Bill requiring evolution disclaimer clears House

Claremore Progress ^ | 2/27/04 | Sean Murphy

[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.

[Right Wing Professor]

we assume based on our current theories that genetic codes diverge from an ancestral code. We cannot observe this actually happening or duplicate it in the lab.

Sure we can.

[PatrickHenry]

It was bound to happen..... "Sooner" or later!

Man, that was ... OK. Get it, get it?

[longshadow]

Science education in this country is definitely in major trouble.

Agreed.

Thankfully, we have access to folks here on FR who can help rectify the inadequacies of the education system.

[Frankss]

The History Chanel had a show on "The Greatest scientific frauds of the 20th century" Piltdown man was a modern skull with an older apes jaw that had the teeth filed down, It was "discovered" in 1913 and it wasn't until 1953 that it was exposed as a fake.

[inquest]

There's still a difference, though. Even if it were discovered that something other than gravity and inertia was involved in maintaining planetary orbits, there would still be no doubt at all that gravity and inertia are 99.99% responsible for determining how they move. For that reason, it's reasonable to conclude that gravity and inertia probably are the only factors involved, and that it's just a matter of applying the proper mathematics to determine how they do it.

On the other hand, if it were to be discovered that the gaps in evolutionary theory necessitate something other natural variation and selection, then it would call into question the whole theory.

[PatrickHenry]

On the other hand, if it were to be discovered that the gaps in evolutionary theory necessitate something other natural variation and selection, then it would call into question the whole theory.

There will always be gaps. Not every species died and left us a convenient fossil. And not every fossil gets found. So what? We have gaps in our understanding of history too. We don't really know who shot Kennedy. We probably never will. It may remain unknown. Too bad. Our understanding of history remains fairly good, nevertheless. It's not the gaps that will call the theory of evolution into question. Rather, it will be actually finding something that can't be fit into the framework of the theory. So far that hasn't happened.

[inquest]

I was referring to gaps in the theory, not in the fossil record. Your comments are completely out of context.

[RightWingNilla]

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.

It was a clever experiment that established the Earth was round, but it is not an example of what a scientist would call a "theory".

Other Greek scientific theories: Democritus - matter is make up of atoms

Philosophy (not science yet). Was this hypothesis tested in his day?

[RightWingNilla]

We can actually observe planetary motion.

We can "observe" the evolution of genes over time as well. Just because it happened in the past makes it invalid? The motion of all of the stars in the galaxy that we "observe" today occured millions of years ago as well.

[Dimensio]

And the really sad thing is I distinctly remember being "taught" in school that theories and laws are just steps along the same continuum. And this was a private school, no less. Science education in this country is definitely in major trouble.

I guess that I was fortunate in having a Biology instructor who was passionate about explaining the nature of the scientific methods. I distinctly remember her commenting on a person's lab report wherein they claimed to have "proven" a theory, "You're not proving a damn thing!"

She also took offense at anthropomorphicizing reality in the form of "Mother Nature". She was an odd sort, I rather liked her.

[VadeRetro]

Don't want to read the whole thread. Have there been any dancing guinea pigs yet?

[RightWingAtheist]

Every victory for creationism is a defeat for conservatism. Every time a creationist is given credibility, we are doing the same for those who hate America, Western Civilization, and the values they are based on. The Left nearly destroyed itself when it refused to acknowledge the reality of what happened under communism, even as the cold hard facts were presented right to their face. If we on the right don't want the same to happen to us, then we must all recognize the scientific truth of evolution, lest conservatism as we know it degenerates into irrelevancy.

[PatrickHenry]

Don't want to read the whole thread.

I don't blame you.

Have there been any dancing guinea pigs yet?

If the intelligent designer wants them, they will be here. There is nothing else to know.

[inquest]

Hyperbolize much?

[RightWingAtheist]

Nope.

[PatrickHenry]

Every victory for creationism is a defeat for conservatism.

Well, that depends. Victorious creationism would certainly be the death of reason. Something calling itself conservatism might survive, but whatever it might be, it wouldn't be very attractive. It certainly wouldn't be America. The Founders would flee from such a regime in horror.

[PatrickHenry]

I was referring to gaps in the theory, not in the fossil record.

Ah. Gaps in the theory. Okay. Can you give us an example of such a gap?

[balrog666]

Dancing for SCIENCE!

[balrog666]

Sorry ...

[inquest]

I see; so you were just trying out something new, then.