Stephen Meyer (creationist) makes official recommendation to Texas Ed. Board

[Questioninggeller]

The Discovery Institute just posted Stephen Meyer's recommendations to the Texas Education Board. Meyer, a creationist and co-founder of the institute was selected, along with two other DI connected evolution critics, by the board to make recommendations on science with other three scientists.

Meyer's recommendations (download here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/meyerTEKSreview102708.pdf ) come as no surprise. He wants to change the definition of science by removing "natural" explanations, change the definition of evolution, and insert studies of the "weaknesses of evolution" (which would be fine if any creationist had a valid example).

I see a pattern in his recommendatons, maybe it's related to Meyer's 1999 book on how to slip intelligent design into public schools? More recently, Meyer's latest book is co-authored with one of anti-evolution people who is also making recommendations.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Slimething]

Agreed. Meyer and his ilk are a true danger to science. He builds his recommendations on the removal of falsifiability and natural causes from the definition of science. That's hundreds of years of progress down the toilet if this guy succeeds. I would love to be on that panel to offer that perhaps we should be teaching all world mythologies as science, not just the Christian version which he is obviously championing.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Jonathan Saenz of the conservative Free Market Foundation said the panel is "balanced" because two of the other three members, UT-Austin biology Professor David Hillis and Texas Tech Professor Gerald Skoog, have joined a group of science educators wanting to eliminate a current requirement that weaknesses of the theory of evolution be taught.

For Fox News definitions of "balanced". I hate to break this to mister Saenz, but science is not a popularity contest or sporting event. Either the claims pass the muster of peer review or they are discarded. Evolution has passed it for 150 years now. ID can't even figure out if it's science or philosophy yet.

The panel should be weighted - towards the interest of teaching science in the science classroom, not religion and politics.

 

[Tumblehome]

I would love to be on that panel to offer that perhaps we should be teaching all world mythologies as science, not just the Christian version which he is obviously championing.

Or demand that churches give science equal time on Sunday and preach the controversy.

 

[FramerDave]

But, but that would be a violation of the separation of church and state!

 

[Questioninggeller]

A follow up:

...
According to the Texas Education Agency's website, the third draft will be considered by the state board of education at its January 21-23, 2009, meeting, with a public hearing regarding the proposed revisions scheduled for January 21, 2009. The January meeting will presumably constitute the first reading of the new standards, with a period for further public comment following; the second reading and final vote are expected, but not guaranteed, to occur at the board's March 26-27, 2009, meeting. The stakes are high: the standards will determine what is taught in Texas's public school science classrooms and the content of the biology textbooks approved for use in the state for the next ten years.
...

Full article from National Center for Science Education

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was about to write that students should be allowed this creationist material, they could always use the comic relief on a busy day. But then I remembered that a lot of students are still learning how to think all the way through high school and realized that they are not quite ready to go solo yet. It looks like the side of science has won this one, so far, Sometimes I do wish that people teaching evolution would "dumb down" their curriculum a bit, but then I realize that this could have negative results. The best thing to do is to teach it as it is now being taught, and if any biblical objections arise they could always refer to this site or others, where the nonsense of Creationism is given the burial that it deserves.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If I lived in Austin I'd try and get an equal time proposal for Holocaust denial and Moon landing hoax to be taught in history classes in the interest of equal time.

I'd also love to engage McElroy in a debate over evolution to show him that I, a layman, could smoke his tuckus on the issue.

 

[bpesta22]

At some level perhaps ID should be taught in school. What would the curriculum be?

We can't imagine an explanation for how x came into existence. Therefore god did it.

What more is there to say?

Could you imagine if people majored in ID.

I'm defending my ph.d. dissertation on the ID of the spider.

Dissertation committee: Are you sure you can't think of anyway how this spider might have come about from natural means?

Candidate: No, I sure can't.

DC: Congratulations, doctor!

 

[Questioninggeller]

I'd also love to engage McElroy in a debate over evolution to show him that I, a layman, could smoke his tuckus on the issue.

Yeah, McLeroy's a funny guy. Just recently he was quoted in the press:

Final draft on science standards pleases scientists, watch groups
Jan. 01, 2009
By MATT FRAZIER
star-telegram.com

...
Don McLeroy, the state board’s chairman, has said that science should admit the possibly of the supernatural when natural explanations fail. But he has also said that he is not trying to put creationism in public schools.
...

Source

However on his website ( http://donmcleroy.com ), he has an essay "Thoughts on Naturalism and Intelligent Design" listed under "The Sunday School Lecture" and states:

...
This is an important issue that we as a church must take proactive steps in combating! The only problem with the quote above is that the great threat to society is a belief that God created the cosmos.
...
Darwinian evolution and ID stand in a complete antithesis; ID requires a designing influence to account for all the complexity of life, whereas the Darwinian Theory common descent claims that life spontaneously arose all by itself.
...
Last week, Jaime showed that Christianity that gave birth to modern science. At that time, most scientists were theists. There were very few atheists because, how could you be an intellectual without a story or narrative of how the world came to be the way it is. After 1859 Charles Darwin provided a plausible mechanism for a totally naturalistic creation story. Darwin's theory, to quote the words of contemporary evolutionist Richard Dawkins, “made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” The Darwin creation story marks the triumph of naturalism and the arrival of naturalism as the dominant philosophic base of science. It is now not only OK to be an atheist, but it is awkward to be a theist. The creator is not only superfluous but the creator is unemployed. Darwin's theory made it impossible to have any meaningful theism.
...
I would now like to focus on the reason why we live in a matrix type world, a world that has been blinded from the truth. Why are so many intelligent people blinded to the idea of the creator? Part of the answer has to do with the power of the deductive argument. Valid deductive arguments must be true. The syllogism upon which Darwinism is built is as follows:

-Nature is all there is.
-Life exists.
-Therefore, natural processes brought forth life.

No matter what the evidence shows, no matter what arguments you present, no matter how weak, their arguments are and evidences are, Darwinism must be true. There has to be an explanation somewhere, we just haven't found it yet. So where's the fallacy in their argument? It's in the initial premise that "nature is all there is".

No arguments on behalf of intelligent design can possibly succeed against naturalism on naturalism's own terms. Let me repeat, no argument can possibly succeed against naturalism on naturalism's own terms.
...
Conclusion

In conclusion, we have a worldview clash. We need to chip away at the foundation of their worldview by first, demonstrating their dependence on a naturalistic philosophy and second, by demonstrating the weight of evidence that stands against Darwinism.
...

Source

No, no, no he's not at all trying to introduce religion into school. Maybe he should review the nineth commandment (You shall not bear false witness...).

He's the Chair of the Texas State Board of Education and doesn't even understand evolution. He thinks it claims "life spontaneously arose all by itself." Doesn't the chair read the science books he helps approve?

 

[True Skeptic]

Bravo to Stephen Meyer. Atheism has been sneaked into the classroom for close to a century now and it's time to put an end to it. The sooner it's stopped the sooner we can stop worrying about another Columbine-like situation.

For the record, Dr. Meyer is a supporter of evolution, just not the failed hypothesis Charles Darwin and his disciples have spewed out for the past 150 years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bravo to Stephen Meyer. Atheism has been sneaked into the classroom for close to a century now and it's time to put an end to it. The sooner it's stopped the sooner we can stop worrying about another Columbine-like situation.

For the record, Dr. Meyer is a supporter of evolution, just not the failed hypothesis Charles Darwin and his disciples have spewed out for the past 150 years.

Well it would be nice to see some proof that Darwin was in error. He was of course not perfect since we have learned a lot about genetics etc. since his time but his basic premise holds true. It is sort of strange that every fossil found since Darwin's time has served to make the evolutionist stand stronger and weakens the creationist viewpoint. Oh and kudos on finding a really original screen name

 

[True Skeptic]

Well it would be nice to see some proof that Darwin was in error. He was of course not perfect since we have learned a lot about genetics etc. since his time but his basic premise holds true. It is sort of strange that every fossil found since Darwin's time has served to make the evolutionist stand stronger and weakens the creationist viewpoint. Oh and kudos on finding a really original screen name

Convince me that your theory is correct and I'll accept it with open arms.

 

[Kotatsu]

For the record, Dr. Meyer is a supporter of evolution, just not the failed hypothesis Charles Darwin and his disciples have spewed out for the past 150 years.

So he is... what? Lamarckian?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well it would be nice to see some proof that Darwin was in error. He was of course not perfect since we have learned a lot about genetics etc. since his time but his basic premise holds true. It is sort of strange that every fossil found since Darwin's time has served to make the evolutionist stand stronger and weakens the creationist viewpoint. Oh and kudos on finding a really original screen name

I was speaking to some evolution deniers the other day and it turns out the answer is quite simple. There is no real evidence and all these scientists are ideological liars. Besides it’s such a ridiculous idea anyway!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Convince me that your theory is correct and I'll accept it with open arms.

There is no point in trying to convince a fool. What alternate theory do you support, and what scientific evidence do you have to back it?

 

[True Skeptic]

So he is... what? Lamarckian?

I'm not sure. Since he's honest and follows the evidence he's most likely a supporter of F.L.E. (Front-Loaded Evolution). All I know for certain is that he has no objection to common descent. His issues are with the mechanisms that Darwinists have contrived to explain how evolution has taken place.

 

[True Skeptic]

I was speaking to some evolution deniers the other day and it turns out the answer is quite simple. There is no real evidence and all these scientists are ideological liars. Besides it’s such a ridiculous idea anyway!

There's evidence for macroevolution via common descent, yes. The question is how not if.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. is this a new ID term, FLE? I have never heard that one yet. Since ID has been debunked I have been waiting for the fundies in their undies to come up with a new set of sheep's clothing for that dog of theirs also known as creationism.

 

[technoextreme]

There's evidence for macroevolution via common descent, yes. The question is how not if.

Well it sure as hell isn't the stupid front loaded evolution theory. Random mutations alone (Which we know happens) shoots that theory in the head, buys the coffin and funeral plot, and then proceeds to bury the theory.

Okay. is this a new ID term, FLE?

Front loaded evolution is the belief that all of the genetic information was contained in the earliest organisms and that what we see as evolution is nothing more than the genes turning on and off at a given moment. As I said above random mutations shoot that theory down.