored 26 to 40 points higher on each section than students who took a lighter load, according to the Texas Education Agency.”

Normally those students who have a more rigorous school curriculum because of choice, are more into their studies than the ones who take less. In any case, Texas education needs viable improvements and students need to be better motivated in order to be successful with their studies and future.

Political Special Interest Claims No Weakness In Evolution

A special interest group called; 21st Century Science Coalition wrote an opinion piece in response to the Texas State Board of Education revising the science curriculum standards for Texas public schools. In there they state the following…

“Unfortunately, evolution opponents are uninterested in updating the standards to reflect this expanded knowledge. They instead want standards that divert class time from this well-established scientific discipline to cover thoroughly discredited arguments about “weaknesses” of evolution.”

“For instance, they claim that an incomplete fossil record disproves evolution. Yet they ignore the millions of fossils (yes, millions) that clearly illustrate a history of evolution.”

I’ll get into the fossil debate in just a moment, but wanted to draw your attention to this particular comment which I find interesting and on target.

Daniel Bolnick, a leader of the pro-Darwin only “Texas 21st Century Science Coalition,” recently published an op-ed in the Waco Tribune which provides some good lessons on how to argue for “evolution” to the public: Be extremely dogmatic and vague about the evidence.” -Casey Luskin

Well now let’s take this fossil argument. According to Dr. Peter Wellnhofer, Curator of the Bavarian State Collection of Paleontology states; “I would say the specimen numbers go at least in the hundreds of thousands of years or close to a thousand or so, or something like that. So we have a farily good record of pterosaur fossils and pterosaurs fossils.”

So what does the fossil evidence say about these flying reptiles…

“When the pterosaurs first appear in the geological record, they were completely perfect. They were perfect pterosaurs.”  -Dr. Viohl, Curartor of the famous Jura Museum, Eichstatt Germany.

One has to wonder which fossils are the author in 21st Century Science Coalition talking about? Was he so pressed for space, that he couldn’t name a few fossils? No! It appears  they like to use massive volume for evidence without going into details, but that in itself is not evidence. Even other critics who are evolutionists themselves, don’t buy into the “massive volume” argument!

“Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution on the basis of computational analyses alone, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations.” Evolutionary Biologist Drops Bombshell On Positive Selection

Evolution is based on faith in a maze of opening many gaps while filling very few of them. This particular  evolutionary biologist admits there is no evidence for positive selection, but yet he still believes in the concept. So if evolutionary scientists continue to believe in such unproven concepts, does that mean there is no weakness? Absolutely not! Nothing could be further from the truth.

None of their arguments they claim to be rebutting were even taught in the public schools with the allowance of teaching “weakness.” If there was, this same special interest group and others like it would of been in an uproar over it.

But the arguments in which they oppose has been conducted mainly outside the public schools. Legally that is, but even with court rulings against teaching creationism or ID, we know there are teachers in public schools around the country who present both sides (either creationism or intelligent design) but it’s only like 1-3 hours of class time which is hardly taking away time from other subjects.

Parents who pay taxes own the public schools better believe they have a say in the way children of being taught, more so than special interest groups who claim there is no weakness in evolution, it’s quite the contrary. While it’s true some of the members of special interests have kids of their own, average parents are not getting paid for their opinions nor are rewarded with government grants if their opinions are accepted.

Anyway, as new discoveries have been found, so does new issues crop up that show a weakness in the evolutionary hypothesis.