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.
I hear you... but...The more they nag, the more they bore and get ignored. They even have tea parties where they prepare new lists that they plan to wave around and insist that we have some responsibility to take seriously. They hand down edicts like some rajah. Posers.
Absolutely. After disembarking, we can assume they would interbreed and slowly evolve into the diversity of species we see today. :^)
If it prevents interbreeding, it is.
I am an anthropologist (and archaeologist) and human bones are one of my specialties.
Fester, give up on the global flood. You just can't make the evidence stretch into that direction. You can only pretzel things so far. Virtually everyone else gave up on the global flood long ago.
You were the one who wanted the "rebuttal".
I didn't say that. I just observed that your 'spam' image response was an interesting rebuttal after over a day to think about it.
So if we see fossils above 10000 feet, we can assume there's over 2 miles of water required to transport them. Where did the water go? Or are you going to contend that the Inyo Mountains we created in the last 6000 years?
It didn't. Yet this was given as a scientific example of observed natural evolutionary speciation.
. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization.
What does this mean?
Now, it would not suprise me in the least that in history there would be one first chimp, just like there was one first human. And in that chimp would be the genetic material to bring about as wide a variety of chimps as we have, for example, varieties of dogs.
So, evolution seems to do a good job when it comes to categorizing the critters. But I think it underestimates the capacity for genetic expression to be diverse in a short period of time on the one hand, but also exceedingly limited in a general way.
Diversity within limits is a hallmark of design. Without it a product would not only be indistinguishable but also non-functional.
Okay, so where's your evidence?
It didn't mean they were different species. They were still flies. They didn't become mosquitos. They didn't become bees.
It didn't mean they were different species. They were still flies. They didn't become mosquitos. They didn't become bees.
Is there a creationist tree of life, or list or table, etc., that defines all the 'kinds' that cannot ever become other kinds?
The implication that all flies are the same is rather interesting, as well.
LOL. You down with OPP's logic?
How 'bout a literal Odyssey? Cyclops, sirens and such.
What is at the root of your problem?
OK, they can't interbred, but they're the same species?
Are you actually serious?! Then how do you define species?
Sounds great. Now lets start demanding it taught in public schools.
Perhaps. But I'm no fool. I will need to see a sign. What do the entrails say?
Grammatically, that should be "turn me on," you pervert.
The implication that all flies are the same is rather interesting, as well.
It's also interesting that the distinguishing unique characteristics of 'flyness' are not defined either.
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.