Evolution Bill Stirs Debate (Oklahoma House votes 77-10 to permit alternative views)

Associated Press ^ | March 2, 2006 | Tim Talley

[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.

[bvw]

Ah, the magic shield of peer review! Was Darwin's "Origin of the Species" peer reviewed before publication?

[bvw]

Yes, it didn't act at all like Richard Dawkin's magic little basic progam that drew line-segment pictures of fruit-fly looking things. I wonder why? /not.

[phantomworker]

I only questioned why it can't be be admitted in government school classrooms that ID is believed to be true by millions of intelligent, educated people around the entire globe.

Because first of all, you would have to define intelligent and educated.

And then you'd have to prove it. :)

Then you'd have to prove it refers to the post above it. Prove that the so-called millions you are referring to are intelligent educated people. Seems like creos in general like to take things out of context.

[pop-gun]

Somebody would be doing the English speaking world a favor to devise a phonetic alphabet for English like St. Cyril did for Slavic languages. As of right now, we don't have one.

In the early '70.s, the ivory tower academic morons who direct public school trends thrust phonetic spelling into public schools with disasterous results. Children couldn't differentiate between word meanings such as between to..too..and two. The experiment was dropped.

Open classrooms where children sat in circles similarly was discontinued as classroom disciple "nosed over." New math" followed. The curriculum of the past was discarded in spite of its proven success. This was all directed by the likes of the NEA.

The education of "teachers" also began to fall along with that of their unfortunate students.

It is too late to save America's public schools...once the envy of the world. Parental sacrifice for private and church schools as well as home schooling is the answer for those who want to educate their kids.

[js1138]

I don't see anything new or startling in the summary. I will pay attention to developments, however.

[js1138]

Ah, the magic shield of peer review! Was Darwin's "Origin of the Species" peer reviewed before publication?

Yes. Not in the formal sense of current publications, but you can read all of Darwin's correspondence online. Everyone in the scientific community knew his arguments and his reasoning befor publication of "Origins".

[onja]

Common descent does't prove macroevolution. It proves specition which we (or most of us) believe in. We say the first dog was created and through the genetic variation in it changed. But they can still all bree and there is no proof that this causes macro.

[RockinRight]

I have come up with a theory, supported by much evidence:

Conservatives evolve. Liberals devolve.

Debate solved.

;-)

[js1138]

Nothing will ever "prove" common descent. It's a fact of history. We can only look at ongoing processes and see if they are adequate to explain the common descent scenario.

Every bit of evidence collected in the last 150 years is consistent with common descent. The major ID advocates have conceded the point.

There will be surprises in the details of natural selection. There are always surprises in science. I rather doubt that they will overturn the mainstream consensus.

[johnnyb_61820]

"But lying about what is and is not science is."

There is no lying except on the Darwinian side.

"by saying an untestable hypothesis like ID is a scientific theory."

First of all, you are mistaken that Popperism is the only model of scientific inquiry. That is a patently false statement. Meyer has written extensively on the demarcation arguments, and there isn't one that excludes ID and not evolution.

However, given that, there are many hypotheses under the ID umbrella that are falsifiable. Irreducible Complexity certainly is, and Behe has given examples time and time again. Likewise, the hypotheses set forth in The Privileged Planet are likewise testable.

Note that finding a rabbit in the Cambrian won't falsify evolution. Similar things have already happened. A mammal was found about 100 million years before it was supposed to be there. Vertebrates were also pushed back by an extraordinary amount by finds in China. Yet ToE remains undisturbed.

I'm pretty sure the ERV one has already been falsified, but I will look into it.

So, you can only exclude ID by (a) pretending that there is only one definition of science, which is false, and (b) pretending that no ID hypotheses are testable, which is likewise false.

[johnnyb_61820]

"I don't see anything new or startling in the summary."

I didn't say it was new or startling. In fact, it is quite the opposite. All these things have been known and under debate for quite some time. The dogmatic Darwinists, however, want to pretend that there is no debate, and these are all settled questions. In fact they aren't, and there are legitimate doubts that the Darwinists are trying to bury for political purposes.

[johnnyb_61820]

"the preponderance of evidence points against it being true."

and who is the official judge deciding what the preponderance of evidence points to? Given that most people here seem unaware that Creationists and ID'ers even have research programs, I don't think they are in a position to judge how well those research programs have done.

[johnnyb_61820]

"telling geology students that the earth is only 6000 years old"

There are many publishing geologists who believe this. One of them even got on the cover of the secular journal Geology. Others presented their research on accelerated nuclear decay at the American Geophysical Union.

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

It's a phenomenon called puberty.

[Right Wing Professor]

Others presented their research on accelerated nuclear decay at the American Geophysical Union.

A crank from Canada in the 1980s had a whole series of abstracts at American Physical Society meetings on his numerological proof that he is the second coming of Jesus Christ. Presenting something at a meeting means very little; it confers neither endorsement nor legitimacy. Were you unaware of that, or is this just another error posted with little attention paid to the truth?

[Right Wing Professor]

George Washington was not educated beyond 14 years of age.

He hadn't the first clue on how to use a computer either. Guess that means we don't need them.

[xzins]

Puberty has been around far longer than have sex-ed classes. Those yearnings were controlled in the fifties and early sixties, but they burst out of bounds afterwards.

One could conclude from increased problems since the 70s that the sex-ed classes weren't very helpful. One could also conclude that however it was managed prior to that had been more effective.

[xzins]

I don't need a school to teach me how to use a computer. George Washington was nicely educated and much of it was not in an institutional education setting.

Public schools might not be the best way to educate kids.

In any case, there should be a free and open debate about expenditure of education tax dollars, and alternative education should have a seat at the table.