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.
You are off to a very bad start. I am not a creationist nor is it a "creationists line of argument".
You're implying that essentially no scientific theory we hold to be true today is really true.
Nope. You are not even close. I am saying based on the evidence (you know, that scientific method and all...) knowledge is a continuum - 2000 years ago we did not know it all - 1000 years ago we did not know it all - 500 years ago we did not know it all. Based on the evidence (and trend) we do not know it all right now so assuming our current theories are facts is faulty logic (if you choose to apply the scientific method)
Nope. Not even remotely close. You sound like a person that desperately wants to live in a binary world where everything is either right or wrong - fact or fiction. It doesn't work that way. Some of what we knew 500,1000, 2000 years ago still holds true. Some does not. It is not a matter of being correct today and not correct tomorrow - man continues to learn (and always has) - we just have more knowledge now than we did back then and 500 years from now they will have a lot more knowledge than we have today.
Nope. Once again, not even close.
There you go with your binary world again (either it is A or it is B)!
Do truths exist outside of knowledge? Are there truths out there that man does not know but are still truths....likely!
Truth is a mailable commodity that is based solely on mans current level of knowledge (in the scientific realm - this is not true about philosophy). The truths don't change - our perception of the truths change.
The text of the disclaimer is essentially identical to that of a disclaimer previously proposed and nearly adopted in Oklahoma in 2001 and 2003. Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller analyzed the disclaimer proposed in Oklahoma in 2001; his analysis is available on-line at the NCSE web site. The previously proposed Oklahoma disclaimers were in turn based on the disclaimer in use in Alabama from 1996 to 2001; it was significantly modified in 2001. Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins criticized the Alabama disclaimer; his analysis is also available on-line.
Bill Graves (R-Oklahoma City), who proposed the disclaimer amendment to HB 2194, was quoted by reporter Sean Murphy in the Claremore Daily Progress as objecting to textbooks that portray evolution as a scientific fact. "I think it's very important for children to know ... 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."
HB2194 also includes language first proposed in Senate Bill 894 on February 2, which allows school districts to purchase textbooks not on the approved list of the State Textbook Committee. SB 894, if enacted, would allow only 20% of state funds given to districts to be used for alternative textbooks, but in HB 2194 the 20% restriction is not present.
But you are forced to admit science existed over 2000 years ago - all you are claiming is it is better and more refined today which is my point.
What else have they got?
Remotely close but you are being a bit too overly dramatic ("significantly different", "completelly overthrown"). Based on the evidence, man's knowledge keeps increasing and growing on and on and on and on.
Your original point was that scientific theories from 500 years ago have changed substantially. All I am saying is that those theories were not born out of the scientific method. Clear enough?
Did anybody claim the world is not fundamentally comprehensible? No.
If we can, in principle, truly understand the natural world, then new major theories that overturn the old ones should actually be closer to the real truth. And I say that is exactly how science has proceeded.
Except for your concept of “real truth” (whatever that is) that what I was saying but you were too busy building a creationist straw man that has no relevance to this debate to notice (but you did seem to enjoy yourself)
But you must deny this. All so you can hold on to a belief in creationism. Is that an acceptable tradeoff for you?
What complete crap. I am not a creationist nor do I believe in creationism (per se). Your little diatribe was standard nonsensical Evo-Reactionary gibberish – first you define your opponent based what you want to argue about even though it has nothing to do with the positions your opponent is taking and then you pat yourself on the back for being so good at defeating your opponents positions (that your opponent does not even hold).
Amazing!
My position is: Knowledge increases over time so it is highly likely we will know more in 500 years than we know now. Because of this we can not assume our current theories are facts.
I am sorry I am not the creationist you were pretending you were debating.
Not clear at all and not even close to true. Even you admitted the Greeks used the scientific method (that was over 2000 year ago). You are simply wrong. The scientific method has existed for over 2000 years. It has become refined over time but that was my point. It is highly likely 2000 years from now our scientific method will be considered highly primitive - if you want evidence look to 2000 year ago.
Clear enough?
OK try this. Name a "theory" that existed 500 years ago.
The scientific method has existed for over 2000 years.
It wasn't utilized is my point.
You know, this popular creationist line of argument has some strange implications. Let's see if you really want to go there...You are off to a very bad start. I am not a creationist nor is it a "creationists line of argument".
OK, you're not a creationist. But it most certainly is a popular creationist argument: "You eeevilutionist are all vanity! Man's theories change with the seasons. What used to be 'scientific fact' years ago is laughed at today. But the Bible is the same forever!" How many times have we seen that stellar argument thrown around here?
That line of argument tries to imply that scientific progress jerks back & forth on a whim, with no clear convergence on any kind of objective truth. (It's the same kind of vision that postmodernists have of knowledge, ironically.)
You're implying that essentially no scientific theory we hold to be true today is really true.Nope. You are not even close. I am saying based on the evidence (you know, that scientific method and all...) knowledge is a continuum - 2000 years ago we did not know it all - 1000 years ago we did not know it all - 500 years ago we did not know it all. Based on the evidence (and trend) we do not know it all right now so assuming our current theories are facts is faulty logic (if you choose to apply the scientific method)
OK, then tell me: Do you think the mainstream scientific theories of 1500 years ago were more or less true than those of 2000 years ago? Were the mainstream theories of 1000 years ago more or less true than those of 1500 years ago? Were the mainstream theories of 500 years ago more or less true than those of 1000 years ago? And are the mainstream theories of today more or less true than those of 500 years ago?
I should explain a bit more context here: The complaint that students are being taught that the ToE is a fact when it's "only" a theory has nothing to do with being a stickler for intellectual precision. And it has nothing to do with wanting to make sure the children keep an open mind. It's a rear-guard action to try to save some smidgen of scientific respectability for creationism. Nothing more than that.
The scientific theories we rely on today are actually wrong. Or maybe they're all correct today, but they won't be 500 years from now.Nope. Not even remotely close. You sound like a person that desperately wants to live in a binary world where everything is either right or wrong - fact or fiction...
I knew you'd say that! No, I don't have a strictly binary mindset. But the overall pattern of (the lack of) scientific progress that your argument relies on is fundamentally different from that of the scientist, who believes that the world isn't lying to us and when a new theory becomes mainstream it tends to be for a darn good reason.
The question is: What do we teach teenagers who are, for the first time, learning about such basic biological phenomena as blood types, the Krebs cycle, anatomy, what's inside a cell, what it looks like when you slice open a frog, etc. etc. Sure, they should know that strictly speaking all scientific knowledge is provisional, subject to being proven wrong by new evidence or a better theory. But it's also just as important to make them realize that the body of knowledge we work with contains a very secure core of knowledge and theory - that's secure in its place for a good reason.
(Off to dinner, be back later.)
RWN: Go back and read the context this was taken out of. They are refering to "origins" of species. It is a disclaimer on "Evolution" , not "Abiogenesis".
It says "life's origins" and you are claiming that it is a disclaimer for evolution. If evolution does not speak to the origin of life how can a disclaimer about evolution address the origin of life. Are you now claiming that evolution explains life's origins? Are you now implying that evolution does have "facts" to offer related to the origins of life? You are very confused.
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.