Secular folks should worry.

[huckelberry]

MG, I think you should take some consideration of the following. I am a theist. I believe God created our world and is responsible for life living here. I believe God has a future intended for life. I mention this because you spend too much space claiming that people disagree with you because they are not theists. I disagree with a lot of views you present. Not every last thing of course but enough that you need to consider that your choice of views is based on many things beyond your faith in Jesus.

A lot more goes into your interpretation of current events than the mere fact you believe in God.

[MG 2.0]

I thought you might appreciate some beautiful religious music.

I figured as much. I had to fast forward though. It was just a bit too repetitive and kinda mushy for my tastes.

But thanks.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Are you putting Stephen Meyer into the same category as those that promote “alien pyramid builders”? Or are you simply doing the false analogy thingie?

You understand that the idea aliens built the pyramids doesn't belong in schools because it fails to meet a threshold for claims that deserve equal consideration in the standards.

Yes.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

[Evolution is based on observed evidence, accurate predictions, and testable theories that accurately predict both results from experimentation and what may be found where in the fossil record. Evolution is compatible and highly aligned with other natural science evidence from related fields. Biologists make use of it successfully in multiple fields including medicine. It's not a static belief that one gets to reject because one prefers the story with the tiger.

Agreed. It’s the straight forward uniformity of Darwin’s theory that Meyer takes issue with. Cambrian explosion, punctuated equilibrium and all that.

Evolution? Fine. No problem.

Developed curriculum should include opportunities for students to engage various views. Not just the ‘standard model’.

Again, as it is GenZ is being taught restricted curriculum. That has consequences. The ball was set rolling years ago. You are also a product of that curriculum. We often believe what we’re taught to the exclusion of alternative ideas that are also scientifically based/sound.

A lot of pick and choosing based on worldviews and biases though.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you have been brainwashed to only accept certain strands of scientific theory that are acceptable to you because of personal bias?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

https://youtu.be/rFxu7NEoKC8

Here, MG. Simple short video that points out vestigial anatomy in your own body that only makes sense as a result of the evolution of species through natural selection.

No question that natural selection played a part in our evolutionary history. The question is whether or not there is more to the story.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG, I think you should take some consideration of the following. I am a theist. I believe God created our world and is responsible for life living here. I believe God has a future intended for life. I mention this because you spend too much space claiming that people disagree with you because they are not theists. I disagree with a lot of views you present. Not every last thing of course but enough that you need to consider that your choice of views is based on many things beyond your faith in Jesus.

A lot more goes into your interpretation of current events than the mere fact you believe in God.

Understood.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

I didn’t see the board member’s input and questions as unreasonable in a situation where different points of view were supposedly welcome.

This isn't the purpose of the standards.

Here is a discussion from that meeting where you can hear your perspective presented and then the science advisor explain why that is a misguided comment:

https://www.youtube.com/live/P1sO8iD-vx ... t=4h35m46s

Listen through the entire conversation.

[Res Ipsa]

You’re talking about the proponent of the pseudoscience of intelligent design, right? The guy who helped found the portion of the Discovery Institute that promotes intelligent design, right. The guy whose degrees are in philosophy, right?

You want him taught in science classes?

Anything that meets the rigors of scientific investigation, yes.

Closed minded are we?

Are you a strict/orthodox Darwinist?

Nowadays would that be considered ‘extremist’?

The jury is out when it comes to Darwin’s Theory.

Why the angst expressed in regards to Stephen Meyer?

Does an expert need to have a certain worldview in order to be on your ‘listen to’ list?

What particular issues do you have with the conversation with Shermer and/or Marshall? As it was, I think Meyer holds up very well.

The problem, again, is when a generation or two (three or four now?) is taught a certain ‘philosophy’ based on a particular scientific view/theory which is still in flux. Minds and hearts are affected for better or worse.

Regards,
MG

MG, you're just spouting religious Creationist talking points that have been around forever. You're also displaying complete ignorance of the state for evolutionary biology.

Recognizing that Stephen Meyer has promoted pseudoscience for decades in an effort to get God into science class isn't being "closed minded." The man is a philosopher, not a scientist. His books aren't science and they don't belong in science class. They might be relevant in a philosophy of science class or a history of science class along with Lysenkoism. His books are filled with straw men and misleading hijinks. He doesn't know enough about the substance of the science he writes about to avoid egregious errors. And 90% of what he writes is poorly disguised god of the gaps arguments.

My only "angst" is the perpetual dishonesty of a certain Christians who refuse to accept the simple fact that their religion is not science and does not belong in science class. It's what Meyer's part of the Discovery Institute does - creates religion masquerading as science. I've followed the DI and its antics for years. The DI's mission is not to improve science education. If you're not aware of the "wedge strategy" document on which the DI's strategy is based, then shame on you for claiming that Meyer is just on one side of a scientific controversy.

Shermer is also not a scientist. He has a BA and MA in psychology and a PhD in science history. I don't know who Marshall is.

Science class should teach science. Not pseudoscience promoted only by god-believers. It's precisely the same issue as teaching homeopathy in medical schools.

God of the gaps arguments aren't science. They are literally the fallacies of ignorance and personal incredulity. Meyer would be perfectly acceptable in a course on the intersection of science and religion. But not in a hard science course.

No one today is a "strict" or "orthodox" Darwinist. No one has been for literally decades. Those are phony terms made up by religious believers. You gave the game away the second you used them. There are actual, real scientific controversies in the science of evolution, and those are taught. The existence of real controversies does not justify teaching pseudoscience.

[Res Ipsa]

[Evolution is based on observed evidence, accurate predictions, and testable theories that accurately predict both results from experimentation and what may be found where in the fossil record. Evolution is compatible and highly aligned with other natural science evidence from related fields. Biologists make use of it successfully in multiple fields including medicine. It's not a static belief that one gets to reject because one prefers the story with the tiger.

Agreed. It’s the straight forward uniformity of Darwin’s theory that Meyer takes issue with. Cambrian explosion, punctuated equilibrium and all that.

Evolution? Fine. No problem.

Developed curriculum should include opportunities for students to engage various views. Not just the ‘standard model’.

Again, as it is GenZ is being taught restricted curriculum. That has consequences. The ball was set rolling years ago. You are also a product of that curriculum. We often believe what we’re taught to the exclusion of alternative ideas that are also scientifically based/sound.

A lot of pick and choosing based on worldviews and biases though.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you have been brainwashed to only accept certain strands of scientific theory that are acceptable to you because of personal bias?

Regards,
MG

That's the usual ridiculous straw man of current evolutionary theory on which Christians base their attempts to get God into the science classroom. Darwin's theory predates the discovery of DNA, for heaven's sake. Like every other scientific theory, evolutionary theory gets refined and modified over time when there is evidence on which to base those changes. Punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Steven J. Gould, an evolutionary biologist based on evidence. He also testified against the forerunner of Meyer and intelligent design -- scientific creationism. Both are Trojan horses specifically created by Christians to get God into the science classroom.

GenZ isn't being taught a "restricted curriculum" in university science classes. They are being taught actual science. Not religiously motivated pseudoscience.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Obviously all theories need to be taught, or at least we should give equal consideration to a theory that people take seriously enough to place on their trucks or to create a website about:

https://flatearth101.com/

It is a fact not a theory that bodies of water always seek and find their own level from a pond, lake, or an ocean. The natural physics of water is to find and remain level. It is a fact that the majority of Earth is covered in such level water! Thus making it an unscientific theory to postulate that Earth is actually a gigantic sphere with bendy oceans curving all the way around it.

See? It’s a fact. Why are we ignoring reality? It’s because scientists are make money off the government to push their nonsense!



See? It’s fact the earth isn’t a globe. Somone did the math as you can see. We need to teach this to our children.

Anyway. The website is right there. It’s obvious we should introduce this into our curriculum because it’s the truth.

- Doc