Texas Bill Would Protect College Professors Who Question Evolution

[Dirty Penguin]

Man from monkey is not empiracle science, but antidotal.

You're correct...considering the ToE does not say modern day humans evolved from monkeys. What it says is modern day human primates and non-human primates share a common ancestor. We know this through morphology and genetics.

 

[Man of Faith]

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to prohibiting discrimination by public institutions of higher education against faculty members and students based on their conduct of research relating to intelligent design. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Subchapter Z, Chapter 51, Education Code, is amended by adding Section 51.979 to read as follows: Sec.51.979.PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms. SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2011.



Theory of Intelligent Design? This Bill should fail based entirely on this misleading wording.

Intelligent Design was determined by the United States District Court to be creationism, which is a religious activity rather than a secular one.

This shows the failure of evolution science to adequately defeat ID in the lab, by needing the courts to block it. The pattern of behavior for evolutionists is to successfully label anything that is not evolution, as religion, which in turn shuts down any criticism of evolution. If evolution cannot withstand criticism, or if the only criticism of evolution that is allowed, is how it happened, not if it happened, is it a good theory?

 

[Man of Faith]

You're correct...considering the ToE does not say modern day humans evolved from monkeys. What it says is modern day human primates and non-human primates share a common ancestor. We know this through morphology and genetics.

That is not empirical observable science.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This shows the failure of evolution science to adequately defeat ID in the lab, by needing the courts to block it. The pattern of behavior for evolutionists is to successfully label anything that is not evolution, as religion, which in turn shuts down any criticism of evolution. If evolution cannot withstand criticism, or if the only criticism of evolution that is allowed, is how it happened, not if it happened, is it a good theory?

Show me ID in the lab, I dare you.
Show me one shred of empirical objective evidence in support of ID.

Then you can whine about court decisions.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That is not empirical observable science.

Yes MoF, genetics is indeed empirical and observable.

 

[Tristesse]

That is not empirical observable science.

So, anything that isn't observable, isn't science, in your opinion? I'm glad thats not how actual science works. If the event has to be observed for it to be science, then the vast majority of knowledge we've gained through science is useless. But again, I'm glad real scientists don't buy into that sillyness.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So, anything that isn't observable, isn't science, in your opinion? I'm glad thats not how actual science works. If the event has to be observed for it to be science, then the vast majority of knowledge we've gained through science is useless. But again, I'm glad real scientists don't buy into that sillyness.

But Tristesse, it is observable. We can see the past in genetics.

 

[Tristesse]

But Tristesse, it is observable. We can see the past in genetics.

He's talking about the actual event. You're talking about the underlying evidence for it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is not empirical observable science.

It is backed by empirical and testable evidence. Creationism and ID isn't.

Here's the morphology part. (Just a small part)





On Genetics
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081105191731.htm

What we see is there are morphological similarities that we've known for a long time now but now we can say, with more accuracy, that we are related genetically. We also know that in various areas of the genome we are different. Biologist maintain that with similarities and differences we are still related. The evidence is there and it's testable but no one in the creationist camp can falsify the fact that man and primates are genetically related.

If you think a god created humans fully formed, there is no Evolution and the earth is young then you're going to have to work hard at falsifying the Hominid Fossil Record, the Genome as well as trying to explain where this (see below picture) fits concerning "creation"

Compare that skeleton to this. The small one on the right side is of a modern day human.

Do you know what it is and where it's supposed to fit?

 

[tumbleweed41]

He's talking about the actual event. You're talking about the underlying evidence for it.

True, yet I wonder how he supports ID. Not only is ID unobserved, but there is absolutely no underlying evidence for it.

 

[Tristesse]

True, yet I wonder how he supports ID. Not only is ID unobserved, but there is absolutely no underlying evidence for it.

He'd probably say it's a faith thing. But I take back what I said. Evolution is not an event, it's a process that is always occurring. So, to say the event of evolution is wrong.

 

[Man of Faith]

Show me ID in the lab, I dare you.
Show me one shred of empirical objective evidence in support of ID.

Then you can whine about court decisions.

Evolution and ID are both different conclusions based on the observable science. Neither can be proven 100%.

 

[Man of Faith]

He's talking about the actual event. You're talking about the underlying evidence for it.

+1. The actual man from something other than man is not observable and empiracle science.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolution and ID are both different conclusions based on the observable science. Neither can be proven 100%.

Don't back out on me.


Show me ID in the lab, I dare you.
Show me one shred of empirical objective evidence in support of ID.

 

[Man of Faith]

It is backed by empirical and testable evidence. Creationism and ID isn't.

Here's the morphology part. (Just a small part)





On Genetics
DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp Genomes

What we see is there are morphological similarities that we've known for a long time now but now we can say, with more accuracy, that we are related genetically. We also know that in various areas of the genome we are different. Biologist maintain that with similarities and differences we are still related. The evidence is there and it's testable but no one in the creationist camp can falsify the fact that man and primates are genetically related.

If you think a god created humans fully formed, there is no Evolution and the earth is young then you're going to have to work hard at falsifying the Hominid Fossil Record, the Genome as well as trying to explain where this (see below picture) fits concerning "creation"

Compare that skeleton to this. The small one on the right side is of a modern day human.

Do you know what it is and where it's supposed to fit?

All this is is ape and man fossils put side by side. The definition of a transitional fossil is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features to another fossil, not one that shows any ancestor/descendant relationship. In other words, presuppose evolution then find ape fossils and say that is proof.

 

[Man of Faith]

Don't back out on me.


Show me ID in the lab, I dare you.
Show me one shred of empirical objective evidence in support of ID.

Apparent design is ID. When a scientist sees something that has an apparent design, such as the eye, the conclusion should be the best explanation which is, apparent design is design.

 

[lunakilo]

There are really too many for me to document so I'll leave you with a link. One of the most famous was Haekel's faked embryonic drawing when he promoted Darwin's theory by making embryonic stages of humans and animals that fraudulently showed they looked alike. You might have even have seen this in your school books because I heard it was still in there.

Evolution Fraud

You get points for not ignoring my post.

There have been people who have fabricated data for one reason or the other.
The Piltdown man is a classic example.

But you can't hold the silly actions of those people against the theory of evolution.
That some people have faked data does not mean that all date is fake.

(And since when is Archaeopteryx a fake? )

 

[tumbleweed41]

All this is is ape and man fossils put side by side. The definition of a transitional fossil is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features to another fossil, not one that shows any ancestor/descendant relationship. In other words, presuppose evolution then find ape fossils and say that is proof.

No, transitional fossils are fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related.

As shown HERE.

 

[Man of Faith]

You get points for not ignoring my post.

There have been people who have fabricated data for one reason or the other.
The Piltdown man is a classic example.

But you can't hold the silly actions of those people against the theory of evolution.
That some people have faked data does not mean that all date is fake.

(And since when is Archaeopteryx a fake? )

I didn't say all data is faked, I said historically evoluton has the faked data on its side. The data of today for evolution is mostly not faked, it is interpreted to conclude evolution when it could just as easily be interpreted as design.

 

[Man of Faith]

No, transitional fossils are fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related.

As shown HERE.

Relation is assumed.