Posted on 03/05/2006 10:14:04 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Evolution bill stirs debate on origin of life, religion
TIM TALLEY
Associated Press
OKLAHOMA CITY - While other states are backing away from teaching alternatives to evolution, the Oklahoma House passed a bill Thursday encouraging schools to expose students to alternative views about the origin of life.
The measure, passed on a 77-10 vote, gives teachers the right to teach "the full range of scientific views on the biological or chemical origins of life." The measure stops short of requiring the teaching of "intelligent design" alongside the theory of evolution in science classes.
Its author, Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said evolution is taught in some classrooms as if it were scientific fact although the theory, developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, is neither observable, repeatable or testable and is not solid science.
"They are getting a one-sided view of evolution," said Kern, a former teacher. "Let's teach good, honest science."
Critics said the lessons would be more appropriate in religion or philosophy classes than in science class. They said the measure would take control from local school boards on developing lesson plans and violates the constitutional prohibition on government endorsement of specific religious views.
"I think we're about to open a slippery slope here," said Rep. Danny Morgan, D-Prague. In December, a federal judge blocked attempts to teach intelligent design in high school biology classes in Dover, Pa.
"We're going to be right back in the courthouse," Morgan said.
Kern said her bill does not promote a particular religious point of view but promotes critical thinking by students by exposing them to all sides of a scientific debate.
"This bill is not about a belief in God. It is not about religion. It is about science," Kern said. "I'm not asking for Sunday school to be in a science class."
Evolution teaches that all organisms are connected by genealogy and have changed through time through several processes, including natural selection.
Intelligent design teaches that life is so well-ordered that it must have been created by a higher power. Critics argue that the theory is merely repackaged creationism, which teaches that the Earth and all life were created by God.
Supporters said exposing students to different viewpoints will create lively classroom debate.
"Do you think you come from a monkeyman?" said Rep. Tad Jones, R-Claremore. "Did we come from slimy algae 4.5 billion years ago or are we a unique creation of God? I think it's going to be exciting for students to discuss these issues."
Opponents said alternative theories on the origin of life are a matter of faith, not science. "God truly is the creator of heaven and Earth, but I can't prove that," said Rep. Al Lindley, D-Oklahoma City.
The bill now goes to the state Senate, where similar legislation has been defeated in the past.
On Tuesday, lawmakers in Utah defeated a bill requiring public school students be told that evolution is not empirically proven. In Ohio, school curriculum is undergoing change following the Pennsylvania ruling that intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Kansas has adopted language to encourage students to explore arguments against evolution, but the standards have not been tied to any lesson plans or statewide testing.
"I eagerly await seeing you accept your Nobel Prize."
I'm simply reporting what other scientists are researching.
"except to say that if it had implications for common descent it would have been news"
Why? If you want to see a summary + quotes, see:
http://crevobits.blogspot.com/2006/02/monophyly-in-biology.html
The real motivation of some (including the ACLU) is not freedom but control of other people's children.
My side of the aisle doesn't have to prove anything concerning Darwin's theory. It's up to those who posit a theory to prove that the theory is true, not the reverse. If anyone has proved Darwin's theory by the universally accepted scientific method used to test all other theories except his, that proof hasn't yet been released to the general public AFAIK.
If it has been proved, that information has escaped the notice of the millions of Americans who don't yet believe it. That isn't likely, because if the theory had been proved I'm quite sure that the print media would have given it front page headlines printed in 3-inch black letters, and CNN would have spent day after day blaring out the news nonstop. Nothing could delight the secular media more than spreading doubt and dismay in the evangelical Christian community, and giving out the news of positive proof for the evolution theory would make any day their all time best day.
"So, you admit that ID=Creationism=Christian Biblical beliefs=religion."
Nope. ID is distinct from Creationism. Most (if not all) creationists are ID'ers, but not the other way around. In fact, William Dembski had an atheist running his blog for a while. There are a number of agnostics who are ID'ers. Most people who call themselves ID'ers are old-earth, and support universal common ancestry, though there are exceptions such as Wells and Nelson.
ID isn't even strictly a theory of origins. It is a theory of causation. It says that intelligent causes are distinct from, but constrained by, material causes. A good popular read on the subject is Philip Johnson's Reason in the Balance:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0830819290/
Or for technical details pretty much anything by Dembski. The seminal work for Dembski is probably The Design Inference, which doesn't even mention origins except in passing:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521678676/
Note also that the bill doesn't mention Intelligent Design or Creationism. It only talks about (a) allowing people to _believe_ whatever they want without retribution (as distinct from answering questions correctly on a test), and (b) allowing teachers to _present_ the full range of _scientific_ views.
How can EITHER of those things be bad? As Dembski once said, "Are there any **legitimate** fields of inquiry that discourage critical analysis of their subject areas? I used to think evolutionary theory was just a bad idea. It’s looking increasingly like a racket."
They aren't.
But lying about what is and is not science is. EG, by saying an untestable hypothesis like ID is a scientific theory.
If it were, then there would be some potential observation that would falsify it, like a Precambrian rabbit or an ERV found in the same position in the genome of chimps and gorillas, but not in people would falsfy ToE.
Because the posers of the hypothetical designer are not specified, there is no conceivable observation that can't be "explained" be saying "Oh, that's just the way the designer did it". In other words, ID is vacuous.
"posers" should be "powers"
That is an interesting link. Thanks.
If the Dakota Creation Myth has something substantial to offer, then it will speak up. If it doesn't, then it will be ignored. It's silence suggests there's nothing there, but I'm open-minded.
Bring forward its best argument and defend it.
At the link you provided, what do you think they mean when they say that they're not sure if forced laboratory breeding could not occur?
I think the point was that no one prevents the discussion...as evidenced by your post.
There is no problem with the histories being subject to empirical analysis.
That's been vehemently pursued with the bible, for example, for at least the last century and a half.
I might buy into that if it didn't mean that in one area that something untrue will be catalogued as untrue, but in the other area something untrue will be catalogued as "teaching a deeper truth."
That's a bit like Dan Rather's memogate byline: "Fake but Accurate."
One cannot derive truth with integrity from fictional accounts. That's why, ultimately, Christianity and evolution are incompatible. There are honest folks in both camps who recognize that.
If that is true, then why worry about anyone discussing the subject?
Why is anyone worried about such a discussion?
Free speech and all that, you know?
Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)
[end]
I haven't read the book, or the paper with the original results, so I'm not sure exactly what the "morphological" test was. I'd guess that there are two populations that breed true, and that they didn't find any hybrids.
If that's the case, it would mean they didn't raise male and female from the different populations together and see if they would breed under those conditions.
Like lions and tigers can be made to mate (I think - maybe they need artificial insemination) in a zoo, but they're not known to do so in the wild.
Anyway, that's my take on it, not sure if it's what they meant.
George Washington was not educated beyond 14 years of age.
I'm not sure that education is all its cracked up to be. After all, how desperately do we need a lot of the classes that make the curriculum?
It's odd that sexual health classes came about at the same time as a huge increase in STDs, pre-marital births, and at-whim abortions. Based on the stats, one should be permitted to sugges that the class isn't worth the expense.
Thanks for the response.
What's wrong with telling astronomy students that the sun revolves around the earth or telling geology students that the earth is only 6000 years old or telling geography students that the world is flat? All these theories have their supporters who can point to evidence drawn from the Bible. But none have hard evidence to back them up. Evolution does. ID's evidence seems to be merely pointing out how they believe evolution theory fails. But that doesn't make their theory credible by default.
Creation theory is believed by millions of intelligent, educated people around the entire globe, but that doesn't mean it should be taught in school because the preponderance of evidence points against it being true. Numbers aren't what's important, evidence is. And evidence supports evolution.
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.