Secular folks should worry.

[malkie]

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.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that their god created the earth, and all that in there is, as fact, right?

You might expect, therefore, that Brigham Young University, a private university that is funded and controlled by the church, would teach creationism in its science classes, at the very least on an equal footing with evolutionary theories.

If creationism as science has any legitimacy at all, BYU is one place where you would expect to see it championed - perhaps even elevated above evolution.

Is it so?

[honorentheos]

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

So you understand that Intelligent Design fails to meet the same threshold?

[honorentheos]

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?

Hmmm. I was raised with a very Joseph Fielding Smith/ Bruce R McConkie worldview. Dinosaur bones came from the matter unorganized and only the species present and observed ever lived on the earth which has been home to mortal humans a mere 6,000 years, each day of creation adding 1,000 years prior to the fall into mortality and sin of the first, created man, Adam. The garden of Eden was somewhere near Adam-ondi-Ahman in Missouri, hidden from modern humanity by angel guardians. My 10th grade biology teacher, a member of our stake presidency, was the first active and faithful Mormon I ever heard speak about evolution in a way that wasn't dismissive. He was guarded, and simply told the class what he was going to teach us what the evidence and modern science could support. And whatever else we may think, he wasn't there to debate it. He told us he also did not teach information he himself did not believe to be accurate it which gave me a dose of cognitive dissonance for a bit. I knew him as a sincere, good leader in the local stake so it helped to know he wasn't teaching something he "had to", but he clearly believed things about evolution that flew in the face of everything I had been raised to believe. As a missionary I found myself listening more than engaging in debates between those missionaries who believed as I had been raised to believe, and those whose testimony required the church be accepting of the scientific consensus to varying degrees. When I started college I had set the fundamentalism of youth aside as it seemed a distraction from what mattered. My professional development requires exposure and engagement with biology but the classes didn't take on evolution as a dogma. Instead, I had practical reasons to understand studies, their structure and findings, and consequent applications. The reality became clear - evolutionary theory worked. It was after realizing this that I engaged the theological aspects of the issue and debate around it.

So yeah. I have considered the possibility I have been brainwashed to only accept certain strands of scientific theory that are acceptable because of personal bias. Clearly I had.

[honorentheos]

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

Do you follow the point made that the meeting in question was not a venue for debating beliefs? That the process that excludes teaching creationism or intelligent design in schools is the same that excludes teaching about theories aliens built the pyramids or the earth is flat?

[honorentheos]

https://www.youtube.com/live/P1sO8iD-vx ... t=7h00m16s

This is another illustrative exchange, 7 hours in, where the appeal to insert Genesis is explicitly made. The link starts early to provide valuable context.

[MG 2.0]

Yes.

Regards,
MG

So you understand that Intelligent Design fails to meet the same threshold?

If that is true then Neo Darwinism fails also.

Intelligent design does not, however, by itself constitute a whole- sale rejection of all parts of the modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary approach to the origin and development of life. The modern evolutionary framework has two essential parts. The first holds that life on earth has evolved or developed from simple single-celled organ- isms to ever more complex forms down to and including the human body. In the jargon of the specialists this is usually called descent with modification.

The second broad part of the evolutionary synthesis is the mechanism of macroevolutionary change: random variations combined with natural selection. The claim is that in any generation of a species there are variations between individuals in that generation as the result of random genetic change: keener senses, stronger muscles, or thicker hide or fur. These variations interact with the changing environment, and some are found to be better adapted to survival in that environment. Over a very long time period literally millions of microvariations will, it is held, lead to large or macro evolutions, creating new and possibly more biologically complex species.

Intelligent design is not fundamentally a critique of either the long age of the earth’s existence or the general idea of descent with modification of living things from simple to complex forms. The focus of intelligent design is, instead, on the second part of the evolutionary framework: the idea of randomness and natural selection as the whole story about the mechanism of evolutionary change. Like our scientists far away, intelligent design thinkers do not believe that it is reasonable to hold that complex features of living beings can be best explained by randomness.

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ontext=msr

Intelligent design proponents are not anti Darwinism. On the whole they are supportive of evolutionary processes. The fact that ID folks have a different twist in regards to Cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium being better explained by ‘mind’ rather than random chance is a point that deserves a place in the curriculum.

That’s not the same as young earth creationism as you well know.

There are reasons, of course, having to do with worldviews…for example, a world without God…that secular humanist progressive liberals hold near and dear to their hearts and will fight to maintain at any cost.

When these folks, and there are many, are educating our kids and their kids, that’s a reason to be concerned. At least for those who are not secular humanist progressive liberals.

Which have at least up until now been the majority.

So again, the OP has various implications. One of them being loss of faith in a Supreme Being. Anti-ID enthusiasts have a LOT to lose if they don’t fight tooth and nail to discredit ID by whatever means necessary.

Their future world without god depends on it.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

So you understand that Intelligent Design fails to meet the same threshold?

If that is true then Neo Darwinism fails also.

That doesn't follow. Nor is neo-Darwinism an actual thing.

Intelligent design proponents are not anti Darwinism. On the whole they are supportive of evolutionary processes. The fact that ID folks have a different twist in regards to Cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium being better explained by ‘mind’ rather than random chance is a point that deserves a place in the curriculum.

That’s not the same as young earth creationism as you well know.

There are reasons, of course, having to do with worldviews…for example, a world without God…that secular humanist progressive liberals hold near and dear to their hearts and will fight to maintain at any cost.

When these folks, and there are many, are educating our kids and their kids, that’s a reason to be concerned. At least for those who are not secular humanist progressive liberals.

Which have at least up until now been the majority.

So again, the OP has various implications. One of them being loss of faith in a Supreme Being. Anti-ID enthusiasts have a LOT to lose if they don’t fight tooth and nail to discredit ID by whatever means necessary.

Their future world without god depends on it.

Regards,
MG

Again, if it actually met the threshold it would be science rather than religious belief trying to sneak in under the ropes. The ID folks, as you call them, aren't convincing anyone with scientific arguments because their arguments fail to actually be demonstrable with evidence. The only folks convinced that it is science are folks like you who have a need to demand others order society around your mythologies.

What your claims consist of isn't a competing explanatory theory but rather an argument from a God of the Gaps. It inserts "god" as "x" for a theory and expects it to be given equal consideration as an argument built from evidence. If you then assert there is evidence for God, that isn't itself an opposing scientific theory but a theological belief.

[Moksha]

Modest Legislative Proposal

1. Room to teach about prehistoric hydrogen bombs placed in volcanos in Earth science.

2. Equal room for flat earth maps in geology classes.

4. Equal presentation of the geocentric model in astronomy discussions. It will not be necessary to fire BYU astronomers if they agree to teach the geocentric model as a reasonable alternative.

[Doctor Steuss]

Are you a strict/orthodox Darwinist?

Nowadays would that be considered ‘extremist’?

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

I'm going to go out on a limb, that without googling, you would be unable to describe the differences between Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and at least two modern mainstream evolutionary theories (of your choosing).

Meyers likely wouldn't be able to either. That in itself demonstrates why he is popular, and one of the main methods he uses in his scientificly illiterate polemics.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] Cambrian explosion [...]

As an aside, most experts in the field of this particular area of evolutionary science generally don't use this term anymore in research.

For example.