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 have a 1970s-era textbook on vertebrate morphology. In the introductory chapter, "kind" is used synonymously with "taxon".
Seems to be the CRIDer usage as well.
And it will be us getting the examination...not Him.
And it will be us getting the examination...not Him.
So you believe, anyway.
I think you are confused. "Half a tank" is "One two-thousandths of a kilotank". It is the same thing. If I say that the temperature is 44 degrees Farenheit, that is correct, even if a European does not appreciate the order of magnitude of that measurement and would rather have 6.67 degrees Celsius does not matter. The fact that you cannot see the difference reveals a very narrow and insular point of view.
It also appears that science requires people who can assume facts that are not in evidence. And I'm sure your Korean colleagues would agree.
I guess he's never heard of missionaries. They do all that before breakfast.
Does that mean the oral histories of the Amerindians, especially of their interactions with their gods, is "just as good and authoratative as eyewitesses?"
Actually, the screenname is a joke.
If you would like me to explain humor, I can do so but I suspect your ability to understand such an abstract concept is limited.
I know how it works, but if it gets clogged -- depending on the location of the clog -- I cannot necessarily do it myself. That is why we have specialists. Muckrakers if you will.
Now if only Evolution was a "Law".
One of the laws that is explained by ToE is called the "Law of Faunal Succession".
Here's the Wikipedia article.
Could you be more specific?
I hate coming in late but this post caught my eye. Are you trying to say that the HOX gene does not exist in lobe-finned fish and there are no fossils of dinosaurs with feathers?
"1. What evidence would prove to you that there was a global flood?"
Physical evidence of flooding occuring 5-6kyears ago that affected the entire world, including such things as massive salting of plains, becoming more and more prevalent as one gets closer to an ocean shore, as well as all large lakes being salt as opposed to fresh water. (Among other things, we STILL would not be able to grow crops anywhere near a coastline, as the fields would still be contaminated with salt.) Since these conditions do not obtain, the evidence is thus lacking.
"2. Does the account of the tower of Babel state that all languages came into the world at the same instant?"
Before Babel: everyone spoke one language.
After Babel: everyone spoke different languages.
Yeah, that's what it says.
"(no it does not..."
Bzzt. Already refuted, see above.
"and what is your evidence for the evolution of language at all?)"
There's a whole section on this topic at any decent university library. Educate yourself.
It will only serve you if you understand it.
Oh, and at least when I come from, you don't get a degree in bio without calc. Useful, in its place.
The "calculus" is often a special course watered down specificially for the biologists, if they are required to take it at all. It's a recipe course. Plug and chug.
At least I don't sit like a biologist waiting for my excrement to evolve. Or, more commonly, publish it.
It won't have a chance until the federal courts get their noses out of this issue. States & localities are too afraid of losing in federal court and being slapped with lavish legal fees to pay out to the ACLU and/or People for the American Way. Luckily, Alito & Roberts seem to understand the actual Constitution so we may see the Republic restored someday.
Virtually?
If that's Amish humor, I need a subscription to The Amish Today!
In other words, you did not have an actual court citation, and simply decided to engage in another round of frequently-repeated erroring.
How about any Amerindian creation story? Or does the Bible get a "special pleading" pass on "eyewitness testimony?"
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.