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.
For a theory to be valid, it doesn't need to provide an answer to every possible question that might come up. It only has to be able to withstand observations that might conflict with it.
Correct.
It is known that there are different fossils found in different strata.
It is known that living organisms can be arranged in a tree fracture based on anatomy.
It is known that DNA and protein sequencing arranges them into the **same** tree.
It is known that people have bred, by the simple expedient of only allowing certain animals (or plants) to live, numerous varieties of dogs, crops, pigeons, goldfish, etc, etc.
It is known that, because of mutations and the random shuffling of genes during meiosis, that not all the offspring of a mating pair will be identical, and
it is known that some of them will produce offspring of their own, and some won't.
It is known that part of the reason for this is that different members of the same species are differently-adapted for the environment they find themselves in.
All th above, except the molecular stuff, was known to Darwin.
It is theorized that all of life may be placed in a single tree structure that reflects common descent.
This theory could be falsified by finding an organism with a different genetic code, or an animal (or fossil) intermediate between a mammal and a bird.
It is theorized that random mutation and natural selection is sufficient to account for this.
This theory could be falsified by proving that some structure is "irreducibly complex.
It has been hypothesized that the Bible is inerrant.
It has been hypothesized that the Koran in inerrant.
It has been hypothesized that the Rig Veda is inerrant.
It has been hypothesized that the Diamond Sutra is inerrant.
It has been hypothesized that there is an intelligence "outside" the Universe that was responsible for "creating" it.
It has been hypothesized that the same (or perhaps a different) intelligence is responsible for life.
For the simple reason that it's not a theory. What predictions does it make? How could it be falsified if it were in fact not true?
LVD: There was a time when people that believed the earth is flat could make the same statement. [emphasis added]
Really? What science did these believers base their claim on? Pythagoras and Archimedes knew the Earth is sphereical; Erastosthenese measured its diameter.
Really? Care to give a citation? Which Greeks? What observations/theories etc from that period still stand? All I can think of are the spherical Earth and its size.
In particular, why did Aristotle claim that heavier things fall faster? Seems to me like he forgot the observe step.
Are you kidding me? They teach that the earth goes around the sun, rather than the sun going around the earth, the order of the planets, and move on to the next topic.
If not, should the state legislatures step in?
I have already posted on what I think the legislature should do, if anything.
Oklahoma, where the wind comes sweepin' down the plainBuncha flaming flat-earthers.
[snip]
And when we say
Yeeow! Ayipioeeay!
We're only sayin'
You're doin' fine, Oklahoma!
Oklahoma O.K.
You may want to do some research into Lactantius and the belief in Antipodes but there is really no need to allow this red herring to distract from the meaning of my statement as I don’t claim to be a science historian - just substitute "the sun revolves around the earth". The point is simple - science is an ever changing endeavor as our collective level of knowledge increases theories came and go - some remain close to unchanged - some are disproved - completely new ones are created - THEREFORE assuming any current theories are fact is faulty logic and can only stymie free thinking
VA: Really? Care to give a citation? Which Greeks? What observations/theories etc from that period still stand? All I can think of are the spherical Earth and its size
Funny, first you present a scientific theory from over 2200 years ago:
VA: Pythagoras and Archimedes knew the Earth is sphereical; Erastosthenese measured its diameter
Then you claim ignorance of any 2200 year old scientific theories.
Clearly you are trying to play the game of gotcha (but you are not doing a very good job).
As for your question of "which Greeks" - Aristotle is credited with establishing empiricism and the foundation of the scientific method.
Other Greek scientific theories:
Democritus - matter is make up of atoms
What an absurd statement - Aristotle is created with creating the concept of empiricism:
The basic idea behind empiricism is that knowledge can be derived through careful observation and cataloging of phenomena and extrapolating laws or principles from these observations. Even though empricism is a Western concept and is loaded especially with Enlightenment baggage, it is, in fact a cross-cultural phenomenon. Its origins in the West lie in their most developed form in the philosophy of Aristotle, who reacted against the abstractions of Plato and the Pre-Socratic philosophers by developing a more or less universal system of intellectual inquiry: when investigating a subject, he would first consult all the experts and written texts and catalog their ideas, he would next observe as much phenomena related to the inquiry that he could and then derive laws from his observations, and then use those laws against the previous authorities.
Virginia-American you are really shooting blanks with that statement. BTW: go up on your roof and drop a piece of paper (feather, Styrofoam peanut) and a bowling ball - you have just observed a heavier object falling faster.
What you're saying is that the gaps in our understanding of the THEORY of the heliocentric solar system can't overthrow the observed FACT that the solar system is heliocentric. I completely agree, and that's precisely why I brought it up. For exactly the same reason, the gaps in our understanding of the THEORY of evolution can't overthrow the observed FACT that life on Earth has evolved. You see?
And why doesn't that bother people as much as schools teaching that the world's species descended from common ancestors over geological ages, showing how the species are interrelated, and moving on to the next topic?
It seems that before this thread, you didn't know about the Pope's position. Yet upon merely hearing that he's not opposed to evolution, without having any clue as to his reasoning, you're screeching that the guy's a liar. Well, that's your style, and I assume you're happy with it. But in case you have even the slightest glimmer of curiosity, you might look at this:
The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution.
When did we think the earth was flat?
Ahh.. but they ARE mentioned.
"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feed on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God..."
-Job 40:15-19 (NIV)
The Bible uses ancient names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs .
Behemoth tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars--one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world. Some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees!
From Are Dinosaurs In The Bible?
Shades of the Anti-Pope!
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.