Posted on 10/16/2005 8:04:42 AM PDT by Crackingham
It's been a decade since former Gov. Fob James impersonated an ape to mock Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. He did it during a heated meeting as the state Board of Education wrestled with the selection of science textbooks. Many science books had been declared unacceptable by conservative Christian groups that had packed the meeting to protest what they charged was the presentation of evolution as fact.
The board decided to require placement of a disclaimer in the front of every biology textbook, declaring evolution "a controversial theory." That move - the first of its kind by any state - mollified the anti-evolution forces but angered many in the scientific community, who warned the disclaimers would discourage the teaching of one of the pillars of scientific thought.
The state school board will again take up adoption of a new set of science textbooks next month. State Superintendent Joe Morton expects the board to continue the use of disclaimers on evolution.
The controversy over the teaching of evolution is not unique to Alabama.
President Bush has praised the teaching of intelligent design, which holds that creation is so complex that an unseen force must have been behind it.
In Pennsylvania, a trial is under way in federal court over a lawsuit filed by eight families who want the Dover school district to stop teaching intelligent design in science courses.
The Kansas Board of Education has battled for years over the issue, voting at one time to ban the teaching of the theory of evolution and then doing an about-face and reinstituting its teaching when the board changed hands. In Cobb County, Ga., a lawsuit is pending over anti-evolution textbook disclaimers that go beyond those used in Alabama.
Morton and other Alabama education leaders dismiss concerns that textbook disclaimers have hurt the teaching of good science.
"Honestly, the only time I get any questions about it is from reporters," Morton said. "I think it has served a purpose and, while obviously I can't know every teacher's mind, I don't think most of them have been impeded or stopped from teaching all the relevant things a student needs to know about biology."
why not the stork is as good as explanation as any!
Charles Darwin was the product of homeschooling.
He wrote that people of weak mind or body should not be allowed to breed.
He explained that war is the agency of human evolution, that humans are war makers by nature, and that our high intelligence and noble qualities are all products of war.
The H.M.S. Beagle was a British Navy war ship.
He did not believe in defunding the military to fund public schools and social spending to breed Victim Democrats.
No, he did not.
I just think we should "teach the controversy" about the stork. I don't see why anyone would have any objection to that.
"I just think we should "teach the controversy" about the stork."
What controversy? The stork is well-documented. There are so many artists renderings of the stork carrying the baby that it MUST be true.
Now, myself, I don't believe it at all. I'm absolutely certain that babies come from the cabbage patch, where mommies go to get their new ones.
It's clearly the superior theory.
Whilst it has been stated by some that they believe our existence is nothing more than random ...I have it on good authority that randomness does not believe in me.
"Whilst it has been stated by some that they believe our existence is nothing more than random "
Who on Earth says that? There's nothing random about our existence. You, for example, are here because your parents had sexual intercourse at some point. Half of your genetic makeup is from each of your parents. Nothing really random about that, and you have that in common with every other species that reproduces in the same way, from the lowly mouse to the human.
Randomness does not play much of a role.
"I just think we should "teach the controversy" about the stork."
What controversy? The stork is well-documented. There are so many artists renderings of the stork carrying the baby that it MUST be true.
Now, myself, I don't believe it at all. I'm absolutely certain that babies come from the cabbage patch, where mommies go to get their new ones.
It's clearly the superior theory.<<
But it is not the most modern and useful theory. The Petries showed the baby supermarket works best. It was the superior explanation for Richie.
DK
Depends on the couple, doesn't it?
Exactly, there are those who want me to believe in in randomness, yet I know from personal experience that does randomness does not believe in me.
Well, I suppose that's true. I know some pretty random people. I'm a little random myself.
"Exactly, there are those who want me to believe in in randomness"
And who would "those" be? I don't care what the heck you believe in. It's of no interest to me whatever. You can believe in whatever you wish.
" You can believe in whatever you wish'
not if your a student in public shool!
The idea of random is a human abstract thinking tool to deal with the unknown or unknowable by us. Random is not an actual property of the universe. Science is entirely based on the fact that nothing is random at its core and we sometimes can figure out how things work.
Random is not an actual property of faith either, therefore at least we can rule out that science and faith are not opposing on all issues..
Random appears to be an actual property of quantum events. Either that or QM is wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.