The controversy over science standards was actually the result of an attempted hijacking of science for ideological purposes by evolutionists. Their agenda was much more about worldviews than biology. The standards reflect real science and challenge students to study some of evolution's most glaring weaknesses in explaining the fossil record and the complexity of the cell.
33 comments
Where's the worldview in "lifeforms adapt to their changing environment through random mutation and natural selection"?
Weakness in explaining the fossil records?
It's there, it's the remains of former lifeforms, it's older than 10 000 years.
If you want a thorough explanation, go to a paleontologist.
"The standards reflect real science and challenge students to study some of evolution's most glaring weaknesses in explaining the fossil record and the complexity of the cell."
yup
since its way more logical to say "goddidit"
The controversy over science standards was actually the result of an attempted hijacking of science for ideological purposes by creationists. Their agenda was much more about worldviews than biology. The standards, before the attempted hijacking, reflect real science and challenge students to study some of creationism's most glaring weaknesses in explaining the fossil record and the mounds of genetic and other evidence of common descent.
FIXED.
The controversy over science standards is actually the result of an attempted hijacking of science for religious purpose by extremist christianists. Their agenda is more about Sumerian creation myths than biology. The so-called standards reflect religious doctrine and misinform students about the real world, thus preparing them to ask "do you want fries with that?".
No, the controversy over evolution was completely manufactured by creationists who try to create doubt about evolution by repeatedly bleating that it's all false. Among scientists there is no controversy over whether or not evolution is a valid theory. The controversy only exists because of mindless morons listening to the creationists and believing they'll burn in hell if they don't believe in it.
And speaking of attempted hijacking of science, does intelligent design and Kitzmiller vs. Dover ring a bell?
attempted hijacking of science for ideological purposes by evolutionists
No such thing happened nor is it possible.
The Scientific Method = observable, repeatable tests of a hypothesis subject to peer review.
The collusion of the scientific community would be overwhelming to pull off what you propose. Eventually, such a conspiracy would collapse under its own weight.
I'm glad you mentioned the complexity of the cell, Don. It is well known that the cell was arrived at by an extremely complex process known as goddunit. What happened was that about half past two on a sunny Tuesday afternoon about 6000 or so years ago, an invisible deity, whilst reclining in comfort on a fluffy white cloud and enjoying the sunshine, suddenly came over all creative. He began to think, in His non-cellular way, "Hmmm! What if I, er, let's see now. If I was to add an Abracadabra to an Alley Oops and then divided by a Hocus Pocus, then if I carefully performed a Hey Presto and tossed in a handful of magic dust ... Hmmm! I wonder?"
Of course, we all now know that He acted upon His musings and the end result was a cell, lots and lots of them. Remarkable really, though so incomprehensible to untrained people like myself. that it might as well be magic. So it's a damn good job that there are highly trained scientists like yourself Don, who can do the serious research necessary to explain these incredibly difficult concepts to us mere mortal dunces.
The controversy over science standards was actually the result of an attempted hijacking of science for ideological purposes by evolutionists. Their agenda was much more about worldviews than biology.
You've got some impressive RPMs on that spin, Don, but that doesn't make it any less bunk.
The controversy over whether or not Evolution is science is not between biologists. Within the scientific community, the overwhelming majority of biologists accept the arguments for evolution.
The controversy over evolution is between the biologists who accept evolution based on the evidence for it, and the Creationists who summarily reject it based on their worldview . It's the creationists that are attempting to hijack science for ideological purposes. It's the creationist agenda that's more about worldview than about biology. Not incidentally, this is why it's been rejected as science time after time.
The standards reflect real science and challenge students to study some of evolution's most glaring weaknesses in explaining the fossil record and the complexity of the cell.
What glaring weaknesses, Don? Please be specific. If you think that they can be taught to schoolchildren, surely you can explain them to an adult.
I've heard this before. Didn't they think that Galileo had hijacked science for ideological purposes when he said that the earth moves around the sun, and not vice versa?
He was punished by being excommunicated. That'll learn him.
The controversy over science standards was actually the result of an attempted hijacking of science for ideological purposes by creationists. Their agenda was much more about worldviews than biology. The standards reflect real science and challenge students to study some of evolution's most glaring weaknesses in explaining the fossil record and the complexity of the cell.
Actually the fossil record and complexity of cells prove evolution, disregard my post I am an idiot.
The controversy over science standards was actually the result of an attempted hijacking of science for ideological purposes by evolutionists. Their agenda was much more about worldviews than biology.
image
The standards reflect real science and challenge students to study some of evolution's most glaring weaknesses in explaining the fossil record and the complexity of the cell.
Sure, there are gaps in the fossil record and we don't completely understand the path cells took in their evolution but what scientists aren't going to do is throw their hands up in the air, completely discard a robust theory, and declare that it's all magic.
There's more scary stuff in the main article. This clown also wants to teach American exceptionalism as a doctrine, "In God We Trust" as a national motto, and the separation of church an state as a silly little thing nobody should take seriously. He also used this Feynman quote about the new anti-evolution science standards: "the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another." Oh well, at least he wants to teach good grammar.
The problem, McLeroy, is that one side has ample evidence to demonstrate the veracity of their claim, that being evolution. The other side has a book of fairy tales.
You see, in science there's this little thing called "evidence" that is necessary in order for a claim to be held valid. Evolution has it in spades. Creation doesn't have any.
You lose, asshole.
The controversy over science standards was actually the result of an attempted hijacking of science for ideological purposes by creationists. Their agenda was much more about worldviews than biology. The standards reflect real science and challenge students to study some of creationism's most glaring weaknesses in explaining the fossil record and the complexity of the cell.
WOW. IT WAS THAT EASY TO FIX.
"The controversy" is right-wing talk for "some people say". They're using it on Climate-Change too.
In the Biological/evolutionary fields there is no controversy. A word which implies desent within which isn't occuring, only the same old uneducated, unqualified people talking shit
"The controversy" is such bullshit Sarah Palin uses the term when trying to equate creationism with evolution science.
Only in America. Beyond the benighted culture of its conservative bigots, the world (including properly educated Americans, thankfully) knows that evolutionary theory is proven. There is no controversy, nor will there be, elsewhere in the educated West. There is nothing to discuss. In the UK where I live, creationism struggles to get a look-in and even it does it's laughed out of town. The question is not "evolution or creation" but - why is America so weird? We have our culture wars too, but we don't go around making facts up to suit our arguments, and we have some respect for scientists.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.