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.

[js1138]

Ok, let me be the first on the thread to say you are posting falsehoods. There categorically are not lots of competent biologists who doubt common descent, even among ID advocates like Behe, and Denton.

[Coyoteman]

"They are getting a one-sided view of evolution," said Kern, a former teacher. "Let's teach good, honest science," she said, reaching for her bible.

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.

If the bible is brought into the classroom, this exposes it to critical examination by students and teachers alike. Does anybody really want to try to support, for example, the idea of a global flood in a science classroom?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Any number of competent scientists have squarely stated that no amount of microevolution could bridge the gap to macroevolution.

FWIW... we just recently passed 500 signatory Doctoral-degreed scientists on "the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list" alone, including Giuseppe Sermonti -- the Editor of Rivista di Biologia, the oldest still-published biology journal in the world.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
(signers....)

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

Sad that it requires an Act of the Oklahoma State Legislature just to permit the educational discussion of alternatives to Evolution.

Evolutionism is Scientific Stalinism.

Nonetheless... the truth is gaining ground.

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

If the bible is brought into the classroom, this exposes it to critical examination by students and teachers alike. Does anybody really want to try to support, for example, the idea of a global flood in a science classroom?

Sure.

Completely privatize all Publik Skooling; completely return the $7,000 per-year, per-student we spend on the Publik Skools to the full discretion of the Parents -- and then let the Pro-Life, Big-Family, Home- and Church-Schoolers compete in an unencumbered Free Market against the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Evolutionist crowd.

And may Survival go to the Demographic Fittest.

Boo-yah.

---

Oh, wait, you'll never stand for that. That's right -- you Evolutionists SUPPORT Big Government -- as long as it advances your agenda, using Other People's Money.

[zeeba neighba]

The bible has stood the test of time for over 2000 years and is still the number one publication in the world. Dont think a few teachers or their students are going to discredit it. Unlike evolution, the bible has nothing to be afraid of.

[Coyoteman]

the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Evolutionist crowd.

Nice name calling, but it does not address a single point raised in my post.

[From many - one.]

No, no, no.

Those are not falsehoods, they are Frequently Repeated Errors by a poster who suffers from Citation Deficit Disorder.

Get with the program.

[js1138]

Let's ask how many of those 500 do not accept common descent. Quibbling about details is not denying evolution.

[js1138]

If the bible is brought into the classroom, this exposes it to critical examination by students and teachers alike. Does anybody really want to try to support, for example, the idea of a global flood in a science classroom?

I have wondered for some time why some people want religion subjected to the sieve of empiricism. It doesn't seem appropriate to me, but if they insist, we can have kids research genetic markers to see if humans have a common ancestor in the last 6000 years.

[Luis Gonzalez]

So, the belief is that promoting a discussion in public schools on the "full range" of "scientific" views on creation and the origins of life will be limited to Biblical creation?

If the "full range" is mandated, and Biblical creationism becomes part of that "full range", so will every other religious creationism belief...after all, the government is prohibited from giving weight to one religion over others by the First Amendment.

This fight will move from Court to Court, as every religion demands equal time in the science classroom.

Here's a preview of what this fight will bring to the classrooms:

Babylonian Creation Myth y African Creation Myth - Olori Comparison of 4 African Creation Myths Korean & Japanese Creation Myth comparisons Navajo Creation Myth Norse Creation Myth Creation Myth from India Japanese Creation Myth Comanche Creation Myth Chinese Creation Myth Chelan Creation Myth Pima Creation Myth Mayan Creation Myth Miwok Creation Myth Scandinavian (Norse) Creation Myths Salish Creation Myth Australian Aboriginal Creation Myth Hopi Creation Myth Tahitian Creation Myth Yokut Creation Myth Comanche Creation Myth

Egyptian Creation Myths African - Mande, Yoruba Creation Myths Several different short Creation Stories Micmac Creation Myth Lakota Creation Myth Several Creation Stories: India, Romania, Mongol, etc.. Chinese Creation / Flood Myth Assyrian / Babylonian Creation Myth Maori Creation Myth Christian & Jewish Creation Myth (Genesis) Aztec Creation Myth Digueno Creation Myth Apache Creation Myth African Creation Myths Dakota Creation Myth Hungarian Creation Myth Iroquois Creation Myth Inuit Creation Myth Huron Creation Myth Hawaiian Creation Myth

I will admit that I look forward to seeing the baffled expressions on the IDers faces when they face what they themselves forced on their children.

[epow]

God bless OK's legislature.

But of course if this legislation forces OK's public schools to allow an alternative to the Darwin theory into the classrooms, the courts will strike it down before a single child can be told that the theory of evolution is only a theory and not a scientifically provable fact. If the Darwinists are so certain of their theory, why is it that they fight so fiercely to keep even the slightest mention of an alternative theory from being presented to America's school kids?

I was taught in public grade school 60 years ago that Columbus was the first European to reach America, but many people believed that Norsemen from Iceland reached it before he did. If a teacher had wanted to offer both theories of America's discovery as theories and not provable fact I'm quite certain that the courts would not have interfered, nor would they today. Why then should an unproven theory about the origin of life be granted immunity from challenge from an alternative unproven theory, while an unproven theory about the discovery of America would not be immune to a similar challenge? Could it be that Darwinists are afraid that their beloved theory may not be fully accepted as incontrovertible fact by the next generation, and therefore a belief in a Creator God will continue to influence the beliefs and morals of society in a way that is repugnant to their atheistic or agnostic beliefs?

As long as atheists and agnostics can convince themselves and their contemporaries that there is no real, living, personal, divine Creator who has established moral laws and precepts for his creation to live by, they can act on their immoral sexual impulses without guilt or fear of punishment. I'm not saying that all or even most Darwinists are of that mind, but I believe it was the famous Darwinist Aldous Huxley who publicly acknowledged that very thing as being one important reason for his own belief in evolution.

[Virginia-American]

[fruit fly breeding]

According to Darwin's theory they should have seen wasps and butterflies and grasshoppers.

I don't believe this is true. Please provide a citation.

All I would have expected is varieties of fruit fly that don't interbreed (aka new species), which in fact has been found. See, eg Example 1

[Coyoteman]

If the bible is brought into the classroom, this exposes it to critical examination by students and teachers alike. Does anybody really want to try to support, for example, the idea of a global flood in a science classroom?

I have wondered for some time why some people want religion subjected to the sieve of empiricism. It doesn't seem appropriate to me, but if they insist, we can have kids research genetic markers to see if humans have a common ancestor in the last 6000 years.

I am working on an excavation report for a site that spans the time period 3300-7150 years BP (before present). There are 16 radiocarbon dates within this span, with 9 more on the way. The sediments show no evidence of a flood, nor is there any apparent major break in the habitation.

I have posted this kind of information before, and the responses from those who choose to support a global flood scientifically are pathetic; you have never seen science bent and twisted so badly in an vain effort to fit the data to a preconceived conclusion.

[theBuckwheat]

>>I'll ask you the same question. How are you preparing your children for advances in science? <<

Good question. My daughter was homeschooled. We taught intelligent design but also covered evolution because, at least for the time being, it is the basis for many of the life sciences, if not the world view of many people she would meet in life.

[js1138]

...but I believe it was the famous Darwinist Aldous Huxley who publicly acknowledged that very thing as being one important reason for his own belief in evolution.

You should be more careful about where you get your information. The Huxley quote is from a long essay in which he repudiates that line of reasoning.

Not that truth matters to quote miners.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Completely privatize all Publik Skooling; completely return the $7,000 per-year, per-student we spend on the Publik Skools to the full discretion of the Parents -- and then let the Pro-Life, Big-Family, Home- and Church-Schoolers compete in an unencumbered Free Market against the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Evolutionist crowd.

Addendum: $11,000 per-year, per-student in sunny California.

And we all no wat grate skooling the West Cost bureaucracy provides.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I was taught in public grade school 60 years ago that Columbus was the first European to reach America, but many people believed that Norsemen from Iceland reached it before he did. If a teacher had wanted to offer both theories of America's discovery as theories and not provable fact..."

There is no "theory" regarding the discovery of America, there is the fact of European and even African presence in this Continent before Columbus.

The proof to pre-Columbian explorations not being discovered until much later.

We can discuss the fact of pre-Columbian discovery based on actual findings that point to not only Vikings having explored this continent long before the accepted Euopean discovery, but even Africans and Romans having sailed across the Atlantic long before Columbus.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I have posted this kind of information before, and the responses from those who choose to support a global flood scientifically are pathetic."

I guess "global" was limited to the view of whoever was describing it at the time.