Utah House kills evolution bill

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette ^ | 28 February 2006 | JENNIFER DOBNER

[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.

[phantomworker]

That does look interesting. I'd be curious to find out more.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The second supposed difficulty regarding a global flood is the "problem" of gathering together those forms of life that were to be aboard the ark. This includes not only the difficulty of considerable travel from many regions involving diverse species, but also the difficulty of time since there were only seven days to load the ark.

Note that heretofore neither difficulty regarding a global flood has to do with a flood in particular, but the biblical text as it literally reads. A global flood could easily be considered whether or not there was ever an ark filled with surviving life, but the author of this article prefers to protest against more than the possibility of a flood. It is the general reliability of the biblical text that he finds repugnant (though the objection must be couched in terms of scholarly pursuit).

But what about all these critters coming from all parts of the earth? The biblical text does not denote how much time it took for all of them to come, but it does makes clear the animals came to Noah. He did not have to fetch them. Science understands to a small degree that the instincts of the animal kingdom are keen. Had science observed the animals just prior to Noah's flood, it would have put it in terms of instinctual processes not unlike the renowned march of the penguins.

If there were pending physical events about to take place on a global scale, one can reasonably surmise the instincts of the animal kingdom were accentuated. Even the recent tsunami saw isolated islands undertaking shifts in turf in anticipation of the pending disaster without expressed communication about the details.

As for the supposed problem of having too little time to get the animals loaded onto the ark, it stands to reason that the amount of potential genetic expression expended prior to the flood could have been far less than what we observe in the animal kingdom today. To put it simply, there were not as many animals needed as one might think; not as many species as we observe today.

Given the author of this article's distrust of the biblical texts in general, and his inability to know for certain the conditions under which the animals were gathered and loaded onto the ark, I do not find his second objection particularly convincing.

But of course, I am not one to question texts that have reliably stood the test of time many generations ahead of myself. I'll take the biblical texts for what they say and what they mean, and let those who believe in themselves make a mess of themselves.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Actually the deluge explains many of those things well, but not all of them. Fossils are primarily sedimentary. If you want to make a fossil you've got to have lots of water and lots of soil. You need to capture the critter while it's alive; bury it alive under soil and water. The water, over several generations seeps down into the earth, leaving cavity that displays the image of what was a living creature suddenly buried alive. Again, the deepest holes we've ever drilled have revealed much more water than was expected at those levels.

[Coyoteman]

Fester, I have to give you credit. You can rationalize anything.

Rather than a scathing, brilliant and absolutely devestating response, I am going to go watch a movie before bed (between the toes if necessary).

We'll contend again on the morrow.

Night all!

[balrog666]

Thanks for finding it. I must have missed it because of my penchant for skipping over the posts of complete idiots.

[Ken H]

To put it simply, there were not as many animals needed as one might think; not as many species as we observe today

How did the new species come into being since the flood?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I read your link.

The person to whom you refer does not make mention of "a sort of calcified concrete mixture" that "shot up from below." He believes hot waters from below had the effect of creating the greater part of what we call the fossil record, and in so stating makes use of the word "cementation" in connection with the release of carbonates. This may be an assertion worthy of question, but it does not merit the misrepresentation and petulant carping that tends to shoot up from below your keyboard.

[From many - one.]

I have this great mental image of a platypus paddling Noah-ward with a kiwi on its back.

thought I'd share.

[Fester Chugabrew]

The genetic material for all present species, except for those not needed or desired prior to the world wide deluge, would be sufficient in those creatures aboard the ark to generate such diversity.

If one cares to take things down to the level of basic elements,everything has always been present to produce whatever species one might desire, and do so within whatever limits one might wish. But there are always limits. There are always rules. That's how it is with intelligent design.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I had that same image, and they were traveling the straightest distance between two short lines.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Your calculations have missed quite a few factors.

Yep. As I said, I am not smart enough to do the math, but neither am I dumb enough to accept the word "impossible" as applicable to generating six billion people from eight. Yet even doing it my own stupid, simple way it doesn't take a lot of multiplication, does it?

[From many - one.]

In that case, since I had it first, you owe me royalties.

[phantomworker]

"I had that same image, and they were traveling the straightest distance between two short lines."

Funny. I had a totally different image. In the 5th dimension, tesseract, the shortest distance is not between two straight lines.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/wrinkle/section5.rhtml

[phantomworker]

That's actually quite an original image. LOL!

[Ken H]

Your position is that new species appeared after the flood, and that these new species were intelligently designed by God using existing genetic material. Fair statement?

[Virginia-American]

I have this great mental image of a platypus paddling Noah-ward with a kiwi on its back

That's one explanation: see the map here

[aNYCguy]

To put it simply, there were not as many animals needed as one might think; not as many species as we observe today.

I was very surprised to read this. You believe that vast numbers of speciation events have occurred since the flood?

[dread78645]

"Entering Jerusalem on a kangaroo" placemark

[PatrickHenry]

Soon ...

[PatrickHenry]

1100