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.
nor this
There is such a post, but I'll pass! You can go looking if you like, but I intentionally did not correct this poster because I know he can write better and probably did not only because he was upset by this thread. I don't see any point in complaining about grammar and spelling unless a person's posts are consistently almost unintelligible--and then they won't fix it anyway.
"The THEORY of evolution is just a very sad and feeble attempt to deny God."
Nope. All theories in science refrain from using supernatural/untestable claims. Evolution is no different than relativity in that way.
Do you think they would vote for Hillary?
Thats like asking why doesnt a dog climb like a bear....or why dosen't mice build dams like beavers do.
You are in serious need of a spell checker... and a grammar checker.
So does Utah endorse string theory or not???
It's reprehensible that they should endorse string theory when it has so few successes, especially when the quantum gravity theorists have been making so much progress.
I'm appalled! /sarcasm
At one time science (perhaps a long time ago?) defined man as the animal species that uses tools. And further defined tools as any object taken from nature and altered to suit a specific purpose. That is until it was discovered that chimpanzees take green twigs, strip the leave off, and insert them into termite mounds to catch termites as food. The comment that I recall reading was that, "we either need to redefine man, redefine tool, or accept chimpanzees as man."
Whether one agrees with ToE or not, it is nonetheless empirical and derived from observation; some may wish to challenge the interpretation of those observations, but that is another matter.
If I observe that the little button inside my refrigerator must inevitably be depressed by the action of closing the door, that is an observation that convinces me the light is switched off when the refrigerator door is shut (though that is something I cannot directly observe).
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 don't have a problem with the state not endorsing evolution. They shouldn't be in the business of promoting one scientific theory over another. It's not their business to determine what science is and people who use the government to enforce their particular viewpoints are pushing an adenda.
Since the ToE is a theory and evidence only supports is, according to scientists, there is no way to legitmately state that it is a fact. The best way to put it would be, "Current scientific evidence indicates that man may descended from apes (or a common ancestor, depending which evo you're talking to). A disclaimer that evolution is not a fact is no different that a disclaimer that any other scientific theory is not a fact.
Cats and dogs share an awful lot of characterists with each other but you couldn't call a cat a dog or vice versa. Just because there are similarities between man and humans, doesn't follow that men are apes.
It has always been taught as "The Theory of Evolution".(..and it still is just a theory).
Yesterday, in a 5th grade class, I was conducting a class on Paleontology....when one of the 5th graders asked about 'Evolution' and (of course) Dinosaurs.
I merely explained that we 'think' that this is how the whole thing happened...but we have no way of actually proving it.(5th graders are excellent in demanding proof). We have all sorts of fossils...but nothing that actually shows a transistion from this animal to that new one. We have bones that are similar in Jurrasic animals to those in Creataceous animals.But nothing that shows a exact transistion from one animal to the next.
The 5th graders 'got it'. It's a theory (a good one..but still just a theory). I also suggested that they look at all other theories...that somewhere (and maybe one of them can figure it out) is a better theory.
Perhaps... insisting that only those who follow the 'Religion of Evolution' are right and all others are stupid is not the best way to go.
Evolution is just a theory....and...somewhere in the future...it may be proven wrong...or right.
redrock
Yeah, I guess the real test of speciation between humans and chimps would be if a union between the two somehow produced fertile offspring. Such an experiment, however, is not one that ANYONE would EVER want to permit or undertake. I got the shudders even typing this post.
What a bunch of specists! :)
It's already been done.
It's how we got "Liberals".
redrock
Cats and dogs are classified as belonging to the same ORDER according to their similarities. They are classfied as belonging to different families because of their differences. We share enough in common with other ape species to be classified as apes (official family name: Hominidae). We are different enough from other ape species to be considered a species in and of ourselves. We are apes. We are not orang-utans.
http://www.geocities.com/chunniemonster/taxonomy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
No, you would call a cat a feline and a dog a canine.
Apes are tailless primate. Humans are tailless primates. Therefore humans fit into the category of apes. It's a simple matter of classification. You would rather have us make a third classification--we'll have primates with tails (monkeys), primates without tails not including Homo sapiens (apes), and primates without tails of the species Homo sapiens (humans).
Seems rather arbitrary to me.
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.