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.
That's good. Actually, I do the unthinkable and use ice with Scotch. But I don't add water.
This thread is about what should be taught in science class. If you don't like science I can't understand why you are posting here.
For political meetings (and the like), scotch on the rocks is the ideal drink. You can hold it forever and even when the ice melts, it only becomes scotch and water. That way, people don't keep filling your glass. Keeps a more nearly clear head.
Anyone? else??? Does that include Gauss? Certainly Born and Heisenberg had heard of Gauss. He'd figured out much of the ball of wax long before. And the ignorance was no excuse, solving linear systems was a basic concept in the pre-computer era. Heisey had his model, he just kept running into the fact that ab was not ba and he could not conceive of multiplication doing such a thing.
First of all, why are you interested in Noah, when you should be interested in Noah's wife?
Noah's wife would most likely not have a Y chromosome. I'm sure you knew that.
Mark is an intelligent, well read and reasoned person. He is not an evangelist in any sense of the word that I understand; he is simply concerned that evolution be expressed as truthfully as possible.
Elsie's a guy!
No doubt! ROFLMAO!
I would argue that (a) they have in some cases, whether they actually call themselves mathematicians, and (b) the Nobel people like finished work that they can understand. It'd be like awarding the house painter for the hard work done on a Frank Lloyd Wright house. Most of the decent economics prizes have gone to people who style themselves mathematicians.
It's because the collection and analysis of data is not the intellectually trivial and rote undertaking you presume it to be.
If you like the wallpaper and the lace curtains, that's very true.
Ah, I'm kidding on that one. The physicists have finally figured out that remaining ignorant of any field of mathematics is going to hurt them. You'd be surprised the concepts that they use outside of the partial differential equations that they seem so fond of.
Econ is pretty much math and psychology and the gap is getting wider every day. The biologists, though, still treat mathematics like, "OK, what's 2+3? Thanks." Two days later: "OK, what's 4+8? Thanks. No! I don't need to learn the whole theory of addition!" Two days later: "I've got one for you. 7-5? Oh really? You can do that?"
Elsie, if you weren't a troll, I would tell you!
I have no idea if Mark did consider that. I'm more interested in what you feel this extra coating would do? How would it help the ark survive the waters during the initial stages of the flood?
Practice calls, but I'll check back.
My question, though, is why every living male des not have the same Y chromosome. It's a simple question. There are no human beings not directly descended directly from Noah. There are no male survivors of the flood except Noah and his sons.
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.