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.

[ToryHeartland]

[Abraham Lincoln] "in great contests, each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong."

[Elsie]He [Lincoln] left out the fact that just maybe, one of them is TRUE!

No he didn't.

Re-read Mr. Lincoln's words. His logic is correct; your reading comprehension is questionable.

Cordial suggestion: rapid-fire from-the-hip postings may not be an optimal strategy.

Less is often more.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

The simple fact is, we are in a situation where one faith is favored over another in government-run schools.

It is therefore the responsibility of Christian parents to deprogram their children of any tenets and sacrements of religons that they don't believe in that are taught at taxpayer expense in the public schools.

This applies to evolution, any Islamic indoctrination that may occur during the course of the school day, "sex education" that scuttles abstinence in favor of "if it feels good, do it and here's how you avoid the consequences of irresponsible behavior and hopefully the condoms and morning-after pills work for ya", etc., the myriad ways of worshiping the one true god, the federal government, and it's high priest, the Democratic party; and on and on.

We still have to live in a fallen world, with all its deceptions, and until Christ returns, it is the reponsibility of parents to impart truth to their children. We cannot depend on "educators" who have been brainwashed in secular humanism to teach our kids. Yet again, it goes back to the parents.

[Junior]

Neither water, nor that a critter be alive at the time of death is required for fossilization. Fossils have been created in desert regions. For examples of this we have the aforementioned raindrop spatters (how the hell would they have formed under water?), lots of animal tracks, and the very famous "fighting dinosaurs," which were buried under a collapsing sand dune. A "mummified" duckbill dinosaur in the Smithsonian also died in an arid environment, rotted a bit, and was finally covered by shifting sands preserving some of its soft tissue. Sometimes water is detrimental to fossilization. The primary reason no remains have been recovered from the wreck of the Titanic is that the water within which the ship came to rest literally leached away all the minerals in the bone.

Nor is it necessary the animal be alive, or even recently deceased, when it is buried and fossilized. Numerous fossils show signs of scavenging, and the aforementioned "mummified" duckbill was exposed for quite some time after death. Also many nearly complete therapod fossils show the animals with arched, contorted backs. When I was a kid this was thought to show the animal was poisoned. However, experiments with extent critters of similar size and shape showed the sinews and muscles gradually tighten as the animals rots, dragging the corpse into a contorted position -- not something possible under multi-megatonnes of sediment.

So, you see, the fossil record does not support your position WHEN TAKEN AS A WHOLE. And therein lies the difference between creationism and science. The former takes the evidence and picks and chooses that which fits its preconceived notions. The latter takes the evidence as a whole to build its theories.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yes, that seems a fair summary. The very first critters were designed with enough compressed genetic expression to result in all living creatures both prior too, and after, the world wide deluge. The biblical text is not specific as to how many species there were, but puts things in general terms of "kinds." Today we have difficulty drawing the line between species.

[ToryHeartland]

"Both may be, and one must be wrong."

Fearing that such pedantry may be required by some 'logically-challenged' posters, I'll offer this supplementary parsing of the logic here:

1. IF A, then NOT B, OR

2. IF B, then NOT A, OR

3. NEITHER A NOR B.

Mr. Lincoln was a brilliant man, of undiminihsed international stature. I hope he remains a hero within his own American Republican Party.

[Junior]

The continents split after the Flood? Do you realize the energy required to move the continents rapidly from the pre-diluvian super-continent to their present location, and then to stop them? Of course you do, but your average YEC does not. It sounds good to them and it fits with their preconceived notions, so science be damned!

[whattajoke]

The very first critters were designed with enough compressed genetic expression to result in all living creatures both prior too, and after, the world wide deluge.

Fester, I will give you this week's award for, "Maintaining views that fly in the face of hundreds of years of research in several different scientific discliplines." Your faith is amazing to me. Not that there aren't others on these threads or in this world who have an equal amount, but you actually seem to be somewhat intelligent and rarely resort to insults.

I did wish to point out that your statement above is not only an acceptance of evolution (change of allele frequencies through time resulting in speciation) but ironically, you've accepted and posited a MUCH FASTER mechanism than science does. So I ask you... where are YOUR transitionals? If this MASSIVE speciation event occurred in less than 6000 years (!!!), why aren't we seeing it continuing today? (Etc, you know the Creationoid drill.)

[whattajoke]

I read your link.

And you're STILL going to defend it?! Awesome.

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.

Come now. Is that assertion REALLY "worthy of discussion." That the global genocidal flood in the bible was a worldwide event where hot water "from below" was forced to the surface in such volumes as to flood the world? His calcification/fossilization assertions were ancillary. But regardless, are you also prepared to defend his later assertions in the thread?

Here's two more gems:

Surely you are at least somewhat aware of the exhibit known as the 'limestone cowboy?

Surely you are, Fester. YEC at its worst.

Very little animate life exists around most hot springs, due to the sulfur. Geysers tend to be almost sterile.

Except, y'know, when they're not.

You certainly don't have to defend this silly ideas, but I'm always fascinated how the YECs stick together no matter what nonsense they spew. You seem different and I"m curious.

[Elsie]

1001


Will it go to 2002???


7:12 let the spam begin!!

[Elsie]

I just got a new Nat Geo in the mail yesterday, it's FULL of tracing the DNA trail!!

I'll read it today, but so far, they are just gushing about how Evolution has got us to where we are today.

[Elsie]

Suddenly we are to believe the Y chromosome is "unreliable" based on the assertion of someone who hasn't a clue why the question is important.

Nat Geo Mar 06, on page 62, right column, 1/4 way down; it says that "Similarly, most of the Y chromosome ,which determines maleness, travels intact from father to son."

HMmmm... 'most' (emphasis mine)

---

Further down it say...

"Scientists now calculate that all living humans are related to a single woman who lived roughly 150,000 years ago in Africa..." (emphasis mine)

[I gotta be ELSIE, so...

How does they know she was single? And how does they know she had a rough life?]

[Elsie]

If you are a guy, why would you want to take on a female persona?

If you are alive, why would you want a tagline referencing a spirit?

[Elsie]

Dang!

I'm outted!

[Elsie]

And you still tolerate him?

Like a fine wine....

[Elsie]

However, humans became humans as a group, not as an individual.

Huh?

How does we KNOW this?

How can a 'mutation' take place in a group and not in an individual?

[Elsie]

...and occasionally entertaining.

Occasionally!!?!?!?!

Now, by gum, you've done it Junner!!!

[Elsie]

You guys have gone to the dogs.....

[Elsie]

You are obviously much more intelligent than I am so I hope my reply to you isn't too messed up. The 'Eve' of mitochondrial DNA is a single woman in a population of other women; she just happens to be the ancestor of all the women in our current population, not the only ancestor. The same applies to our most recent common male ancestor; he is but one of many alive at the time that contribute to our 'Y' chromosome.

I'm confused... is it a group or  individuals?

[Elsie]

One nice thing about evo threads is that you never see the evos any other place on FR.

Priorities?

[Elsie]

Ya'd think the CR/IDs would be all over this.

Why? On something from wacky WIKI-land?