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.
In 1863, Kit Carson estimated the number of Navajo's left in the country at around 15,000.
In the 2000 census, they've rebounded to 269,000.
HMmmm... I hadn't thought of that: good point.
Yes: not all males share the same Y chromosome.
What's that old saw about the Chinese marching ing a line?
It'd never end?
Y not?
Heeheehee
Because, according to Genesis, that was the entirety of human life. You cannot have both sides of the argument.
First of all, you weren't there. Second of all you obviously don't believe in miracles. Do you deny that Jesus was born of a virgin as that was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus walked on water? That too was a physical impossibility. Do you deny that Jesus healed a man born blind by putting spit and dirt in his eyes? That too was a physical impossiblity. Do you believe that Jesus turned water into wine? Did Jesus calm the storm by the word of his mouth?
There is no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists that any of these miracles occurred. Do you deny the resurrection? Can a man who was crucified get up from his tomb after three days and then ascend into heaven? Another physical impossibility for which we have no evidence other than the testimony of the evangelists.
From our viewpoint the flood was obviously a physical impossibility. You can't pull the oceans up from their bed and spread them over the earth, can you? That is a physical impossibility, isn't it? Yet Jesus and Peter both attested to the fact of its occurrence. So am I going to believe You or my "lying" eyes? Well, since the only physical evidence I have is the words on the page of the Bible that it either occurred or didn't occur, I suppose I'll have to believe my "lying" eyes. I wasn't there. You weren't there. Jesus was. He is my eyewitness.
Now who are you going to believe? You're lying eyes, or Jesus Christ, the Creator and sustainer of all things?
Pretty sure
But then I can't read Greek, and have to depend on those that can.
Yep. 'shrooms are good.
Speaking of mushrooms, did you ever conduct your microwave experiment?
I'm neither a physician nor a psychologist, so all I can do is guess that your condition -- whatever it may be -- is far more advanced than that of the others around here.
Elsie-thon post count....
Posts 801-850
Elsie: 25 posts
All Others: 25 posts
Wow! Show me those 70K year old trees! How exciting. And the "ancient ice" drilling research in Antarctica only goes back a few thousand years, or so I had previously thought. Have they drilled into a 70K old glacier in the arctic that I haven't heard about?
What a job--counting 70K rings on that stump.
Unless you have her on the Ones Who May Not Speak to Those Who May Not Be Spoken To List--that's not FR-cricket.
Of course, if you do have her on that list, it's sorta wussy-poofy to then go talking about her.
If you don't like my posting etiquette, take it up with the mods.
Oh, I'm not in the business of hassling mods, or even the business of threatening to hassle mods, as the Goon Meister is.
Are you an idiot, or do you just play one on television? Evolution is supported by biology, genetics, geology, physics, anatomy, paleontology, and half a score of other disciplines.
You can "believe" that all you want, but the physical evidence does not back you up.
Oh, I'm not in the business of hassling mods, or even the business of threatening to hassle mods, as the Goon Meister is.
No, you're in the business of scolding people you don't agree with and weaving nutty conspiracy theories about them.
I notice none of the mathematical geniuses on the flood team want to discuss Noah's Y chromosome.
Lyell was one of the first to urge a non-flood, long-age view of the geologic column. By contrast, Adam Sedgwick was the last of major geologists to punt on the flood interpretation. In his address as outgoing president of the Geological Society of London in 1831, he said in part:
Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.But even on this thread we see those who, confronted with a conclusion from the evidence of the world, consult scripture and ask who that evidence might be calling a liar.To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction.
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.