Posted on 02/28/2006 7:05:48 PM PST by PatrickHenry
A proposed constitutional amendment would require Nevada teachers to instruct students that there are many questions about evolution - a method viewed by critics as an opening to teach intelligent design.
Las Vegas masonry contractor Steve Brown filed his initiative petition with the secretary of state's office, and must collect 83,184 signatures by June 20 to get the plan on the November ballot. To amend the Nevada Constitution, he'd have to win voter approval this year and again in the 2008 elections.
Brown said Tuesday that he hopes that volunteers will help him collect the signatures, but at this point has no name-gathering organization set up. A Democrat and member of a nondenominational church, he said he hoped for broad support from people who share his views.
"I just want them to start telling the truth about evolution," Brown said. "Evolution has occurred, but parts of it are flat-out unproven theories. They're not telling students that in school."
Brown, who has three school-age children, said he's been interested in evolution for years. He added that if people take time to read his proposal "how can this not pass?"
The petition says students must be informed before the end of the 10th grade that "although most scientists agree that Darwin's theory of evolution is well supported, a small minority of scientists do not agree."
The plan says several "areas of disagreement" would have to be covered by teachers, including the view by some scientists that "it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself."
Students also would have to be told some scientists argue "that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link,'" the proposal says.
Also, the proposal says students "must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology's mysteries" and that some scientists contend that sexual reproduction "would require an unbelievable series of chance events that would have had to occur in the evolutionary theory."
Brown commented on his plan following a decision Monday by the Utah House to scuttle a bill that would have required public school students to be told that evolution isn't empirically proven.
Last month, the Ohio Board of Education deleted a science standard and lesson plan encouraging students to seek evidence for and against evolution - another setback for intelligent design advocates who maintain that life is so complex it must have been created by a higher authority.
In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. The judge said that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science.
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.
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.
|
Why not set pi at three while she's at it.
This does tend to contradict the notion that Republicans can be blamed for all of this.
As opposed to "proved theories?"
What an idiot. No theory s proved in science.
But here is the definitions list to start the ball rolling...
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 2/23/06]
I'm so glad masonry contractors in the Nevadan desert are lecturing scientists on the definition of science --- what could be better?
I'm delighted that this idiot is a democrat. Let's give that party some of the joy.
This is non-trivial.
I just love what he wants to put in the constitution:
that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link
must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology's mysteries
it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself.
IMO this kind of stuff is over-specific for a statute, and he wants to put it in the constitution!
Cpeak for the number four.
It's also not undebatable fact. Evolutionists could provide him with a dozen "missing links" (ooh, but once we find them, they're not missing! and then they have new missing links on both sides of them!), convincing explanations for the evolution of sex, and rip up his mathematical proof.
I bet he does not even know that sex is not always simply XY = male, XX = female.
Yes, it's crazy, but it's not all that difficult to get the signatures needed to put it on the ballot. That's when the fun begins. We'll have no shortage of thread material.
"I just want them to start telling the truth about evolution," Brown said.
Then let the scientists, who know the most about it, write the book on it and not creationists who have a vested interest in misrepresenting it.
I fail to see how children are going to learn the truth about evolution from people who, in many cases, actively refuse to even learn the subject for themselves.
From Here
LaRouche feels that there are only two types of ways of viewing human beings. Either one holds the (Renaissance) belief that one is a divinely created soul, with the divine gift of reason, or the (Enlightenment) belief that one is only a beast who must be controlled and manipulated by the oligarchs.
There is no compromise possible. The oligarchs promote the belief that creativity is the product of sexual sublimation or perversion or getting in touch with the Dionysian/irrational unconscious through their puppets like Freud and Jung, says LaRouche, so that people will not learn from Schiller and others that creativity comes from divine reason and proportion.
Science should be guided by Platonic ideals, feels LaRouche, but it has become the tool of Aristotelian sophistry which tries to convince us (through evolution, etc.) that man is really nothing special.
The oligarchs understand the psychology of the mob, and Pavlovs' dogs, and know the fascistic means to get us to do what they want.
Hitler was just an experiment for the Anglo-American cabal...
[end excerpt; emphasis added]
The D*m*cr*t party is a surprisingly big tent.
You can pass all the laws in the world, but the Universe ain't gonna obey.
I saw a petition last month (I live in Nevada) that asks the state to invest money in biomass energy-generation technologies. OK, you can argue the wisdom of throwing money at that, but the petition also wants the state to recognize that 'hemp' has the highest concentration of "biomass" out of all the biomasses on earth.
</sigh>
FRE-CRE ping
I'm just looking forward to the entertainment value of watching Christian Fundamentalists wrestle with the dilemma of wanting to flock to the state that contains Sin City.
Bush 418,690 51%
Kerry 397,190 48%
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.