Posted on 02/28/2006 4:05:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
House lawmakers scuttled a bill that would have required public school students to be told that evolution is not empirically proven - the latest setback for critics of evolution.
The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Chris Buttars, had said it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man descended from apes and rattling the faith of students. The Senate earlier passed the measure 16-12.
But the bill failed in the House on a 28-46 vote Monday. The bill would have required teachers to tell students that evolution is not a fact and the state doesn't endorse the theory.
Rep. Scott Wyatt, a Republican, said he feared passing the bill would force the state to then address hundreds of other scientific theories - "from Quantum physics to Freud" - in the same manner.
"I would leave you with two questions," Wyatt said. "If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?"
Buttars said he didn't believe the defeat means that most House members think Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.
"I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape," Buttars said.
The vote represents the latest loss for critics of evolution. In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes.
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.
Earlier this year, a rural California school district canceled an elective philosophy course on intelligent design and agreed never to promote the topic in class again.
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, defying the view of science groups.
Alright--I guess you'll have nothing to lose, then, when I stick around.
It's a puzzle to you because you can't respond with anything of substance. You can't even post anything that would indicate to lurkers that you understand the problem.
Twist in the wind. Question people's motives. Just don't respond to the question.
It is a question of substance. It has nothing to do with how you feel or whether I'm a nice person. It's a real question, and you have no response other than to claim mistreatment.
Well, and to be alert for your mistreatment of others, which is what attracted my attn to you in the first place.
Perhaps this our opportunity to clarify the whole 'information' problem, from a bona fide mathematician.
How about it Mamzelle? Care to tell us what measure of information is to be used for biological organisms and why?
Could you also explain to us why such things as point mutations, gene duplication followed by a point mutation, and polyploidy do not result in an increase in information?
Heck, while you are at it, mind explaining why any 'information increase' is necessary for evolution to take place? Why can not a single 'change' in a gene, say a HOX gene, produce a different morphology?
Maybe just a tad.
I am so mean.
If you wanted to trace female lineages you would use mitochondrial DNA, not the X chromosome (which gets shuffled in females).
And the problem for YECers remains: we see far too much variation in mtDNA between populations for there to have been a common ancestor 6000 yrs ago.
You know, that might be a good question if it was asked seriously. A lot of this might be fun to discuss with different people.
And I am so average...
So an elementary question, simply put, is not serious. Tell me, other than attacking other people's motives, what have you contributed?
I'm flattered that I impress you with my tagline. It hope it helps. It's funny you don't do anything for me.
If you are a guy, why would you want to take on a female persona?
I used to be accused of being too middle of the road, so I guess that makes me median rather than mean.
I'll continue to contribute warnings to the unwary. So go see about your next target.
Ellsworth. I'd turn that into Elsie, too. It's also an old-fashioned name in the rural mountainous south. Posey is another, surprisingly common. So, phantom, how's motherhood treating you?
I would have said you were a little off, but since it's a standard deviation it doesn't often come across.
I always figured it was phoneticizing (is that a word?) of "L.C."
Usually guys would spell their name, Elly, btw.
So what's your M.O., now that you spilled the beans on your friend Ellsworth. Are you a guy, too?
Yeah, that's probably a word. Interesting... L.C.
Yup. That's how he explained his screen name a few years ago.
"No Sex Ed" placemark
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.