How did you do that so fast? An EWU logo isn't exactly "national branding".

Google images my friend. And may I say that that is a highly evolved mascot.

Possibly. But it looks like hell on a t-shirt. ;-)

i just wanted to point out something in your post for shits and giggles.

Wasn't intentional, but if it tickles a few of you, let it ride...

LOL. We are quickly disqualifying everyone from making any unsolicited comments.

At this rate, we will all eventually conclude that, due to passion, prejudice or lack of alphabet soup trailing after one's name, no one on this board is qualified to make any comment regarding any issue whatsoever.

8-)

Has anyone besides myself been to the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky? It's an interesting exercise.

About us - Creation Museum

We are taking a gtoup of kids there this summer while we are there on a mission trip

The old goose and gander problem.

Precisely the issue that a couple of posters continue to make which keeps others from expressing opinions.

Make sure you go to the planetarium show. It's the best part. (y)

Also, take quarters with you. There is a petting zoo outside, and to feed the animals you need to put quarters in the dispensing machines.

FWIW I intended that more along the lines of establishing that the vast majority of us are interested observers.

I understood you, and was being satirical. ;-)

Kathryn, I don't think you have actually stated your opinion on the topic at hand yet. Do you think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools?

Are you the goose or the gander? You also made that point. Very clearly. That I had no business discussing either history or political science since I haven't studied either extensively.

Not a single reply to this post. I'd really like to know everyone's opinion.

Never been. Anyone ever been to the Smithsonian Museam of Natural History? It is my natural history museam of choice.

Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History NMNH

I do agree with this statement. I think that someone qualified to teach the class should be able to make the curriculum. That stands true for all subjects such as math, history, science, etc.

I'm a big fan of the Museum of Natural History, although it's been years. I'm also a fan of the combo - Chicago Field Museum & Chicago Museum of Science & Industry, both excellent if anyone is in chicago.

Since the governance of our schools still rests with the owners of the schools (the residents, taxpayers and voters), I do believe that the elected body responsible for that district should dictate how the curriculum is designed.

If that involves text book committees on which parents might be represented, then that is how "we" have set it up to work.

In most cases, the textbook(s) are recommended by the teacher or a teacher group at the state level, to a textbook review committee, on which parents will sit also, with input. They will recommend, for example, that a 6th grade history course will have 2-4 text books from which to choose, and state those choices. Then the local school district will make their choice.

So, the teacher still designs the 'curriculum' for their class, and as one knows, can teach whatever words they choose to come out of their mouth.

It is not as quite a horrific process as mriff makes it seem. Parents don't write textbooks (other than some extreme case; there is always an exception to the rule) and in most cases are given their due influence.

Because many people believe in creationism, children will encounter it. Time permitting, the issue should be addressed. It's the responsible thing to do.

for those traveling, I found out about this place for a certain movie I watched recently.

Home - The Holy Land Experience
Outside Orlando, FL.

I spent time studying in the real thing.

Pretty cool though, especially with Orlando being the number one tourist destination in the world.

I almost went and studied in Israel. I was ready to go to a summer dig at Masada but cancelled a few weeks out. I still regret that decision.

I do think having the Theme park "Holy Land" in Orlando is great though, more choices for family trips are always good.

Nowhere did I say it was a horrific process. That's your word.

For the most part, I think the process works fine. I was simply asking a question to spur thinking. But I do think that the right experts in subject matter need to have more influence in what is written in text books. It would solve some of the problems we have with science texts.

So how do you think it should be addressed? As an alternate 'theory' in the science classroom or in some other subject such as humanities or philosophy?

Your 'we' may just be the minority. Seems the process might be working as intended.

At how many local or state school board meetings have you made your voice heard on this issue?

The former. Splitting it out serves no practical purpose. The only purpose served would be ideological.

If the purpose of school is to educate children in order to prepare them for life (as opposed to preparing them only for college and/or the next course they will take) then logic says it is right to expose them not only to both schools of thought, but also to the debate that we are having now. If you split the class, that won't happen.

BTW, for the same set of reasons, I believe birth control and abstinence should be taught side by side in the same class.

It might just be, which is very unfortunate. The 'we' are in the best position to outline what should be called science and what should not IMHO.

I have done this a few times. Not as many as I'd like. I have made my voice known through communications with state and federal office holders as well.

Then this is where we part ways. Every bit of emperical and scientific evidence points to evolution. And there is not one scientific piece of verifiable testable evidence that points to creationism. So to teach creationism as even remotely resembling science is doing a great disservice to our students. Teaching creationism should be left up to our churches and we as parents.

Completely agree. (y)

You're here arent you? You were created when your Dad... well I think you know the rest of the story.

Just like the earth was created when got snapped his fingers and said so.

Ok Dawg. Thanks for your comments. I give up trying to respond to anything you say in this thread.

Another debate thread. Looks familiar.

Creationism, Evolution, Faith and Reason - dot.comments

This is a very interesting article. Comments from anyone?

http://newsok.com/why-pastor-evangel...rticle/3352257

Very interesting article (at least to me). Another tiny piece of information that once again supports the larger body of knowledge.

The Platypus and the Evolution of Genomic Imprinting

LOL

That was interesting, and thanks for posting the link. I was not aware of that site, which looks to be quite good.

You're welcome. I'm rather new to the site as well. I'll be doing some exploring. I like how they have all the difference sciences lined up with an easy to navigate system. On the Life Sciences page, there's a direct link to all the blogs on evolution. That blog has been busy this year with the Darwin anniversary.

Even if you don't believe in evolution, you will undoubtedly benefit from the research being conducted. If you care to look at just one small example, please see the following:

Resurrection In Evolution: IRGM Genexxx039;s Death And Rebirth

And people wonder why we continue to fall behind the rest of the developed countries in science knowledge.

Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds

I had seen that before. Only Turkey -- the one Muslim-dominated country in the world that allows the teaching of evolution -- trails the US. What a sad state of affairs.

interesting perspective on the debate. I want to watch the full program but will have to do that tonight.

FORA.tv - Michael_Ruse_on_Darwinism

I agree with much of what he says, except one. That the voice of extremism will be lessened due in part to the recent political changes in the US. I don't see that happening. It may in fact, exacerbate it.

I'll have to look up more of his stuff test. He seems very reasonable. And a bit entertaining. Thanks for posting.

Edit: He is a professor at FSU, right in my back yard.

yeah seems pretty knowledgeable. I do think that you will hear more of the extremism but I do think that as he said it is coming from fewer people. I think that as things change you will see that the minority will get louder and louder in their anger and complaints. thats typical for extremists or radicals.

Yet another small piece of the dinosaur puzzle.

Smallest known North American dinosaur found - CNN.com

A science minister who has trouble with the Theory of Evolution. His response when asked whether or not he believed in evolution:

"I'm not going to answer that question," Goodyear, federal minister of state for science and technology, told the Globe and Mail in an article published Tuesday. "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."

But then again, he's a former chiropractor, so it kind of fits.

(n)

Science minister's coyness on evolution worries researchers

Wow. There are just no limits to how deceptive McElroy will be. The book written by a guy with a BS in general science is being touted as meaninful! Reminds me of the Pandas book bought and distributed by the Dover School Board. We all know how that went. The NAS is made out to be a bunch of criminals.

Texas Evolution-Creation Debate Impacted by Book: Sowing Atheism : Tue, 17 Mar 2009 : eNewsChannelsxxx8482;

Boy, they really gave you a stage didn't they?

Don't like it? Don't read it.

As a Christian, I have trouble with his response. The point of Christianity is to share the good news through your words and deeds.

I read his comment as, "I'm either not articulate enough or not confident enough to state my personal views to others. Or worse, I'm too afraid of the reactions of others."

I didn't(n)

Somehow, some way, I'm not surprised Dawg. It was your usual MO. Slip in, make a slashing comment, then slip away.

wait thats my MO :razz: maybe Dawg's posting technique has evolved.

I agree. It was an odd, defensive response to a very legitimate question. A question that was only a matter of time that he was asked as Science Minister. And a question that he should answer one way or another IMHO.

Lol! Dawg doesn't evolve. But just for kicks, here's a interesting article (at least to me) that attempts to describe how Homo sapiens will evolve over the next hundred thousand years. Which group will your ancestors be in? ;-)

Where Will Evolution Take Humanity? Scientists Predict a Radical Change in Humans

snip

He sees the pickiness of people in choosing sexual partners starting to divide the human race. BBC News described Dr. Curry’s two species: “The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the ‘underclass’ humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat, goblin-like creatures.”

In the near term (the next 1,000 years), however, Curry believes humans will improve a bit. He says they will typically stand between 1.8 and 2.1 metres (six to seven feet) and will live to be 120 years old. Physically, future generations will become more attractive and racial differences will vanish; everybody will be coffee coloured.

However, gadgets will be the undoing of society. People will come to rely on them so much that they will begin to lose a lot of their skills; they might resemble domesticated animals. Social abilities will decline and people might even lose such emotions as love, sympathy, trust, and respect.

/snip

Boy, are they late to the table. Scott Adams (Dilbert's creator) predicted this course for humanity nearly 15 years ago:

Men Who Use Computers Are The New Sex Symbols Of The 90s

8-)

Lol! That's pretty funny. Thanks for posting. I had not seen that before.

I didn't slash anyone. I simply stated the obvious. And I haven't gone anywhere.

I think this is a basic, yet thorough introduction to evolutionary biology. For those of you who care to read, I'd like to hear your comments.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

I initially got no farther than this dismissive remark in the second paragraph:

"People who have a general interest in science are likely to dismiss evolution as a soft science after absorbing the pop science nonsense that abounds."

After a period of eye rolling, and reminding myself that scientists as a group are not known for their people skills, I continued onward.

I found this paper dry, as most people with no post-high-school background in Evolutionary Biology might.

I did pause at this passage, which is the portion of evolutionary theory over which many Christians trip:

"All species have descended from a common ancestor. As time went on, different lineages of organisms were modified with descent to adapt to their environments. Thus, evolution is best viewed as a branching tree or bush, with the tips of each branch representing currently living species. No living organisms today are our ancestors. Every living species is as fully modern as we are with its own unique evolutionary history. No extant species are "lower life forms," atavistic stepping stones paving the road to humanity.

A related, and common, fallacy about evolution is that humans evolved from some living species of ape. This is not the case -- humans and apes share a common ancestor. Both humans and living apes are fully modern species; the ancestor we evolved from was an ape, but it is now extinct and was not the same as present day apes (or humans for that matter). If it were not for the vanity of human beings, we would be classified as an ape. Our closest relatives are, collectively, the chimpanzee and the pygmy chimp. Our next nearest relative is the gorilla."

Different Christians interpret the Bible, and understand/believe this portion of evolution differently.

I don't know any Christians who don't believe that biological evolution exists. A basic study of one's own environment suggests that living things change over time.

The debate comes in when one sits down and reads the book of Genesis, which Christians believe is true. Here's the relevant excerpt:

Some Christians interpret this section literally and in light of our present understanding. That is, they believe that all of the above happened precisely as described in a period consisting of 48 hours.

Others believe this passage to be fact, but believe we cannot possibly know how much things changed with "the fall" (of Adam and Eve), so we cannot interpret it properly now. For example, was a "day" a 24 hour period back then, or was it something else? Was it referring to an age? These people believe the passage speaks truthfully but that we lack the whole picture because of sin's entrance into the world. We can't see the true meaning of Genesis clearly anymore.

Still others believe that Genesis is allegorical. They believe it is the early Jewish take on the journey of mankind from the time of its creation to forager (in the Garden), to hunter, to farmer. We lost our innocence along the way as we began to kill one another over limited resources; and the story of Genesis to them is one of mankind pining for safety and plenty and peace in a troubled world. These Christians say the Bible is "divinely inspired," but that it was never meant to be taken word for word because the men who wrote those words were sinful and fallible like all men.

As you may imagine, arguments exist between these different factions. Some people who interpret the Bible literally believe that Christians who don't are not really Christians. Some people who think Genesis is allegorical believe that people who interpret it literally are bat-crazy (they tend to use the more polite phrase "willfully ignorant"). There's a ton of animosity.

With respect to evolution, you can see that there is room for evolution in some of the Christian perspectives, but not others.

As I said before, I think this is one of those debates that is a Britney debate. It's pretty, it's polarizing, it's ultimately pointless. Neither side can submit sufficient evidence to the other to close the issue and end the debate once and for all. Consequently, each person feels justified in clinging to his own warm and fuzzy paradigms and shutting out any conflicting data that might threaten them.

Kathryn, what a thoughtful, informed post. I've read it, and of course have a few things to say, but don't have time to do that today.

I did have one quick comment though about this statement:

I resemble that remark and wonder if you would also say the same about softward developers. :razz:

It takes one to know one. 8-)

LOL!

This is some seriously cool research, even if you're not a geek scientist. :oops:

Genomic Fossils In Lemurs Shed Light On Origin And Evolution Of HIV And Other Primate Lentiviruses

picture is too big for BBF but interesting.

http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.ne...3-reckless.png

9-foot dinosaur skeleton is no-sale at auction - CNN.com

Auctioneers at the I.M. Chait Gallery had hoped the 150-million-year-old, 9-foot-long dryosaurus would sell for as much as $500,000, but the bidding did not add up.

Because there is no such thing as a 150 million year old thing on earth.

(n)

What's the oldest thing on earth?

I think it was in my refrigerator until last week. I'm not sure what it was.

Wow, you must be a VVVYEC. (Very, very, very young earth creationist) ;-)

I've got to ask: Under what circumstances did it leave the refrigerator??? :razz:

Have no idea I'm not a geologist. But what ever it is it isnt a million years old,

Anything on earth over 10,000 years old?

Maybe maybe not. The jurys still out on that.

Where is your cutoff? It's somewhere between 10,000 and 1 million I guess.

This is a very nice, well organized site on basic evolutionary science.

Understanding Evolution

Lol. Survival of the fittest explained by cartoon.

Survival of the Sneakiest

correct somewhere between there.

Well, you've admitted that you're not a geologist. So how do you reconcile what you think with what virtually every other geologist on earth thinks? That is that the earth is 4+ billion years old.

Wirelessly posted (8310)

Just joking: I am actually very meticulous about the cleanliness of my refrigerator. I haven't always been that way. I evolved in my housekeeping.

Meterologist are experts in their fields and they are wrong daily.

ROTFL!

Meteorologists get paid to speculate. I'm not sure that analogy works.

And even meteorology has matured greatly as a science. But yes, it is not a good analogy.

I'd like to ask you Dawg, what do you make of the Theory of Plate Tectonics?

And really, I didn't ask you what you think about meteorologists. I asked what you think of geologists. But you didn't answer the question. Do you think they are all wrong and you alone are right? Even though as you say, you're not a geologist and they have spent their lives studying geology?

I think you already know the answer to that. Same as evolusionist, I think they are wrong. You can spend a life time studying and not understand a dang thing.

I have never once heard a meterologist say they speculate. Theymay very well do that, but its not what they are paid to do.

GOD vs. Science
A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, 'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes.'

'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'
'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes.'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes.'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

At the back of the room another student stands quietly for a moment before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

One can say the same thing of ignorance.

The professor ends the argument by saying, 'ever heard of a CAT scan'? Yes, my brain is real and that can be proven in a very simple way. The student is stumped and sits down to attempt to learn about science the way it's supposed to be taught.

So you are calling me ignorant? I am pretty sure thats what I am reading in your post and your signature. So, now I am ignorant and a liar? You can not prove your theory's with out any doubt what so ever, so until you can do that. I don't need you calling me ignorant.

Prove to me right now I have evolved from anything.

I have never called you a liar. Lying is something that one does willfully. I don't think you're doing that. But I am calling you ignorant. And wow Dawg, you must be getting paranoid. My signature was not aimed at you. But now that you mention it.....

And on the Theory of Evolution? I have no desire to try to prove anything to you. You will simply not make an attempt to understand. So we will get absolutely nowhere if we try that again.

li-ar –noun - a person who tells lies.


ig-no-rant –adjective

1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.

2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.

3. uninformed; unaware.

4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

I am ignorant about many things. That's one reason I am thankful for these forums.

I am ignorant about many things as well and freely admit it.

Editorial: State ed board should vote down evolution debate | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Opinion: Editorials

The TX State Board of Education is hearing arguments today and will vote tomorrow on Don McElroy's attempts to add creationism into the science standards. As you may recall from my previous posts, McElroy believes that the earth and everything on it is 10,000 years old. We'll see how it turns out.

From scientificblogging:

Evolution Is Still Alive And Well

snip

For this final installment of 30 Days of Evolution Blogging, to emphasize how successful evolution is as a science (and to illustrate what intelligent design has to compete with if it is ever to be taken seriously - and I confidently predict it never will come close to being scientifically competitive), here are 10 more great evolution research articles published in the first 59 days of 2009. Creationists may personally disbelieve all of this research, but the point is this: they haven't mounted anything close to a scientific attack on evolution. They don't have anything even close to a viable real scientific alternative - there is no such thing as intelligent design research, and the adherents of intelligent design aren't even making a serious attempt to change that fact.

/snip

Ok, this is probably overkill, but I wanted to post this editorial from Don McElroy. It gives a flavor of how he thinks. Frightening, at least to me. And this guy is the Chairman of the State Board of Education!?

McLeroy: Enlisting in the culture war

"The controversy exists because evolutionists, led by academia's far-left, along with the secular elite opinion-makers, have decreed that questioning of evolution is not allowed, that it is only an attempt to inject religion or creationism into the classroom."

This guy should not be in control of anyone's education. He sounds too much like a politician.

I have the same problem Test does, with the politics. What shook me up is this quote:

"The first step is to define science in a way that is satisfactory to both sides."

He is using his position to word and reword curriculum and questions in order to pacify everyone. What he ought to be doing is standing up and saying, "This is what group A believes, this is what group B believes... let's expose our children to the arguments and allow them to form their own conclusions." Instead, he thinks if he twists all the words around like the sides of a Rubik's cube, at some point he will have twisted enough that all the sides will fall in line.

Not happening.

And what will kids learn from this? If you can just find the right words, all substantive disagreements will magically disappear into the ether?

Science is already defined. By myriad scientists and philosophers over the past few centuries. And this nutjob (sorry, I call em as I see em) thinks he can simply rewrite what science means? I don't think so. If these standards are passed, TX will see Dover style litigation occur. At huge expense to the state and the states taxpayers.