Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill requiring evolution disclaimer clears House
Claremore Progress ^ | 2/27/04 | Sean Murphy

Posted on 02/27/2004 12:04:20 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo

OKLAHOMA CITY (CNHI) — The Oklahoma House passed a bill Monday that would require public school textbooks that discuss evolution to include a disclaimer stating that it is a controversial theory and not fact.

Rep. Bill Graves successfully included the language in House Bill 2194, a measure that originally changed the format for Braille versions of instructional materials.

“I think so many of the textbooks make it appear that evolution is a scientific fact and it’s not,” said Graves, R-Oklahoma City. “Even the U.S. Supreme Court says it’s a theory, so I was just trying to make that clear.

“I think it’s very important for children to know,” Graves said. “If they just believe that they came from some slime in a swamp that’s a whole lot different from being created in the image of God.”

According to the bill, any state school district textbook that discusses evolution would have to include a disclaimer that states, in part, “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”

The disclaimer goes on to state, “Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday you may contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on earth.”

The bill passed on a 96-0 vote and now heads to the Senate.

Officials with the State Department of Education did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Sean Murphy is the Capitol Bureau reporter in Oklahoma for Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc. He can be reached at smurphy@cnhi.com.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: creation; crevolist; education; evolution; god; scienceeducation; textbooks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 301-310 next last
To: JohnnyZ
I'm just responding to your statement about teaching theories. You must understand that in this thread that comes off a defense of teaching creationism. I apologize if I read too much into your statement, but given the context I believe such a mistake is excusable. Mea culpa.
101 posted on 02/27/2004 2:40:24 PM PST by jayef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
The fact that animals change over time is no more disputable than the fact that the sun sits (approximately) at the center of the solar system.

You have redefined the issue to support your contention.

Originally you put up the entire theory of evolution against the heliocentric nature of the solar system -- or so I interpreted your post, and perhaps I was mistaken in your intent -- and now you're talking about "animals changing over time" and the entire scope of planetary motion.

How does that occur? There are several good ideas, but that's a far from settled point.

Precisely, teach the theory, the good ideas, and make it clear what is solid and what is speculative.

102 posted on 02/27/2004 2:47:04 PM PST by JohnnyZ (People don't just bump into each other and have sex. This isn't Cinemax! -- Jerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
The main controversy in the teaching of science, to me, is when it takes an atheistic, rather than an agnostic-ish, position.

What exactly is the difference?

The difference is between science saying or implying "[science proves] God doesn't exist" and saying or implying "God may or may not exist, we aren't going there".

103 posted on 02/27/2004 2:50:10 PM PST by JohnnyZ (People don't just bump into each other and have sex. This isn't Cinemax! -- Jerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
As one example of a gap in the heliocentric model, I give you the long-term stability of planetary orbits.

How is that any more a gap in the heliocentric model than in the geocentric?

For that matter, why is that even a gap at all? What would cause the orbits to be unstable?

104 posted on 02/27/2004 2:50:16 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: cantfindagoodscreenname
Sure evolution is a theory. So's the atomic theory of matter. So's the theory of universal gravitation. You want a disclaimer on those?
105 posted on 02/27/2004 2:53:51 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
The difference is between science saying or implying "[science proves] God doesn't exist"..

I agree with what you wrote but have you ever heard of a teacher saying such a thing to a class? Is this really an issue? Is it necessary for the OK house to pass a bill preventing teachers from getting on all fours and barking like a dog also?

106 posted on 02/27/2004 2:56:00 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: jayef
I'm just responding to your statement about teaching theories. You must understand that in this thread that comes off a defense of teaching creationism.

Ah, I said "Teach the theories" and some say "the theories" to mean creationism and evolution.

No, I was defending as not entirely illogical the placement of a disclaimer in textbooks by the legislature regarding the treatment of scientific theory, though not the idea of limiting it to evolution or even using a disclaimer as the means.

107 posted on 02/27/2004 2:56:08 PM PST by JohnnyZ (People don't just bump into each other and have sex. This isn't Cinemax! -- Jerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
and some say "the theories" to mean creationism

My only worry is there won't be enough time for real biology while the class learns about 100,000 creation myths.

108 posted on 02/27/2004 3:01:07 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
I agree with what you wrote but have you ever heard of a teacher saying such a thing to a class? Is this really an issue?

Yes, I think it is an issue in many classrooms, at least in public schools. The liberal worldview that invades many schools includes an anti-religious bias. The question of evolution and what that means in relation to religious belief comes up when this topic is covered, I expect, and my teachers treated it fairly; I suspect some others would not.

What the legislature, or school board, should do about it is difficult to say. Keeping a close eye on the curricula, I suppose, take a good look at the textbooks (probably comes up more in history and whatnot than science) and be responsive to student and parental complaints.

109 posted on 02/27/2004 3:07:41 PM PST by JohnnyZ (People don't just bump into each other and have sex. This isn't Cinemax! -- Jerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: jayef
I'm fine with the statement that evolution is a theory. I am not fine with telling students that the creation story in The Bible is an equally valid theory. Teach creationism at your church, not at my kid's school.

I agree with you. In a biology class, evolution is pretty much fact. When studying cosmology (the study of the origin of the universe including life), evolution is theory (in that the theory of evolution does not even try to address the origin of life). In the realm of philosophy, evolution and creationism have equal footing. The article says nothing about teaching creationism is the school. I just think it is pretty funny watching Evo-Reactionaries overreact.

Pointing out that evolution as an explanation for the origin of life is merely a theory encourages students to THINK IT OUT rather than spoon feeding them theories as fact basically telling them to not bother thinking about it since it has already been figured out.

I will say some are using measures like this to push for the teaching of creationism in biology class - I am against that. But pointing out that evolution is a theory and not fact is the truth and nobody should fear the teaching of truth to children.

110 posted on 02/27/2004 3:09:35 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
I don't know about getting into college, but they can forget about a career in science.

So you are claiming a student that understands evolution is a theory and not proven fact makes them unable to have career in science. This is REALLY funny stuff.

This textbook disclaimer nonsense if taken seriously automatically puts OK kids at a disadvantage.

The disclaimer states the truth. Why do you fear the truth?

111 posted on 02/27/2004 3:12:18 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Amazing how ignorant Oklahomans are unaimous in their ignorance---not unlike those creationists here at FR.

It's amazing how ignorant the lost are...pray for the Truth.

112 posted on 02/27/2004 3:17:16 PM PST by Krodg ("My faith frees me"...G.W. Bush........'A Charge To Keep')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Sure evolution is a theory. So's the atomic theory of matter. So's the theory of universal gravitation. You want a disclaimer on those?

IF necessary, yes. Pretending theories are facts limits ones ability to question and learn. If we used Right Wing Professor's logic hundreds of years ago we would assume the earth is flat is a fact and not bother thinking about it again.

113 posted on 02/27/2004 3:17:20 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
So you are claiming a student that understands evolution is a theory and not proven fact makes them unable to have career in science.

In my opinion, any college level student who does not accept that the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation which is supported by the tremendous amount of objective evidence should not pursue a major in the sciences.

114 posted on 02/27/2004 3:18:33 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
In my opinion, any college level student who does not accept that the theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation which is supported by the tremendous amount of objective evidence should not pursue a major in the sciences.

This is pretty funny.

The disclaimer only states that evolution is a theory not proved fact.

You are strongly against the disclaimer.

Above you state evolution is a theory.

You statements are not consistent.

As for your claim "the only explanation..." that is merely your personal opinion. Science should never deal in the realm of opinion. The Earth being flat used to be the only scientific explanation which was supported by the tremendous amount of objective evidence...see where that got us in the continuum of learning.

Since evolution finds its starting point at "hell if I know" or "a miracle happened" - I don't think it is time to turn off thinking and assume we have it all figured out.

115 posted on 02/27/2004 3:28:31 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Krodg
It's amazing how ignorant the lost are...pray for the Truth.

ever tried praying for snow in june? you'll get the same results: nothing.

116 posted on 02/27/2004 3:30:04 PM PST by gawd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: gawd
ever tried praying for snow in june? you'll get the same results: nothing.

I have a friend who lives in Colorado. Last year it snowed in June. Guess your theory is faulty.

117 posted on 02/27/2004 3:32:10 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
>> And 47.3% of all so-called "statistics" are also made up on the spot. ;^)

LOL. According to recent government figures, 40% (forty percent) of all statistics are totally worthless.
118 posted on 02/27/2004 3:32:40 PM PST by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke
Ghyphend
119 posted on 02/27/2004 3:37:47 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
The disclaimer only states that evolution is a theory not proved fact.

Evolutionary theory is no more deserving of a disclaimer that any other subject taught in school. Why aren't folks clamoring for a disclaimer on atomic theory? Or Newtonian Physics?

As for your claim "the only explanation..." that is merely your personal opinion.

Kindly direct me to another scientific explanation.

120 posted on 02/27/2004 3:39:38 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 301-310 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson