"Intelligent design" legislation in New York dies

National Center for Science Education ^ | 26 June 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

When the New York State Assembly's legislative session ended on June 23, 2006, Assembly Bill 8036 died in committee. If enacted, the bill would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man." A later provision specified that such instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."

The bill was never expected to succeed; its sponsor, Assemblyman Daniel L. Hooker (R-District 127), was reported as explaining that his intention was more to spark discussion than to pass the bill, and as acknowledging that the bill was "religion-based." Moreover, Hooker is not planning on seeking a third term in the Assembly due to his military commitments: he is expected to be on active duty with the Marine Corps until at least early 2007.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Yes, I agree: you posted a response to #210, which was not addressed to you.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I'm not really in this particular debate, but I am curious: what is wrong with investigating the origin of life?

Nothing.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

And nothing on that list shows anybody using the ToE to investigate the origins of life.

"I'm going to recreate, for the few people who might be undecided on this issue, or at least open to the facts, the links and info written by evolutionists and published by evolutionists on how they explain the "origin of life"."

Did they put *evolutionist* near their titles?

[js1138]

In the cases of the discovery Institute, Behe and Dembski, the motivation is neither unknown nor disguised.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Yes, I agree: you posted a response to #210, which was not addressed to you."

Now you are just being deliberately deceitful as I showed damn well that I was talking about post 111 being posted to me.

With that further example of your lying, I'll let you troll someone else.

Your *recovery* is obviously in bad shape. Now go away, liar.

[js1138]

Nothing.

Would you be willing to admit that chemistry, physics and astronomy are different disciplines?

[Fester Chugabrew]

So name a few ID proponents that are not religiously motivated.

What do religious motivations have to do with the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions? Does one have to have a religious motivation to infer such things might be a product of intelligent design? Do religious motivations somehow change the facts?

What you are doing is mistaking a concurrence of ideas, namely organized matter, intelligent design, and religion, for motivations that have no bearing on the facts at large. It would be a mistake to attirubute the positions of evolutionists to communist motives even though the ideas may be amenable to one another; even though indeed there may be precide communist motives behind the explanation. What is also common in these debates is a conflation of facts vs. interpretation of the facts.

I have yet to know a scientist that does not operate with some kind of motive derived from his/her world view. They may deny it, but as with religion, denial does not change the facts.

[js1138]

Since the signature piece of Design is the bacterial flagellum, and its function can best be described as Satanic, I would have to guess they are promoting Satanism.

[js1138]

If, as Behe said under oath, the Designer of the flagellum is God, and if the flagellum is the centerpiece of the Designer's work, then Behe is worshipping a being whose most characteristic work is a device for killing infants and children. Behe's God is Satan.

[DennisR]

"Intelligent design" legislation in New York dies

Not surprising - their two senators are Schumer and Clinton.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It seems to a be a blue state phenomenon.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Can't handle the facts, eh? That doesn't change them.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Sure. My point regarding how evolutionists attempt to explain the origin of life is pretty clear in my posts, I think.

Whether they take that tact in another discipline doesn't reduce my argument, except in the minds of some rather silly people who won't admit when they're wrong.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I refer everyone to either posts 111 or 220, where I provide ample evidence of evolutionists attempting to explain the origins of life...
something Carolina says evolution doesn't do.

[ml1954]

I refer everyone to either posts 111 or 220, where I provide ample evidence of evolutionists attempting to explain the origins of life... something Carolina says evolution doesn't do.

Obvious non-sequitur, logical fallacy, etc. In fact, that's childish association and just plain stupid.

"Ohhh, those people who think A are investigating B. That must mean that A implies B."

[js1138]

I provide ample evidence of evolutionists attempting to explain the origins of life... something Carolina says evolution doesn't do.

Jim Jones is an example of a Christian doing something that Christianity "doesn't do."

[Recovering_Democrat]

You can think that if you like; I believe people with an open mind will read all of those articles by evolutionists and come out with a different conclusion. :)