Posted on 03/23/2005 10:48:58 PM PST by Quick1
TALLAHASSEE — Republicans on the House Choice and Innovation Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill that aims to stamp out “leftist totalitarianism” by “dictator professors” in the classrooms of Florida’s universities.
The Academic Freedom Bill of Rights, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, passed 8-to-2 despite strenuous objections from the only two Democrats on the committee.
The bill has two more committees to pass before it can be considered by the full House.
While promoting the bill Tuesday, Baxley said a university education should be more than “one biased view by the professor, who as a dictator controls the classroom,” as part of “a misuse of their platform to indoctrinate the next generation with their own views.”
The bill sets a statewide standard that students cannot be punished for professing beliefs with which their professors disagree. Professors would also be advised to teach alternative “serious academic theories” that may disagree with their personal views.
According to a legislative staff analysis of the bill, the law would give students who think their beliefs are not being respected legal standing to sue professors and universities.
Students who believe their professor is singling them out for “public ridicule” – for instance, when professors use the Socratic method to force students to explain their theories in class – would also be given the right to sue.
“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,’” Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.
(Excerpt) Read more at alligator.org ...
You pass the cognition test. I won't withdraw your feeding tube.
Thanks for your reply.
I agree with you on most points, as we have both poited out. However "Evolution is perfectly consistent both with design and with a lack of design in the living world." Negates one prime mover in evolution: Natural Selection.
This process effectively gets rid of any outside intervention, so it does not entirely fit with ID.
Now if NS were able to be defined as simply the change itself and Survival of the Fittest, not the REASON for change, then I would agree 100% with you. But as it stands, believing that we organized ourselves into what we are assumes that no guiding force was ever involved.
This my not be the fault of the theory, but it most certainly is the fault of it's most avid boasters.
I feel contrapositively copacetic already.
Natural selection simply refers to the propensity for organisms possessing harmful traits to die off and those with beneficial traits to reproduce. I'm not sure why, if the biosphere were the result of design, that this feature of the biosphere would be evidence against design. Couldn't a designer design natural selection, mutation and any other mechanism for evolution into the system?
"I'm not sure why, if the biosphere were the result of design, that this feature of the biosphere would be evidence against design."
Never said it'd be evidence against it. It is simply used to lay the groundwork for advocates of evolution to denounce God ("Look what we did, all by ourselves!")
That's why I feel ID is right. It allows for "mechanisms" but intent is implied in their existance. Not simply self-structuring.
"I feel contrapositively copacetic already."
OOOOOooooooooo, I love it when you talk dirty :>)
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.