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.
Or--they're attempting to chip off a few votes from the GOP, as the religious are a reliable and helpful constituency. It wouldn't take much in a few vulnerable elections to turn one or more Houses--Senate or Reps--to the minority party.
Or--there is a libertarian/ACLU mentality which cannot bear to have the religious have any say in public life, no matter how they've earned it in grassroots mobilization and voter services.
Could be some of the above.
In this world of website proliferation, instead of trying to limit discussion on FR--why not start your own blog? Then you could keep out everybody you wanted to keep out.
Your line of argument is so postmodernist. Ignore the content of a "text" and concentrate on discrediting the motives of the authors.
I suspect you are incapable of presenting one cogent argument against evolution based on anything other than personal attack. Prove me wrong.
Just wondering.
Not too surprising when one notices that Creationism and PostModernDeconstructionism are identical in aims, tactics, and usefulness.
Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!
Spamming the thread with random bible verses is "discussion" now?
By the way, the link you provided does not support your description of it, nor does it support your conclusions. I have no idea why you would want to advertise your inability to read and understand an article.
I did point this out this to you in the previous thread, but you neglected to respond.
That's from the bad side of the family.
How many times in life has your experience been different from someone else's...even in similar situations?Given that my experience is uniquely mine (literally), my experience is different from everyone else's every single moment of my life, in every situation, without fail.
How many times has one of your experienced-based conclusions been inaccurate, falsified and/or wrong?Many times. Usually through the application of rigorous disciplines, such as the scientific method, designed to isolate subjectivity.
Given the differences in everyone's experience, and also given the fallibility of personnel experience, can one find absolute truth in experience?
Assuming that you aren't using some philosophical b.s. definition of "absolute truth" as some transcendent mumbo-jumbo, but rather as confirmable objective fact known with not unreasonable certainty; yes, you can. Through the application of disciplines such as the scientific method which are designed to isolate and eliminate the subjective.
As to the all cats lay eggs question...There is no basis of reality in the question and the Bible never contradicts truth (It is Truth).I know that there is no basis in reality for the statement, that's why I phrased it as a hypothetical. And I understand that you think the Bible never contradicts truth. (In fact, that is part of what this question explores.)
However, you surely have the power of abstract thinking, right? You can imagine what your thought processes would be if you the Bible said that "all cats lay eggs," right? Certainly you can pose that hypothetical to yourself and are self-aware enough to report back as to what the result is, aren't you?
So what would it be? Would you believe the Bible or would you believe your experience?
Why should I allow you to dictate what I will and what I will not discuss? Just because you obey your Master like a puppy, why should anyone else?
Truer words...
The incorrect wording is of no consequence. The silly game was started long befor that. You said you would post a link, and when I asked for it you insulted me. If you disagree with this description of events, post a link to the original discussion so everyone can see.
Now prove me wrong about your abilities. Post something of substance. Tell me why, if the Noak story is historically accurate, all men do not have the same Y chromosome.
You're from the neat side rather than the ice side?
Precisely.
It's a fool's argument to get into the dispute over which scripture is the scripture: no matter which you follow, you are a heretic in the eyes of everyone else. As Abraham Lincoln famously noted (memorandum of 30 September 1862),
"in great contests, each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong.
We are all somebody's blasphemers and heretics, so why worry about the charge, it's silly nonsense.
Ooops, sorry, wrong thread.
I merely point out the obvious, that your arguments are postmodernist attacks on people rather than substance.
I take no pleasure in seeing people make fools of themselves and discredit their religion. I would prefer that you participate as an adult.
You can check out my posting history with some of the early signup FReepers. I have lapses, but as a rule I stick to substance and avoid personal attacks. I can lose my patience with people who never post substance.
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.