What does SMU’s Ron Wetherington and Don McLeroy both praise?

From Texas Freedom Network’s Friday, April 21, 2017 press release:

‘Southern Methodist University professor Ron Wetherington, who served on the state-appointed panel, praised today’s outcome.

“For the first time in decades, the science standards contain no controversial student expectations and represent mainstream science,…”’

What does he support?

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, identify how information for specifying the traits of an organism is carried in the DNA, and examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA;

Thank you Professor Wetherington! We agree; these are fine standards!

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Texas Freedom Networks’ Strange Press Release

Fact Checking the TFN

Texas Freedom Networks’ press release last Friday, April 21, 2017, stated “Other anti-evolution standards are also removed or gutted.”  Here are the “other standards.”

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, identify how information for specifying the traits of an organism is carried in the DNA, and examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA;

You decide; have they been removed or gutted?

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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, identify how information for specifying the traits of an organism is carried in the DNA, and examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA;

The verdict?

Scientific Explanations for

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

are still required!

Continue reading

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] 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