Re: TOBS: Public Schools Science Education: What Biology teachers are forced to teach

"David Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> >"David Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In alt.talk.creationism, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JaBrIoL) wrote in
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >> >Why do so many science teachers in America promote mindless, chance
> >> >evolution as fact? One reason is that "Darwinist fundamentalists . . .
> >> >control the science departments in many universities," says Phillip E.
> >> >Johnson, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
> >>
> >> Do you get updates on theology from computer programmers?
> >>
> >
> >huh... what does this have to do with theology?
>
> If you don't think we should take theology directions from programmers,
> why should we take claims about biology from a lawyer?

his comments has nothing to do with biology, it has to do with educational
policy
about the method  used by educational authorities  in teaching evolution in
the classroom.
>
> >> >Johnson points out: "In some cases biology professors have been
> >> >forbidden to tell students that there is any reason to doubt the claim
> >> >that mindless material processes could and did create the wonders of
> >> >biology."
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Johnson is telling lies to promote his religious agenda.
> >
> >take it up with him. in any case are you saying that biologist are
allowed
> >to teach alternatives? and I am not reffering to creationism. Have you
ever
> >look up the guidelines for teaching evolution... ?
> >they even have the proper defintion wrong.
>
> Please provide references to support your claims.

do a google search on "Kronk"". we had a conversation on educational
material used in high schools. I gave him the name of the publication used
in my school district, and he posted guideline used by science teacher in
the united states. He had some comments and concerns...

or ask any biology teacher.

>
> >> >Scientist and engineer Murphy O'Dean observes: "Rather than discard a
> >> >theory that does not stand up to fact, the direction of 'evolutionary
> >> >science' has become a statement of faith that 'evolution must be
> >> >true.'" Conflicting evidence and the lack of evidence are either
> >> >ignored or explained away.
> >>
> >> More lies.
> >>
> >why? I put out articles about disagreements on evolution by
evolutionists,
> >many cite lack of evidence, laike the cambrian outburst..
>
> You have shown that you do not understand or intentionally misrepresent
> the scientific evidence and the theories.

not at all, one way or the other.. I simply pointed out, what is already
writen by scientists, not from creationist websites...
>
> >> >Why? Michael Behe, molecular biologist, says in Darwin's Black Box:
> >> >"Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists,
> >> >just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. They don't want a
> >> >supernatural being to affect nature." But true science does not ignore
> >> >contrary evidence in order to advance preferred ideas. Nor do all
> >> >scientists believe evolution.
> >>
> >> Behe accepts evolution and common descent.
> >
> >his comments are related to the subject at hand.. forcing biology
teachers
> >to teach one version of evolution.
>
> A claim you have made but not supported.


the comment was made by him, not me.. from his book..what more do you want,
a phone call from him?
>
> >> >The Brazilian magazine Veja asked Carlo Rubbia, winner of the Nobel
> >> >Prize for Physics, "Do you believe in God?" While not acknowledging a
> >> >personal God, he did admit: "The more you observe nature, the more you
> >> >perceive that there is tremendous organization in all things. It is an
> >> >intelligence so great that just by observing natural phenomena I come
> >> >to the conclusion that a Creator exists."
> >>
> >> So what's your point?
> >
> >that not all scientist are on the evolution bandwagon. real scientist,
not
> >the so called creation scientists
>
> Please document your claim.


just did.... you must know by now I not going to post out of the blue what
comes to mind.. since I am not a creationist, nor do I use creationist
material, you will notice that barely any creationist participate in
"jabriol" threads