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.
Please provide a cite for this. Fossils? after 20-odd years?
Has it occured to you that a great deal of fossilization may have taken place since the flood?
Or that he didn't say it at all, and the words were put in his mouth by the author.
Why do all the anti-Es conveniently forgot that particular option?
Orange you takin' this a bit far?
"Flood of Kumquats" placemark
Pitcairn island is an example of a few surnames becoming dominant and other surnames dying out.
When my nephew was really little, I took him to a farm to show him a llama. I figured that he'd never seen one before. I was right. This is how the conversation went:
Me, pointing to a Llama: "So, what kind of an animal is that?"
Nephew, sqinting and furrowing his brow: "Horsie?"
Me: "No, that's a 'Llama'".
Nephew, gives me a dirty look, looks back at the llama: "Cowie?"
Me: "No, that's a 'Llama'".
Nephew, looks at me, looks at the llama, getting angry: "Horsie?"
Me: "No, that's a..."
Nephew: "HORSIE!!!"
Me: "No, th...
Nephew: "HORSIE!!"
Me: "Ok, it's a horsie."
Nephew, smiling, nodding his head: "Horsie."
That's what it is like around here sometimes...
Nope. As has been pointed out before, you would have to interpret the evidence IN ISOLATION to come to the conclusion there was a universal flood. The evidence TAKEN IN TOTAL converges on there never having been a worldwide flood.
I don't recall ever asserting that "organized matter proves God." If you are this lax in comprehending and restating my words, then I reckon you may just as lax at comprehending and restating whatever other information comes your way.
My points along those lines are simply 1.) the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions is more or less ubiquitious, 2.) it is hardly unreasonable to attribute such things to intelligent design, and 3.) intelligent design has been the operative assumption of western science for thousands of years.
Attendant to those points is the fact that well known scientists throughout the ages have understood it is neither necessary nor logical to hermetically seal science from religion (or the mysterious or the emotional), Albert Einstein being a case in point. We are fortunate to live in country that supports free thought and the commingling of ideas that are both scientific and religious.
Why do all the anti-Es conveniently forgot that particular option?
For the same reason, except to a degree many orders of magnitude higher, that no one questions the authenticity of the words of Plato, Aristotle or Homer, et al.
Cordially,
I wasn't the one who authored the account of Noah. But I do know what words mean. As far as the ability to communicate purely from the standpoint of one's own personal views, the post to which I am responding is a case in point. It really is all about you and what you think. You have no authority other than yourself and those whom you choose to espouse. As for me, I am accountable to a text that resides outside of myself and is of not my own making. I have a standard. You have yourself and your own judgments.
I went to the college that produced Stanley Miller and had a dorm room next door to Robert Meeropol. For a conservative, I'm dragging a lot of baggage.
Eighty percent of the earth's crust is sedimentary rock. 95 percent of all fossils are marine invertrebrates, with no clear evidence of any evolutionary precursors in the fossil record. I don't know how to interpret that 95% in an isolated manner.
Cordially,
If one pole is rotated toward the Sun, the other will, perforce, be rotated away -- meaning its share of solar energy will be reduced, in extreme cases to zero. There will still be gradations on the globe between arctic and tropical, and with a greater axial tilt every latitude will experience varying extremes in temperature greater than experienced today.
You can't achieve your desired "mild climate" everywhere on a globe.
Be fruitful, and multiply.
I didn't know life spans in the 1800's reached two centuries. My point is, if they had held throughout their lifetime that a global flood with is accord with the geological evidence, they would be no less subject to your pooh-poohing than am I.
We have third-party references for the Greek guys. All we have are the Gospels for Jesus. We don't even have any Roman records of his existence, and the Romans kept track of everything -- especially folks who caused enough trouble to be crucified.
Now, how do raindrop spatters fossilize under millions of tonnes of water?
Lettuce take this up at another time.
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.