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.
Some folks will learn what it means to be roasted in the depths of the Slor on that day.
I am afraid I don't understand your point. What is the purpose of those scriptural quotations?
The Grand Master at DarwinCentral™ is pleased to announce that your post has been awarded the Kafka Seal of Approval.
It's more like, God is whatever I think He is, regardless of facts. I swear I have never encountered a more monomaniacal group than the posters on these threads. It's all about me and whatever I think. Never mind the hard work of discovery that goes on all around. My interpretation of the Bible is Truth and the rest of you are damned.
I guess he's trying to use the Palmstroem argument ;^)
Two points. You said that it [the evidence] falsifies biblical literalism at every turn. The first point is simply to show an obvious example of the historical fulfillment of a specific prediction of a Biblical literalist (Jesus), and thus falsify the assertion. The second point is that Jesus in the very same passage compares the coming of the Son of Man to the flood of Noah, and as with every other mention of the Deluge in the Bible, as an actual event, universal in scope.
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE GENESIS FLOOD
Historical evidence is part of the evidence. Biblical literalism is not falsified by the evidence at every turn; you have a prediction of a future event that was fulfilled within the specified time period, and you also have the credibilty of the assertions of Jesus regarding the historicity and universality of the Flood to contend with, if you will. Your choices are basically that regarding the Flood he was mistaken, has been mis-interpreted, was lying, or was telling the truth.
Cordially,
If your faith requires actual geological evidence for a universal flood, your faith is in deep trouble. Christian geologists gave up on this around 1830.
Not if you stick your head in the sand and ignore all of the evidence.
When I said at every turn I obviously wasn't including the Bible, since clearly the story of the flood is in the Bible. I was referring to physical evidence.
Well, Jesus certainly wasn't telling the truth, unless God hid or otherwise falsifed the physical evidence that the flood ever happened. So I suggest that you pick whichever of the other options you feel most comfortable with.
I think therefore God is.
Or, alternatively.....Is is therefore God is.
"Yes, I'm a kumquat," said the unrepentant freeper. "You got a problem wid' dat?"
Authorities were dumbfounded, and were struggling to formulate a response.
"We're ready to believe you."
Parting the waters for a theological moment...
I am continually amazed at the legalistic style of argument that permeates fundamentalist Christianity. When Jesus was asked point blank what is required to win eternal life, he said obey the commandments and love thy neighbor as thyself. This is followed by the story of the good Samaritan, as an illustration.
I have yet to see a thread in which Freeper Christians discuss the ways of loving their enemies or selling all they have and giving to the poor.
I guess these are just metaphors.
So this means you don't have an answer?
1200
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.