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.
It HAS?!?!?!?
If yer ever in Moab, have a drink from Matrimony Spring.
Good water!
Another thon?
I could have been more precise and said, "built upon" assumptions. Of course I realize that various hypotheses and theories are built up over time from certain basic assumptions, but I doubt that this means that I am ignorant of the scientific process. What I am saying is that things like geochronometers, particularly the farther back one goes, are necessarily derived from models of variations in accumulation rates and the like, which cannot be observed directly. Consequently, conclusions are very dependent on the theoretical models used, and thus can vary widely. "Global warming" is a good example of how much predictions depend on which model one uses. Reconstruction analysis of the deep parts of ice cores is a another good example of the difficulties inherent in such extrapolations. But surely you do not doubt that initial assumptions of catastrophism or uniformitarianism determine the interpretation of whatever event is in question?
There is a long road between those assumptions and observations and what scientists refer to as "theory"
I think most scientists use the word "theory" in their writings in the more colloquial sense of "hypothesis".
Cordially,
You realize, of course, that invertebrates are not all marine, don't you?
Really? Examples, please.
Yup; I found a few are Air Force.
Not that there is anything wrong with that...
But surely you do not doubt that initial assumptions of catastrophism or uniformitarianism determine the interpretation of whatever event is in question?
The assumptions are part of what is tested when one verifies that hypothesis on its way to becoming theory. One makes predictions that are predicated on the assumptions and the hypothesis, and looks to see if those predictions come true. This is what most science actually consists of, and is a part that "creation scientists" omit entirely, unsurprisingly since their track-record for successful prediction is zilch. A powerful confirmation of the uniformitarian assumption (essentially the bedrock of all historical science) is that numerous different dating methods that use it give correlating results.
Humans simply cannot possibly run tests without some 'intelligent' input.
If a human tests the speed of light does that make light speed a result of an intelligence? No, of course not, it just means that humans, in the process of performing tests manipulate the variables in an attempt to isolate a specific feature/function/mechanism. Because humans can perform tests on naturally occurring phenomenon during which time they restrict or isolate a specific function of the phenomenon does not mean that that phenomenon cannot occur in nature with no intelligent interaction.
This characterization of the human isolation of evolutionary mechanisms during testing as the obvious result of an intelligence, in an effort to prove that evolutionary changes only occur as a result of intelligent intervention, is not only an incorrect interpretation of the process but misdirection at its worst.
It is also very poor logic. The fact that humans can perform experiments has no bearing on the possibility of similar processes occurring in nature.
LOLOL. Bump for cartoons.
Hoo nu? There's some science behind puns? Don't leaf! Just kamquatly.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/evolit/s05/web4/gzekavat.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/evolit/s05/woolf.html
As will a gradual die off of species over time. Where the two ideas diverge is at the point of consideration of all the fossils found within a specific strata. Modern science examines not only the main fossils but the accompanying flora and fauna. This gives a good description of the local environment and the conditions that led to the deposition. Later and earlier strata are also considered when determining the history of the area. For a global flood scenario to be true the physics of stratification needs to be twisted and turned to explain the sequences found in consecutive strata.
You do not know that the strata demonstrate chronological sequences, but assume all processes that produced the fossil record took place at the same rate, and in the same way, as those processes are taking place today. Not a bad assumption, but not necessarily a correct one either.
There is a defined separation between the strata within a column. This is an observed fact (fact meaning data point). Material dropped from a height will accumulate on top on previously dropped material. This too is an observed fact. The upper material was deposited later than the lower material. Even during hydrological sorting this is true, the upper material settles out later than the lower material. There is a chronological sequence.
Q: Did all the animals on the ark come in pairs?
A: No the worms came in apples.
"I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape," Buttars said."
Oh, really? Happens every day in a government school.
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.