Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SCHOOLS: What are candidates’ attitudes toward evolution, other issues?

Letter by Glenn Sukys, Tacoma on July 25, 2011 at 12:55 pm with 6 Comments »
July 25, 2011 12:55 pm

I would like to ask the school board candidates their opinions on text book selection, particularly in the science and history issues. I want to avoid the issues of text book selection that have embarrassed Texas.

How do the candidates feel about creationism, evolution, American history issues of slavery, trade unions, peace moments, etc.?

I hope The News Tribune is asking in-depth questions of the candidates before endorsing them.

Leave a comment Comments → 6
  1. How about their attitude toward 4 function math, geography and operational sciences first?
    I am in favor of more than one exclusive position on the teaching of origins but of course there are “monied interests” that prefer a censored curriculum in favor of non-demonstrable “historical science” (evolution, uniformitarian THEORY and fallacious computer modeling with attendant “artist conception” ( drawings of lizards with blue feathers…science?..sic) based on carbon-14 dating ( only works in half life degradation to approx. 5700 years).
    Whereas actual operational science would quickly degrade the evolution model by virtue of the Periodic Table of the Elements alone.
    But that cannot be admitted……Evolutionists are cowards with closed minds that are both angry and afraid….but at least they are still PAID…

  2. Lars,
    Operational / Historical Science is a fiction of Creationism.

    Other terms for O/H Science are pseudo science or just plan junk science.

  3. X- no… Operational science involves the Pythagorean approach of systematic deduction based on a set number of “constants” and noting the results when applied in conjunction with a “variable”. These results must be repeatable within a closed system.
    Historic or Origin science is the study of evidence and rational discourse
    ( both pro AND con) relating to the “interpretation” of evidence or facts…not the pre-censoring of information, which the evolution industry vainly attempts to do with diminishing success.
    At best, any honest temporary deduction can, and should, only be labeled as a current conjecture or theory-in-progress.
    The problem with the evolutionary approach is not so much with its “theory” as it is with its blind prerequisite censorship of any competing theory. Hence…fear, greed and anger.

  4. The 41 year old “geologic column” is not “millions of years old” either.
    I’m of course referring to Mt. St. Helens.
    So x-ring…could you give us the correct degradation rate of Uranium to Lead and explain why the Helium (HE) evaporation still occurs?
    You do know to what I refer, no?
    Or maybe you could explain why there is still measurable C-14 in mined diamonds.
    Perhaps the cycle of oceanic re-salination would be easier for you to explain away. (Why are the oceans not, by now, concluded at exponentially higher percentage ratios in favor of NaCl : H if, as you profess, they are “millions” of years old and and subject to the false premise of uniformitarianism?)
    Your 2-liner is typical of today’s “drive-by” mockery of education….

  5. To Larsman:

    You sound really desparate. Of course, trying to prove the invisible man in the sky exists would make anybody irrational.

  6. Neither of you offer factual, concise rebuttal. Speaking of desperate…

    BTW, “Lucy” was proven to be a male ape due to the pelvic angular structure…

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0