Posted on 02/28/2006 7:05:48 PM PST by PatrickHenry
A proposed constitutional amendment would require Nevada teachers to instruct students that there are many questions about evolution - a method viewed by critics as an opening to teach intelligent design.
Las Vegas masonry contractor Steve Brown filed his initiative petition with the secretary of state's office, and must collect 83,184 signatures by June 20 to get the plan on the November ballot. To amend the Nevada Constitution, he'd have to win voter approval this year and again in the 2008 elections.
Brown said Tuesday that he hopes that volunteers will help him collect the signatures, but at this point has no name-gathering organization set up. A Democrat and member of a nondenominational church, he said he hoped for broad support from people who share his views.
"I just want them to start telling the truth about evolution," Brown said. "Evolution has occurred, but parts of it are flat-out unproven theories. They're not telling students that in school."
Brown, who has three school-age children, said he's been interested in evolution for years. He added that if people take time to read his proposal "how can this not pass?"
The petition says students must be informed before the end of the 10th grade that "although most scientists agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is well supported, a small minority of scientists do not agree."
The plan says several "areas of disagreement" would have to be covered by teachers, including the view by some scientists that "it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself."
Students also would have to be told some scientists argue "that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link,'" the proposal says.
Also, the proposal says students "must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology's mysteries" and that some scientists contend that sexual reproduction "would require an unbelievable series of chance events that would have had to occur in the evolutionary theory."
Brown commented on his plan following a decision Monday by the Utah House to scuttle a bill that would have required public school students to be told that evolution isn't empirically proven.
Last month, the Ohio Board of Education deleted a science standard and lesson plan encouraging students to seek evidence for and against evolution - another setback for intelligent design advocates who maintain that life is so complex it must have been created by a higher authority.
In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. The judge said that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science.
Also last year, a federal judge ordered the school system in suburban Atlanta's Cobb County to remove from biology textbooks stickers that called evolution a theory, not a fact.
But critics of evolution got a boost in Kansas in November when the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory.
|
Why not set pi at three while she's at it.
This does tend to contradict the notion that Republicans can be blamed for all of this.
As opposed to "proved theories?"
What an idiot. No theory s proved in science.
But here is the definitions list to start the ball rolling...
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
I'm so glad masonry contractors in the Nevadan desert are lecturing scientists on the definition of science --- what could be better?
I'm delighted that this idiot is a democrat. Let's give that party some of the joy.
This is non-trivial.
I just love what he wants to put in the constitution:
that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link
must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology's mysteries
it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself.
IMO this kind of stuff is over-specific for a statute, and he wants to put it in the constitution!
Cpeak for the number four.
It's also not undebatable fact. Evolutionists could provide him with a dozen "missing links" (ooh, but once we find them, they're not missing! and then they have new missing links on both sides of them!), convincing explanations for the evolution of sex, and rip up his mathematical proof.
I bet he does not even know that sex is not always simply XY = male, XX = female.
Yes, it's crazy, but it's not all that difficult to get the signatures needed to put it on the ballot. That's when the fun begins. We'll have no shortage of thread material.
"I just want them to start telling the truth about evolution," Brown said.
Then let the scientists, who know the most about it, write the book on it and not creationists who have a vested interest in misrepresenting it.
I fail to see how children are going to learn the truth about evolution from people who, in many cases, actively refuse to even learn the subject for themselves.
From Here
LaRouche feels that there are only two types of ways of viewing human beings. Either one holds the (Renaissance) belief that one is a divinely created soul, with the divine gift of reason, or the (Enlightenment) belief that one is only a beast who must be controlled and manipulated by the oligarchs.
There is no compromise possible. The oligarchs promote the belief that creativity is the product of sexual sublimation or perversion or getting in touch with the Dionysian/irrational unconscious through their puppets like Freud and Jung, says LaRouche, so that people will not learn from Schiller and others that creativity comes from divine reason and proportion.
Science should be guided by Platonic ideals, feels LaRouche, but it has become the tool of Aristotelian sophistry which tries to convince us (through evolution, etc.) that man is really nothing special.
The oligarchs understand the psychology of the mob, and Pavlovs' dogs, and know the fascistic means to get us to do what they want.
Hitler was just an experiment for the Anglo-American cabal...
[end excerpt; emphasis added]
The D*m*cr*t party is a surprisingly big tent.
You can pass all the laws in the world, but the Universe ain't gonna obey.
I saw a petition last month (I live in Nevada) that asks the state to invest money in biomass energy-generation technologies. OK, you can argue the wisdom of throwing money at that, but the petition also wants the state to recognize that 'hemp' has the highest concentration of "biomass" out of all the biomasses on earth.
</sigh>
FRE-CRE ping
I'm just looking forward to the entertainment value of watching Christian Fundamentalists wrestle with the dilemma of wanting to flock to the state that contains Sin City.
Bush 418,690 51%
Kerry 397,190 48%
Let's hope the Dem doesn't attract some Reps to the party. Political competition can bring out some fence sitters.
It appears the Las Vegas masonry contractor has a vested interest in keeping the next generation of Nevadians ignorant. The question is are there 83,184 all ready in Nevada stupid enough to go along with him. Even if the dozen or so anti-evo's infesting the FR forum all move to Nevada, I somehow doubt it.
Gravity is a theory, too.
I don't believe in gravity.
;-)
The plan should also require that teachers cover "areas of disagreement" in the atomic theory of gases, including the view by some scientists that "it is mathematically impossible for a bumblebee to fly".
Oh, but wait, that theory doesn't run afoul of any witch doctor's superstition, so there's no need to intelligently redesign every state constitution to whinge about it.
Well, to be fair, state constitutions tend to be a lot more specific than the federal constitution. The California constitution specifies how fruit and nut orchards are to be taxed (can't tax them until four years after they've been planted) and how overtime for mechanics and others on public works is governed (no work longer than eight hours "except in wartime or extraordinary emergencies that endanger life or property"). And so forth. By those lights, it's not an especially crazy provision, until you get to the part about it being completely wrongheaded, of course ;)
Hmmm... LaRouche's writings on the subject are so convoluted, I think only David Berlinski could understand them.
good, it is about time that common sense ruled in this, the false religion of evolution should never be taught as fact.
Is it still four?
Henry Morris passed on you know.
Masonary Contractors!? What's next patent clerks? Gardening monks? Painters and sculptors? Oh, the humanity of it all!
A giant has fallen.
"Stays in Vegas" placemark
You set no terms. Maybe you want to, but terminology will have to be negotiated unless you have some means of enforcing your will.
It always amases me how IDers and YEC always seem to close their minds to these definitions.
I think you should post these at the start of every thread dealing with this subject similar to the way Patrick H. posts his Ticket comments.
There's effectiveness, for you.
The more they are stated the better as more people will learn. Of course there are the IDers and YEC who have to close their minds at all costs to what science has to offer to hold onto their Book of Genesis beliefs.
If the list is an offering for discussion, wonderful. Is it? This list is not an authority, in other words. And attempts to insist upon its authority will be regularly challenged.
You know, all this "close-minded" stuff and "free enquiry" and all in the halls of science...I noticed that there was no squawking about the stunning thing that happened to the prez of Harvard these past few weeks, all for posing a non-pc question concerning women in the sciences and math.
Free enquiry met an irrational threat, and fell down dead.
But, since radical feminists are not the religious, not a squawk, squeak or fuss from the Keepers of the Holy Altar of Science who regularly inhabit the evo threads.
Makes you wonder if the agenda is pro-science, or just anti-religious.
Students also would have to be told some scientists argue "that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link,'" the proposal says.
Also, the proposal says students "must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology's mysteries".
To be fair, it is true that there have been some scientists (only very rarely those with any expertise in the specific field) who sadly have demonstrated misunderstandings of this sort about evolution. This is the entire reason a peer review system exists: to prevent discredited concepts like these from surfacing in journals (and subsequently, educational material).
If I was a science teacher in Nevada, and this ridiculous amendment passed, I would be glad to tell my students the honest truth within the bounds of the law (that a few scientists like these exist, but are wrong and that bad ideas like these are weeded out in the first steps of peer review), and then explain why the consensus of experts points to overwhelmingly evolutionary theory, and why people who say these things are wrong.
In CA, there is a hugely expensive upheaval over this very thing, only it concerns bogus claims about embryonic stem-cell research. The South Korean "scientist" has been shown to have fabricated the research which directly led to CA allocating Three BBBBillion Dollars to promote and "capitalize". Now the research has been debunked, but the allocation lives on. The taxpayers are being forced to sue to prevent the money being spent.
The stem-cell research that has since been debunked directly gained its prominence from Science Magazine, which was peer reviewed.
Maybe all the teachers in Nevada ought to say is "Science has a long history of overcoming its own errors, hopefully to our ultimate advantage." "Scientists are human beings, and profoundly fallible like all human beings." "Science Magazine's Peer Review System is Unreliable."
"I don't believe in gravity."
Me neither, I believe in Intelligent Falling.
Once, I was distracted, not paying attention at the critical moment (should I go up? Or down?), and flew instead of falling.
/With credit to Dent Arthur Dent, my favorite hairless ape/
It was the process of peer review that eventually exposed the fraud.
The stem-cell research that has since been debunked directly gained its prominence from Science Magazine, which was peer reviewed.
Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is a step in peer review. It is not the end of peer review. It is an ongoing process. Cutting-edge theories and research (like stem-cell work) are more susceptible to actual doubt and controversy. Evolution, on the other hand, has been slowly established over more than 100 years of careful research. It is not a cutting-edge theory (though cutting-edge data continues to support it and elucidate it in greater detail); it is one with well-established evidence along many lines of inquiry. Surely you aren't suggesting that all the evidence supporting evolution is fraudulent? This would literally require a worldwide conspiracy lasting over a century between thousands if not hundreds of thousands of researchers.
Maybe all the teachers in Nevada ought to say is "Science has a long history of overcoming its own errors, hopefully to our ultimate advantage." "Scientists are human beings, and profoundly fallible like all human beings." "Science Magazine's Peer Review System is Unreliable."
All these but the last statement are accurate (though the first two are virtues of peer review, not faults). Science has generally been a very reliable journal; it just isn't perfect. When mistakes are found (as in any human endeavor), they are retracted and/or corrected in errata. Deliberate frauds that make it to this level are very rare, but can be difficult to expose; that is why the penalty for falsifying data in the science community is severe. The scientists involved will probably never be allowed to publish again. Their careers and credibility are (rightfully) ruined.
However, stating that this "doubt" lends equal credence to evolution and creation in a science classroom is equivalent to introducing two concepts, one which is 99+% accurate, the other 0% accurate, and saying they are both just as valid because neither is 100% accurate.
I won't post the whole analysis again but I hate the silly shell-game that results when that objection is pursued.
If you read the list of definitions, right at the top it states:
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread)My initial list was modified by suggestions made by many posters on that thread. You can still go to that thread and make suggestions for how you think the definitions should read.
Hmmmm. That implies that life on earth will end in the instant that you die. But 1973 is only 33 years ago, so you're still young.
Since I'm 64, I'll be gone before you are, but just in case:
Take your vitamins! Eat your vegetables! Fasten your seat belt! Watch your blood pressure! Don't smoke! Don't snack between meals! Get a good night's sleep! Eat breakfast! Drink little or no alcohol! Shun loose women (or men, depending on your preference)!
And try to have fun...
Nope. He was snitched out by underlings, and his competitors through an anonymous internet mechanism. He was not caught out by official peer review until the peers could no longer avoid acknowledging their malpractice.
Interestingly, Korea is the best-wired country in the world, and is now suffering some pathologies from that which we might do well on Fr to pay attn to. In Korea, you use an official ID # (similar to our SS) for many commercial transactions. Chinese hackers recently got ahold of a quarter million of these #'s and joined online games in order to "farm" virtual merchandise (virtual swords and sorceries to be sold on places like ebay.) Big lawsuit time, for SK is highly litigious.
There was an article recently in the SK press about the interrelatedness of the two scandals.
And exactly how is this determined?
If we can use "probability" to determine the "possibility" of abiogenesis occurring, despite our lack of knowledge on so many factors affecting abiogenesis, how about we calculate the 'possibility' that a God exists, or that some group of alien beings not only came into existence without abiogenesis but were able to 'seed' Earth and stay completely hidden while poking away at many of Earth's organism's genomes.
Interesting. Definitely a major scandal. I hope those involved get what's coming to them. In any case, science does eventually work, it sometimes takes a while, though, unfortunately. (Someone definitely would smell a rat if the results couldn't eventually be duplicated, though not until millions of dollars were wasted.)
One can post a list as many times as one can peck a keyboard, but important terms in a discussion should be decided (negotiated) between participants, not handed down by a dictator. These terms are abstractions, full of meaning. I'm encouraging those reading to not sign on your dotted line before they have a chance to think about it.
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.