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.
They have no control mechanisms, no double-blinds, no reproducibility. They serve no practical purpose except entertainment. What they also serve on your evo threads is a simple anti-religious agenda for the OC-pathology set.
Whenever a real threat to free enquiry and science comes along, the evos show little interest.
The implications of this comment just struck me. Young Earth Creationism is based on the geneological dating of the bible, which puts the age of the earth at 6,000 years. Why are the generations of the bible good enough to accurately date the age of the entire universe, but not good enough to count the 180 years from the alleged flood to the alleged Tower of Babel?
We have theories based on a CONVERGENCE of evidence from DOZENS of disciplines. You may not accept that, but it's true, no matter how you rail against it.
They have no control mechanisms, no double-blinds, no reproducibility.
Bull puckey. You obviously didn't understand when I pointed out that ice cores, varves and tree rings are used to calibrate other dating methods (and those calibrated dating methods are used to calibrate even deeper dating methods). Like I said, you can rail against reality, but it doesn't make you even remotely right.
So, next you'll start in on your conspiracy theories...
This is a complete misrepresentation of the breakthrough. The breakthrough was showing that incompatible observables in the real, physical world can be represented by non-Abelian operators. This is by no means a meager accomplishment.
Similarly, the Riemannian geometry used in general relativity was already invented before Einstein came along; his genius was relating real physical parameters to the affine parameters used in the equations.
A.D., if discerning working theories from physical data is so trivial compared to the mathematical manipulation used therein, why haven't mathematicians jumped into the game and snatched up every Nobel Prize in physics, chemistry and medicine awarded over the last 100 years?
It's because the collection and analysis of data is not the intellectually trivial and rote undertaking you presume it to be.
What gets me is there isn't much to admire in these stories.
Apparently:
"Two projects conducted from 1989 to 1993 collected parallel ice cores just 30 kilometers apart from the central part of the Greenland ice sheet. Each core is more than 3 kilometers deep and extends back 110,000 years."
( Earth in Space, Vol. 9, No. 2, October 1996, pp. 12-13. © 1996 American Geophysical Union.)
Because they're too busy reassuring themselves of their rightful place at the center of the universe, obviously.
Did they look on the expiration date to come up with that number?
No. They counted the annual layers. But you knew that.
You say you want an evolution, well you know, we all want to change the world Imagine there's no evolution, It's easy if you try
FINALLY you recognize my greatness!
(Do the chickens have large talons?)
(BeholdAPaleHorse aims at the radio, fires; radio dies in a fit of sparks.)
"Always hated John Lennon."
There are some that DEMAND not to be pinged.
But they never said not to talk ABOUT them!
A really TRUE Evolutionist would be able to look at the data and make their OWN decision!
Y not?
Indeed!
Nope. They have to pay full price.
Tell that joke once, you're a wit.
Tell it twice, you're a half-wit.
Nope. A writer claimed they both attested to it. There is a difference, though you refuse to see it.
I'm going to believe the evidence. Period.
You, you're not! You, also, are believeing "writers who says it's true".
At least I can double check the findings of biologists. We don't even have that option with the Bible.
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.