Posted on 02/09/2006 4:08:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
At a press conference in Madison, Wisconsin, on February 7, 2006, state representative Terese Berceau (D-District 76) announced her intention to introduce legislation in the state assembly which would, if enacted, prohibit the teaching of supernaturalistic pseudoscience in the science classrooms of the state's public schools. The Madison Capital Times (February 7, 2006) reported that Berceau's bill would "require that anything presented as science in the classroom be testable as a scientific hypothesis and pertain to natural, not supernatural, processes. The material would also have to be consistent with any description of science adopted by the National Academy of Sciences."
Although neither creation science nor "intelligent design" was explicitly mentioned in the bill itself, they appear to be its primary targets. Michael Cox and Alan Attie, both professors of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, were reported as applauding the prospect of preventing any incursion of the "intelligent design" movement -- which Cox described as attempting "to introduce fake science as science into the school curriculum in public schools" -- in Wisconsin. No explanation of the need for such a bill to prohibit the teaching of creationism, in light of the decisions in Edwards v. Aguillard and Kitzmiller v. Dover, was reported to have been offered.
Berceau emphasized that the bill would not prevent the mere discussion of a pseudoscience, telling the Capital Times, "You can even include it in a science class if you want to say why it's not a science." She added, "Otherwise it should be taught in a history of religion class or social studies or philosophy." Berceau also said that her bill was intended to counteract recent attempts to undermine evolution education around the country and within the state; Grantsburg, Wisconsin, where in 2004 a policy requiring the teaching of "all theories of origins" mutated, under pressure, to a policy requiring the teaching of the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, was cited as a case in point.
The bill was described by the Capital Times as "a first-of-its-kind proposal," a characterization that appears to be accurate. In the last five years, at any rate, the only other anticreationism bill that seems to have emerged was Montana's Senate Joint Resolution 8, introduced on January 7, 2005. As a resolution expressing the legislature's support for local science curricula based on sound science and its opposition to the imposition of "religious interpretations of events and phenomena on local schools under the guise of science curricula," SJR 8 would not have directly affected curriculum and instruction. Also unlike Berceau's bill, it explicitly referred to creationism. SJR 8 died in committee on March 1, 2005.
Under the bill, only science capable of being tested according to scientific method could be taught as science. Faith-based theories, however, could be discussed in other contexts.Alan Attie, a biochemistry professor at UW-Madison, said the bill puts Wisconsin on the map in the ongoing controversy over evolution and intelligent design.
"We can be the un-Kansas," Attie said in an interview.
Kansas, Attie said, has been the object of derision since the state's Board of Education in 2005 adopted teaching standards that support intelligent design.
"To position us in exactly the opposite direction and be the first in the nation to do it, I'm thrilled about," Attie added.
|
Can the big bang theory, string theory, and plate tectonics be evaluated via the scientific method?
Looks like an attempt by religious atheism to shut out inquiry and debate.
Any phenomenon can be evaluated via the scientific method. What the bill meant to prohibit was the teaching as science of any phenomena that the scientific method finds indistinguishable from nonexistent phenomena.
If the creationists were smart they'd let this pass then go after all the "science" text books that promote Gaia worship, environmentalism and hatred of humans. They just don't seem to recognize that many current text books don't teach science.
Obviously not. In fact evolution can't either. Every attempt so far to create macroevolution in the lab has failed. Such a law if strictly enforced would be the end of evolution.
"require that anything presented as science in the classroom be testable as a scientific hypothesis and pertain to natural, not supernatural, processes."
This is almost right. There's no room for the flying spaghetti monster in science, but not everything is science is testable either.
"require that anything presented as science in the classroom be testable as a scientific hypothesis and pertain to natural, not supernatural, processes."
This is almost right. There's no room for the flying spaghetti monster in science, but not everything is science in testable either.
"require that anything presented as science in the classroom be testable as a scientific hypothesis and pertain to natural, not supernatural, processes."
This is almost right. There's no room for the flying spaghetti monster in science, but not everything in science is testable either.
I'm sorry guys. It's early. ;)
Next month, the WI legislature will vote that there is no God.
Its Madison. Where the Liberals from Canada migrated after the election.
Understanding 'falsification' is the key to this tempest in a teapot. But in this era of egalitarian 'conservatism' that's like asking for understanding of 'incompleteness' and ain't likely to happen on my watch.
wiscon-SIN
For lots of fun and fireworks, I wonder if we could turn the atheists' attack toward the other religion that is trying to eliminate all opposing views (Islam)?
~~~~~~~~~~
Atheists vs Islamists
Now there's a fight I'd pay to watch!! LOL!!!
Can't tell if it's my eyes or my fingers that are not yet awake. More coffee!
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.