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.
Don't like it, skip over it. This is the first such post I've made since 2/18. And, from experience, it's something people who ply these threads find useful.
"Does the Linguistic evidence support the notion that all of the languages of the world came into existence evolving from one another?"
Uncertain. But it's pretty definite that they didn't sprout up fully formed as Genesis states.
"Remember this in school, then."
Yeah, but the texts I read in school were always supported with empirical data.
BTW, greetings to you, Elsie! It's been a few weeks since we've exchanged opinions on an CreVo Thread!
An interesting perspective. Sort of the reciprocal of Patton.
That's funny...you are the one who interjected yourself into the discussion.
Well you can't work in the zoo if you think there is "gorilla chow". There's monkey chow which gorillas eat, but gorillas are not monkeys.
There's also evo-chow, which some monkeys eat.
Born agains eat their daily bread, which is sufficient for all their needs.
There once was a sailor from Westphalia,
Who woke up and couldn't find his genitalia,
Much in despair,
He searched everywhere,
But now he's a social failure.
Every known Endogenous Retrovirus (ERV) in the same place in the genome of a chimp and a gorilla is also found in the same place in the human genome. The TOE predicts that this pattern will always be true. So far, so good!
Similarly, every ERV in the same location in the genome of gibbons and orangutans (Asian apes) will also be in every species of African ape, including ourselves.
So there is a meaningful sense, at the level of genetics, in which people are African apes.
This fixation with vocabulary causes me to think you might be a seriously disturbed wishful thinking old school marm, a common scold.
Our entire being was created in the image of God. Body soul and spirit.
Do you believe God has a physical body that ours is modeled after?
All I know is that after he had created the animals, God said, let us create man in our own image. So when man was created, he was created in the image and likeness of God.
Is not Christ incarnate? Did God not know and see Christ as incarnate from all eternity?
Do you believe in a literal Adam, a literal Eve, a literal Noah, a literal Moses, a literal Jonah, a literal Jesus?
It is just as easily explained by common design as common descent.
Considering the incredible complexity of the genetic codes, I'd say it is better explained by common design. But then I believe in a designer. You believe in...?
I wasn't discussing religion. Simply the nature of evidence. In courtrooms, eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable. It often falls to cross examination.
Some years ago I witnessed a traffic accident, and was later summoned for a deposition. I was questioned for three hours about the color of a traffic light at the time of the accident. It was interesting to experience firsthand what it means to be an eyewitness, and to observe the limits of memory about the simplest things.
No...go back and re-read my original post. You missed it.
If you noticed, I prefaced evolution of the simple single cell out of the primordial soup (right after the moment of abiogenesis)...It should have been obvious to you that I understand that abiogenesis is not considered to be encompassed by the TOE.
I wasn't referring to the hucksters...I was reffering to the believers that are on a mission; not a scientific endeavor. These believers are the ones that are so succeptible to e said hucksters.
Tell him to show up for an eye exam and then we'll know how good of an eyewitness he might make...
What about common descent? (See my post 349 above for the primate example). Where does it fail to be a theory?
The ToE says that this sort of pattern will be found in all life forms. So far, so good!
You're claiming the "designer" inserted the same section of viral DNA into the same DNA sections of various critters to make it look like they evolved from one another. Occam's razor says you're adding a level of complexity that is unnecessary.
Of all the issues dealing with evolution and the Bible, that one I never saw a problem with.
I always took it as our souls were created in the image of God, not our bodies. That's what separates us from the animals.
I don't believe God has a physical body. Or that he wished he had one that looked like us.
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.