"Intelligent design" legislation in New York reborn

National Center for Science Education ^ | 21 March 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

Assembly Bill 8036 is back. Originally introduced on May 3, 2005, the bill would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in both theories of intelligent design and evolution." It also charged New York's commissioner of education to assist in developing curricula and local boards of education to provide "appropriate training and curriculum materials ... to ensure that all aspects of the theories, along with any supportive data, are fully examined through such course of study."

NCSE previously reported that the bill died in committee when the New York State Assembly's legislative session ended on June 24, 2005. But apparently not: on January 4, 2006, the bill was again referred to the House Committee on Education, where, after two amendments, it remains. The main difference is that the bill now would require pupils to receive instruction in "all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man," including but not limited to "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."

[freedumb2003]

Of course not. It is a link to a list of people in the scientific community who are not on your side and took some time to let you, and those who think like you, know that you do not have "the entire scientific community" backing you up. Of course, since you think the scientific community is coterminous with people who think like you do, they are not in the scientific community insofar as your opinion is concerned. Since these people do not subscribe to your notion of reality you would just as soon discard their academic credentials altogether.

Your references are as funny as your "logic."

IOW, "I have a small list of people with initials after their name and thus I can claim that the 'entire scientific commmunity' doesn't support TToE. Of course, none of these people have published scientific alternatives in any peer-reviews journal. But I like what they say."

IOWIOW -- you have --- You.

You're funny. I appreciate the himor you provide to all these threads.

[freedumb2003]

And am I supposed to accept "the entire scientific community for 150 years" as a scientific argument?

Refute it if you can. If you want me to, I can back it up.

[freedumb2003]

*ahem*
himor=humor

[taxesareforever]

Prove it.

Don't have to. God already has. Ask Him. He has the answers.

[freedumb2003]

Don't have to. God already has. Ask Him. He has the answers.

IOW it is your belief. Well, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has an equivilant scientific basis for existance in fact.

And I would not presume to question God. That is for the arrogant.

[taxesareforever]

Easy. Because its the truth. Please demonstrate this claim.

Demonstrate evolution. And please, start with nothing.

[metmom]

What was squelched by the belief that the end was near as 2000 approached? This is another first I've heard on FR, like the *Flood carves out the Grand Canyon*. Supposedly a belief that Christianity had but I never encountered in all my years as a Christian. Christianity actually teaches that no man knows the day or hour but that we are always to be prepared. The most prevelant thinking I've run across in Christian circles is to plan as if you're going to live forever but live your life (morally) as if *it* is going to happen today. That does not leave room for fatalism.

[Coyoteman]

And am I supposed to accept "the entire scientific community for 150 years" as a scientific argument?

And you propose instead, "the entire religious community for XXX years" as a scientific argument?" (fill in your preference for the "XXX").

(We'll ignore for the moment that the world religions have trouble agreeing on anything.)

[AndrewC]

Of course, none of these people have published scientific alternatives in any peer-reviews journal.

What does that have to do with the validity of TOE? Michelson and Morley didn't have an alternate theory when they disproved the aether.

[taxesareforever]

And I would not presume to question God. That is for the arrogant.

An evolutionist questions God. I guess you could say all evolutionists are arrogant. Your words.

[AndrewC]

Do you believe in the FSM?

[freedumb2003]

An evolutionist questions God. I guess you could say all evolutionists are arrogant. Your words.

No, evolution is silent on God.

[Dimensio]

Christianity and Western Civilization cannot be understood separately in any reasonable way. Christianity, unlike other religions, advanced with the ages because part of the core of the religion is free will. It was through advancements of human freedom that Western Civilization and science thrived and expanded over the centuries, leading eventually to the moon and the bomb.

Ignoring the fact that you have not actually demonstrated your claim, I believe that you have mistaken the topic of discussion. I was referring to specific creation stories, not the Christian religion in general.

[js1138]

What phenomenon required by evolution theory has not been observed?

Do you require astronomy to start from nothing when describing the orbits of the planets?

As other recent threads have established, there is a lot of unfinished buiness in cosmology. Does this make the sun revolve around the earth?

Evolution is an unfinished science, but there is no doubt, even among most ID advocates, that common descent is a fact.

[Dimensio]

Is it the longevity of an idea that establishes its veracity?

No. It is in fact a logical fallacy to suggest that the longevity of a belief relates to its truth value. You also clearly have a fundamental lack of understanding of Intelligent Design, as your description of it does not mat the description given by any major proponent.

[freedumb2003]

Of course, none of these people have published scientific alternatives in any peer-reviews journal.

What does that have to do with the validity of TOE? Michelson and Morley didn't have an alternate theory when they disproved the aether.

You need to keep up. I stated the entire scientific community supports TToE. FC posted a site of non-peer-reviewed "skeptics" with a dozen or so names with initials as "proof" I did NOT have the "entire scientific community" behind me.

When I asked for their scientific alternative he fell silent.

You would do well to follow his example.

[Dimensio]

Demonstrate evolution. And please, start with nothing.

If you expect evolution to occur when starting with "nothing", then you clearly do not understand what evolution is. Evolution does not "start with nothing".

[AndrewC]

You would do well to follow his example

You would do well to read and understand English. It is not required to have a alternative to disbelieve something nor to disprove it.

[taxesareforever]

No, evolution is silent on God.

Veeeeeerrrry silent. No room for the Master Builder in evolution.

[taxesareforever]

Evolution does not "start with nothing".

But I thought everything started from nothing. If it didn't where did it start?