tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post7051225072024999819..comments2023-09-09T07:28:35.681-04:00Comments on Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist: Misrepresentation at the Texas SBOEJimpithecushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-33916924967340845452009-01-23T07:10:00.000-05:002009-01-23T07:10:00.000-05:00Good question. That is what I read but I will loo...Good question. That is what I read but I will look more closely.Jimpithecushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10143519573877156940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19722540.post-65007289915158194162009-01-22T23:53:00.000-05:002009-01-22T23:53:00.000-05:00Arber concluded that the genetic mechanisms that p...<B>Arber concluded that the genetic mechanisms that produce variation are designed and are not products of Darwinian evolution....<BR/>It is for this reason that Arber affirmed that only the existence of a Creator God is a satisfactory solution to the problem of biological origins.</B><BR/><BR/>I read this same story over at Panda's thumb (with reference to Texas education standards) but this seems new. Did the article really say that Arber both affirmed that it was <B>designed</B> and that a <B>Creator God</B> was the only satisfactory solution??? I can understand misunderstanding Arber's work given there extremely strong biases, but I hope if they really asserted these things Arber actually said these things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com