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.
Why is ID the only alternative to be taught in your opinion? There are hundreds of theories on how mankind began, including the Black Muslim teachings that the white race was created by black scientists in a test tube 10,000 years ago. Why shouldn't that theory get equal treatment with Evolution and ID?
What is wrong with telling students this?
What is wrong with telling students this?
Not all explanations are equal, and, as far as evolution is concerned, there is only one scientific theory.
The rest is belief; see definitions:
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 don't think Ben Franklin set himself up as the cause of lightning. To this day science has difficulty predicting where/when lightning will strike, and why it strikes where it does. Maybe God had it strike in just the right way for Ben Franklin so that we could enjoy the benefits of electricity. "Fill the earth and subdue it," are God's words. You err if you think creationists are bound to be Luddites.
There is no reason biogenesis cannot, or could not take place scientifically. In fact, there is little question it took place, so it had to be a scientific process. Naturalistic? What does that mean, and how is science qualified to judge one way or the other what is or is not "natural" without indulging philosophy or theology?
The idea that simply mentioning that there is a controversy is so threatening to you is very revealing about your faith in science.
If you want to do science, bring evidence--data and well-supported theory, or at least a hypothesis that can be tested. Don't try to sneak in the back door by sniveling "teach the controversy" as within evolution this is not a controversy; it is only a controversy between folks with a particular religious belief and science (they don't like the answers science comes up with).
Theory does not mean "my idea is as good as your idea." In science, words have meaning. Try the list of definitions again.
Are there other controversies that you are afraid to mention to children or is this the only one?
The global flood never happened. There is no scientific evidence for it. Lets teach that controversy.
(Or we could all leave well enough alone.)
Why are you afraid to tell children that not all adults agree on something if the facts speak for themselves?
Teachers waste all sorts of time in classes. Surely the three seconds it takes to tell children that adults argue over a subject is hardly misleading because it is in fact true. Adults are arguing. You in fact spend a significant amount of time on this argument. Do you deny that its not taking place when you devote so much time to it?
There are many controversies we tell children about. Merely explaining that a controversy exists isn't the same as saying that a controversy is valid.
Oh please, you know full well what naturalistic means. There is nothing philosophical or theological about it.
So then, when does an object or phenomenon satisfy the requirement of being "natural?" Is it when it can be comprehended by human reason? What is the scientific definition of "natural?"
No reason that I know of except the restraints imposed by limited classroom time, and with a little ingenuity I'm sure that could be solved.
But you miss the point of my rhetorical question. I didn't ask about equal treatment for ID, 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. :)
Compulsory education doesn't have to be conducted in government run schools, parents are now compelled to either use government run schools, privately operated schools, or home schooling to educate their children. If government run schools were eliminated private schools or home schooling would still be compulsory.
What alternate to evolution is there other than evolution that can be discussed in a scientific setting?
ID is not a theory, ID is the belief in Biblical Creation.
That's called theology, and it belongs in a different classroom.
Are you willing to tell me that you believe Biblical Creation to be a theory?
I will give an example. Newton's theory of gravity says that there is a force acting instantaneously between two different masses that is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Newton's laws of mechanics say that the acceleration of an object is proportional to the force acting on it. From these two sets of principles it is possible to prove that a small body moving in the gravitational influence of a much larger one will follow an elliptical or hyperbolic path, the shape determined by its velocity. This is a naturalistic explanation of, for example, the motions of planets in the solar system.
I have explained this to you before and I won't do so again.
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.