Insights from 1 Corinthians 11:23-34: 1. The Lord's Supper is primarily designed to elicit or to stimulate in our hearts remembrance of the person and work of Jesus. 2. This remembrance is commanded. Participation at the Lord’s Table is not an option. 3. This remembrance entails the use of tangible elements. It isn’t enough simply to say, “Remember!” The elements of bread and wine are given to stir our minds and hearts. 4. It is a personal remembrance. We are to remember Jesus. The focus isn't any longer on the Jewish Passover or the night of his betrayal or anything else. The focus is Jesus. 5. In this remembering there is also confession. In partaking of the elements we declare: “Christ gave his body and blood for me. He died for me.” 6. In this remembering we also proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes. This, then, is not merely an ordinance that looks to the past. It is an ordinance of hope that points to the future. 7. To partake of the Lord’s Table in an unworthy manner (v. 27) is to take it without regard to its true worth, not yours. To partake unworthily is to come complacently, light-heartedly, giving no thought to that which the elements signify.
Sam Storms

California Science FrameworkLab

California Science FrameworkLab

CALIFORNIA SCIENCE FRAMEWORK LABELLED IRRESPONSIBLE

Colorado Springs, CO (October 1, 1990) — Access Research Network, an organization recently established to make scientific knowledge accessible to the layperson, sharply criticized the new Science Framework released by California last week, branding it an “irresponsible document that sacrifices intellectual integrity for political gains.”

The California State Board of Education last week released the official version of its new science education guidelines, which it approved last November amidst bitter controversy over the document’s treatment of evolution.

This new document generated considerable opposition by stating that evolution is a fact and by making it a central part of the science curriculum.

Although certain passages referring to evolution as a scientific fact were modified or dropped in last-minute wrangling, the new Framework nonetheless takes a very strong position on teaching evolution.

The Framework does not mandate course content, which is determined at the district level, but it does set goals and standards,

Commenting on the new guidelines, Executive Director of Access Research Network (ARN) Mark Hartwig claims that the Framework contains many serious errors and misrepresentations:

“I just can’t believe that California has adopted this document as its Framework. The errors, inconsistencies, and misrepresentations are absolutely astonishing for a state with California’s intellectual resources.”

One of the more serious flaws, according to Hartwig, is the Framework’s treatment of the nature and history of science.

Hartwig contends that the Framework promotes a view of science that philosophers call scientism, the view that science is the only source of valid knowledge.

“In one place,” says Hartwig,”the Framework states that science differs from other areas of study because scientific knowledge is testable, consistent, and objective.

That’s just flat wrong. Testability, consistency, and objectivity are the hallmarks of all good scholarship. They’re what separate good scholarship from bad scholarship, not science from everything else.”

Hartwig also asserts that the Framework seriously distorted an important episode in the history of science, the famous Piltdown Hoax. In this episode, scientists unearthed the pieces of a skull that they thought belonged to a forerunner of the human race.

In point of fact, the “skull” was a forgery, consisting of a filed-down ape jaw planted with fossil human teeth and a human cranium.

Although the forgery was not discovered for forty years, and is commonly regarded as a classic example of failed objectivity, the California Framework, according to Hartwig, describes this episode as an example of the self-correcting nature of science.

Actually, says Hartwig, “the forgery was not discovered until after scientists had abandoned the theories that Piltdown had so conveniently fit into.

It was a classic case of scientists seeing what they wanted to see, and to call it an example of self-correction is a gross misrepresentation.”

Asked if there are misrepresentations in the Framework’s treatment of evolution, Hartwig replied, “Absolutely.

The document completely ignores substantial evidence that contradicts the Darwinian model they present.

When you look at the scientific literature that’s coming out, and then look at the Framework, you have to rub your eyes. It’s that bad.”

Hartwig also stated that one of the Framework’s authors has published material criticizing the very theories that the Framework promotes.

At the root of the Framework’s flaws, Hartwig believes, is the political motivation of the document’s authors:

“When you look at the document, it’s very clear that one of it’s primary goals is to silence dissent from anyone who questions evolution or philosophical naturalism. In fact, the effect of this document has been to disenfranchise an entire segment of California’s population –and one of the authors has even said this.”

Hartwig was referring to Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian, who, in an article for the National Center for Science Education Reports, wrote “As for the religious right itself, the new Science Framework leaves them totally disenfranchised from the public educational system in California.”

Hartwig believes that the authors’ political agenda hindered their objectivity, causing them to say things they wouldn’t say in a scientific journal.

“What they wanted to do,” says Hartwig, “was to keep creationists out of the classroom by fending off any possible criticism of evolution.

Unfortunately, in order to do this, they had to misrepresent a lot of material.” This, according to Hartwig, was what made the Framework was so controversial:

“Who wouldn’t be offended? Even if you overlook the authors’ shabby intentions, the Framework itself is an irresponsible document that sacrifices intellectual integrity for political gains. It practically invited controversy.”

Access Research Network was established in response to the growing concern over scientific illiteracy in America. Its purpose is to bridge the gap between the world of science and the layperson; and to encourage a sound understanding of issues related to science, technology, and society.

More information may be obtained by contacting Access Research Network, P.O. Box 38069, Colorado Springs, CO 80937-8069 (719)633-1772.