2017 Texas Streamlining Science Standards Verdict

Removed or Kept? Kept!

2009 Science Standards

7 (B) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;

7 (G) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.

9 (D) analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.

2016 Streamlining Committee Recommendations

(Complete Removal)

7 (B) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record; 

7 (G) analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell. 

9 (D) analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.

2017 Science Standards

7 (B) examine scientific explanations of abrupt appearance and stasis in the fossil record;

4 (A) “compare and contrast prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, including their complexity, and compare and contrast scientific explanations for cellular complexity.”

6 (A) “identify components of DNA, describe how information for specifying the traits of an organism is carried in the DNA, and evaluate scientific explanations for the origin of DNA;

The verdict?

Scientific Explanations for

  • Sudden appearance
  • Stasis
  • Cell Complexity
  • Origin of DNA

are still required!

 

Do they still require testing of evolutionary Explanations? Yes!

These three new standards are the only ones out of all the other 42 specific biology concept standards that ask for explanations.

Fortunately in Texas, not only may evolutionary explanations be taught, they are required to be taught. Why is this distinction so important? Since they are required, our children get the opportunity to actually see if these explanations are compelling or not. This is a big deal. Since you can’t teach theistic explanations in our schools, the only way for the theist to engage with materialistic evolution is to show the evolutionist explanations are weak. But now, evolutionists want state protection from even having to provide explanations.

At least they are consistent; they didn’t want them passed to begin with. Back in 2009, when they were first adopted, the evolution community was shocked. Eugenie Scott of the National Center of Science Education (NCSE) stated: “Let’s be clear about this. This is a setback for science education in Texas, not a draw, not a victory.”

Steve Newton, also of NCSE, claimed “the board’s actions are the most specific assault I’ve seen against the teaching of evolution and modern science.” Science, the prestigious journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reported that “new science standards for Texas schools strike a major blow to the teaching of evolution.” Remember: All that the standards did was to require evolutionary explanations to be taught.

Please note, the standards did not insert creationism or intelligent design into the curriculum. Had that been the case, they would have been immediately challenged in court and thrown out. This is also confirmed in the committee’s rationale for dropping the standards. They don’t argue the standards are creationist; they argue instead that they are redundant, cognitively inappropriate or take too much time. They are not redundant; these two standards are the only ones out of all the other 42 specific biology concept standards that ask for explanations. And the cognitively inappropriate standard in question can be illustrated by a simple line chart; this doesn’t take too much time.

The key word in this debate is “explanations.” The board should keep them. Remember: If they are deleted, one removes the only line of engagement with evolution for those of us who do not accept materialist ideas that we are only molecules and that the universe popped into existence out of nothing. Deleting them would allow the teaching of evolutionary dogma in Texas to go unchallenged.

The Verdict?

Scientufic Explanations of evolutionn are still there!

 

Is the requirement to “Examine” scientifically sound? Yes!

Definition of examine

  • to inspect closely
  • to test the condition of
  • to inquire into carefully
  • to investigate

 

And, to examine is to test; to test is to do science. Check out these definitions of science.

 

The National Acadamy of Sciences

Science is as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon as well as the knowledge generated through this process.”

 

 

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

In the opening episode of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, Neil deGrasse Tyson presents an incredibly clear and powerful description of the scientific process. He claims that if you “accept these terms, the Cosmos is yours.” I accept!

These terms, Tyson explains, are just a “simple set of rules.

  • Test ideas by experiment and observation.
  • Build on those ideas that pass the test.
  • Reject the ones that fail.
  • Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and
  • Question everything.”

 

The Verdict?

The streamlined standards are scientifically very sound!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Who Won? Science Won!

Amazingly, the hard-line evolutionist, and the evolution skeptics have both claimed victory in today’s adoption of state science standards in Texas. But, only one side won; you can decide for yourself.

The evolutionists wanted the three standards that challenged evolution removed. Therefore, to see who won, just see if they have been removed or if they are still there.
Following are three screen shots from the committee’s recommendations to delete the standards. You can see them in red and lined out.

First is TEK 7B that has the students explain fossil record,

TEK 7B

Next is TEK 7G that requires students to explain the complexity of the cell.

TEK 7G

Finally, we have TEK 9D that requires students to study DNA.

TEK 9D

The new standards include all three of these requirements. They require the students to:

• “compare and contrast prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, including their complexity, and compare and contrast scientific explanations for cellular complexity,” (the old 7G)

• “examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA,” (the old 9D) and

• “examine scientific explanations of abrupt appearance and stasis in the fossil record.” (the old 7B)

It is not a victory if what you recommend removed is still there! So, who won? Clearly, the science won!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New science standards for Texas schools strike a major blow to the teaching of evolution 2017

Hardline evolutionist’s attempt to hijack the Texas science standards crashed and burned as the Texas State Board of Education, not only kept all of the previous evolution challenging standards of 2009, but made them clearer and stronger.

 
The new standards have the students “compare and contrast prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, including their complexity, and compare and contrast scientific explanations for cellular complexity,” “examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA,” and “examine scientific explanations of abrupt appearance and stasis in the fossil record.”
 
Send your thanks to the Texas State Board and especially board member Barbara Cargill.
 
As a reminder, Science reported back in April 2009 “New science standards for Texas schools strike a major blow to the teaching of evolution…” These 2017 standards strike and even bigger blow!
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Evolutionist’ Conceptual Lock

Response to Jerry Coyne’s Blog post: Evidence for Whales

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/evidence-for-evolution-whales/

Considering Carl Sagan’s “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” Jon Peter’s video fails Sagan’s test for whale evolution; he doesn’t realize he has not presented very much evidence. If he would only look at all of the whale as he looks at a hind limb atavism, he would realize his mistake. For example, when discussing hind limb atavisms, Peter’s observes: “Think about that. Remember, if it is a leg, think of the DNA it takes to produce a leg—bones, muscles, nerves, skin cartilage. That’s a lot of DNA.” I agree. But now consider the amount of genetic instructions and rewired DNA it takes for the transformation of an ancient land mammal into a whale. Now this is a lot of DNA! I do not know if he really has thought about the amount needed.

If true, a creationist would have a hard time explaining the atavism, but the evolutionist actually has a gargantuan problem explaining a whale. Especially, when all this supposedly happened “remarkably fast: most of the action took place within only 10 million years.” (Coyne, Why Evolution is True, 51)

This short critique highlights what I believe is the evolutionist’ greatest blind spot: thinking he has massive overwhelming evidence when he doesn’t. Stephen Gould warned “The greatest impediment to scientific innovation is usually a conceptual lock.” (Wonderful Life,276) I see the evolutionist’ “conceptual lock” as claiming “What’s not a problem is the lack of evidence.” (Coyne, 222)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

My Royal Philosophy Essay Submission

http://arn.org/docs/mcleroy/materialism.html

 

Do Life And Living Forms Present a Problem for Materialism?

Don McLeroy


Abstract

A comparison is made between how well materialism and the Genesis creation account explain life and living forms; the analysis reveals serious problems for materialism’s explanations. The comparison is organized around the first three uses of the Hebrew word bara in the first chapter of Genesis – where it is translated as ‘created’, and means‘to create out of nothing’. Science is then used to test the materialist and biblical explanations for the origin of the universe, the origin of plant life, the origin of creature life and the origin of human consciousness. All four of the materialist explanations fail the test of science while all four of the biblical explanations pass.

Introduction

The fact this question is even asked demonstrates that materialism has problems explaining life and living forms. Interestingly, no one asks if life and living forms present a problem for biblical theism; therefore, why is it today so many highly educated people accept a materialist explanation and reject a biblical explanation? Likely, it is because they believe the biblical explanation is an ancient myth, or that it has already been examined and found wanting. And, they truly fear that if they invoke God as a Creator, it would mean they would have to abandon reason and science.

But materialism has major problems. The idea that ‘physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter’[1] defies common sense. And, it will be demonstrated that materialist explanations concerning the origin of the universe, the origin of plant life, the origin of creature life and the origin of human consciousness, fail the test of science. The materialist is ultimately left with only philosophical speculations, not scientific explanations. Also, the materialist is trapped by his worldview. As Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton observed over a hundred years ago, ‘The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle.’[2]

This is also admitted by evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin. In a review of Carl Sagan’s book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, he observed:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’[3]

Thus, for the trapped materialist, nothing can present a true problem for materialism, not life, not living forms – nothing. Having rejected the‘Divine Foot in the door’, the materialist speculates there must still be an explanation out there – somewhere; he just concludes it has not been found yet. As we will see, there is a good chance his speculations are wrong. Life and living forms require explanations, not speculations. Therefore, let us take a close look at an alternative, the Genesis creation account and compare materialism with it. After all, the Bible has an excellent historical record in regard to science.

James Hannam, in God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (2009), clearly documents the consensus view of historians of science that the religious conviction God created nature led to the development of the natural philosophy of the Middle Ages. He then shows how this led to the achievement of modern science. Hannam also describes how the Christian theologians of the Middle Ages, whom he refers to as ‘God’s philosophers’, made the crucial distinctions about how God uses secondary causes or natural laws to affect his will, which encouraged the study of nature. Without such distinctions theology becomes fatalistic and no science ensues. Rodney Stark, in his book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery,
concurs. He concludes his section on science with two points: ‘First, science arose only once in history – in medieval Europe. Second, science could only arise in a culture dominated by belief in a conscious, rational, all-powerful Creator.’[4] Interestingly, one does not abandon science when one accepts biblical theism; one invents it. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Interview on Us & Them Podcast “The Talk”

http://usandthempodcast.com/podcast/the-talk/

http://

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Commencement Address to Brazos Valley Christian Home Educators Association May 30, 2015

The Role of Your LIfe

Introduction

Thank you. It is a special honor and privilege to address you this afternoon. Congratulations to you graduates, to you Moms and Dads and to this entire homeschool community. High school graduations are special; they mark a major transition in life as one leaves home and steps out into the world. This afternoon, let’s make a few observations about this world that you are entering into and think about the powerful impact you can have in it.

Our “Stage”

Life is like a play in which we are the actors. We control what we say and how we act; we do not, however, create the “stage” on which we act. Our success will largely be determined by how well we understand this world or “stage” which God has created for us. An excellent way to get a profound understanding of this world is to study the significance of the first three uses of the word “created” in the Bible. (Bruce Waltke, teaching tape, ~1970’s)

The word “created” is translated from the Hebrew word “bara” which means “to create out of nothing.” The first “bara” is found on Day One, verse 1; the second on Day Five, verse 21; the third on Day Six, verse 27. Thus, the questions arise, what did God create out of nothing on the first day, the fifth day, and the sixth day and what is their significance? What He created was, simply stated, “the cosmos”, “the breath of life”, and “the image of God”. Now, let’s see if we can understand their significance.

In the beginning we find God creating the cosmos—the space, mass, time universe—out of nothing. On day two, God separates the waters from the waters; on day three, He lets the dry land appear and the earth bring forth vegetation; on day four, we find God making the sun, moon and stars. On days two, three, and four, God had everything He needed—created out of nothing on the first day—to form, shape and mold what He wanted to accomplish.

On day five, God creates the first creature life—the fish and the birds. But not even God could make a living fish or bird with what He had created out of nothing on the first day; He had to create something brand new—out of nothing—the “breath of life.” Imagine a fish out of the water and flapping around on the shore. When it dies; what does it lose? It loses its “breath of life”. This is why you will never see creature life made in a lab; they can’t create the “breath of life.”

On day six, God has everything He needs from what He has already created on the first and fifth day to make the land creatures. But, to create Adam, He again has to create something else brand new out of nothing—this time—the “image of God.” Note again, God could only make an ape-like creature with what He had created on the first and fifth days. Being “created in the image of God” is what separates man from all the other creatures.

A quick check. According to the bara’s, what is the essential difference between you and a dog? You have the “image of God.” What is the essential difference between you and a tree? You have the “breath of life” and the “image of God.”

To complete our basic understanding of God’s world today, we need to take a look at Genesis 3. Here we discover that man is fallen, that man is a sinner. G. K. Chesterton wrote that this “is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.” (Orthodoxy, page 7) There is no way to truly understand human nature without accepting this fact. Ironically, when you understand that man is created in the image of God and fallen, you will have a deeper insight into psychology, sociology, and anthropology than some of those professors who may be teaching you next year. But don’t get too cocky; they do know a lot of fascinating information; you can learn a lot from them. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment