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.

[inquest]

Ask Physicist. He was the one who brought it up.

Have you been following the conversation, or did you just react to something I said? It doesn't sound like you've been following along.

[qam1]

Correction: 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.

Yes we can, Maybe not in the lab but in Fishtanks around the world for the past ~1100 years from the Gibel Carp <917 A.D. to the Bubble Eye in 1908 with everything in between.

The History of the Goldfish and evolution of the Bubble Eye

|	The Gibel carp Carassius Gibelio
|	Common Goldfish (~900 A.D.) Carassius auratus
|	Fantail (1368)
|	Telescope (1592) Notice Eye Stalks
|	Celestal (1870)
	Bubble Eye (1908)

[jennyp]

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.

Well put! Any creationist who wonders why we're here on a conservative message board needs to realize this.

Communism & Naziism & today's various postmodernist offspring that are trying to take over, all fail because they don't flow from the objective facts of reality. Individual rights, the rule of law, and the free market that they imply, do. This is why modern conservatism must and will prevail and be the driving force in the 21st century.

But creationists suffer from a crisis of confidence in the ability of the real world to justify individual rights & the free market, so they bring in the notion of a supernatural Authority Figure who can impose a moral code on all of us, through sheer force. They hope this deus-ex-machina Authority Figure can paper over all of mankind's differences, which they think are forever intractable because the real world has nothing to say about morality.

IMO it's a Hail Mary pass - an act of desperation - by good-hearted fellow conservatives who have fooled themselves into thinking that the "mundane" real world we live in really contains no objective Truth.

[jennyp]

Nonsense. Theories are what make it possible for us to think creatively. And we get nowhere if we're constantly wondering about the truth of our premises. If every time I get a discordant result, I consider the possibility that the atomic theory might not be correct, that perhaps electrons don't really exist, that maybe the Coulomb force law doesn't depend on the inverse second power of distance, etc., how far would I get? The answer is, nowhere.

If one assumes theories are facts, theories will never be challenged and nobody will think outside the box. If you pretend theories are facts, you are not praticing science.

LVD, do you see how you and we are both right, but we're arguing past each other? Science teachers always tell the students that all theories are theoretically disprovable. That's the basis of all modern science. I doubt very much that Oklahoma science teachers are neglecting to mention that to their students.

But at the same time, for any given era, with its body of accumulated knowledge, there is a core group of mainstream theories that form the basis for all of that era's science. Given what they know at the time, these theories tend to be mainstream for the excellent reason that they have survived many attempts at falsification. They are robust and useful. And whole disciplines depend on them being true.

Again the question is: What do we teach HS students in the first or second biology class they encounter in their lives? Do we throw at them every agenda-driven pseudoscientific theory that anyone has ever come up with in the name of "diversity" or "open-mindedness" or "thinking outside the box"? Or do we first make sure they have a solid grounding in what theories actual current working scientists know and use in their real-life jobs today, and why?

Personally I think it would be fine to have an upper-class or graduate level college course that explores fringe biology theories like ID. At that point the students would truly understand what it is that the insurgent theory is trying to overthrow. But we'd really do the students a disservice to just throw competing theories at them when they don't understand why the current mainstream theories are accepted by so many scientists already.

[js1138]

Scientific multicultural diversified placeholder.

[Virginia-American]

Do we throw at them every agenda-driven pseudoscientific theory that anyone has ever come up with in the name of "diversity" or "open-mindedness" or "thinking outside the box"?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - we need to get the D*ms to realize that creationists are a minority in need of affirmative action. It wasn't that long ago that they were backing creationism and the GOP represented pointy-headed intellectuals (think of the Scopes trial)

[Doctor Stochastic]

The History channel show as you have described it is incomplete. (For one thing, Piltdown was "found" before 1912 so your dates for the History channel show are off.) I have read the back issues of "Science" and "Nature" to check things out. (I couldn't get back issues of the French of German equivalents, if any.) One problem was that the skeletons were kept away from the American, French, and German paleontologists.

What evidence do you accept as showing Piltdown is a fake? The lack of correspondence to evolutionary theory or the radiocarbon dating? How do you apply this evidence to other items?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The atoms of Democritus are not those of Dalton. Dalton proposed a testable theory that explained things better than the previous theories. Chemists liked Dalton's theory; physicists were more skeptical. Einstein's work on Brownian motion caused everyone to jump on the atomic band wagon. (Except for maybe Mach.)

[pollywog]

You bet Yeehaw and CHEERS for them. It is about time!!!!!!!

[gabor]

What a joke! Are you kidding? Intelligent question from
the unintelligent "design" theorists side? Do they assume
intelligence from some source? Come on! Evolutionists would defy the "facts" in their hand maid tales! The "theory of evolution" must inherently be without intelligence or contradicts itself.No offense intended just cool thinking.Cheers: Gabor

[Last Visible Dog]

If you pretend magic is real, you aren't paying attention to the real world.

If you make silly statements like this people might think you are a silly person. (HINT: this thread has nothing to do with "magic")

[Last Visible Dog]

We can "observe" the evolution of genes over time as well. Just because it happened in the past makes it invalid?

Don't be silly and stop overreacting. I have no idea what you mean by "invalid" - if we can't observe it, we can't observe it thus making it theoretical.

[Last Visible Dog]

Yes we can, Maybe not in the lab but in Fishtanks around the world for the past ~1100 years from the Gibel Carp <917 A.D. to the Bubble Eye in 1908 with everything in between.

You do understand that you just presented evidence of evolutionary concepts created by DESIGN - this is an example of intelligent design. Not an example of evolution by happenstance.

[Last Visible Dog]

Again the question is: What do we teach HS students in the first or second biology class they encounter in their lives? Do we throw at them every agenda-driven pseudoscientific theory that anyone has ever come up with in the name of "diversity" or "open-mindedness" or "thinking outside the box"? Or do we first make sure they have a solid grounding in what theories actual current working scientists know and use in their real-life jobs today, and why?

This is nothing more than a red herring. The thread is about a disclaimer that states the theory of evolution is a theory not fact. Many evo-reationaries assume the theory of evolution is fact and it explains the origin of life in factual terms - both statement are false - that is the only topic of this thread. Some of you are defending your beloved theory with the same fervor of a jihadist

Personally I think it would be fine to have an upper-class or graduate level college course that explores fringe biology theories like ID. At that point the students would truly understand what it is that the insurgent theory is trying to overthrow. But we'd really do the students a disservice to just throw competing theories at them when they don't understand why the current mainstream theories are accepted by so many scientists already

Well I pretty much agree with most of what you are saying - that makes it even stranger that you felt it necessary to call me a "creationist" and to trot out your little anti-creationists diatribe (earlier). I found this reactionary and fairly paranoid response by die-hard evolutionists strange - I guess you guys see "god-loving creationists" hiding under your bed just waiting to devourer your beloved theory. An armature psychiatrist might think you guys glean your comfort and security from your beloved theory and any possible or merely perceived assault on your beloved theory must be addressed with the fervor of the zealot.

You guys need to apply a bit of perspective. Let me illustrate:

Take a football field. Now take about 100 dinner napkins and strew them about the football fields. Now – it would be absurd for me to claim there are no napkins on the football fields but it would be equally absurd to claim the entire field is covered by napkins. The football field is the complete theory of evolution and the napkins are the current scientific evidence.

At that point the students would truly understand what it is that the insurgent theory is trying to overthrow.

Overthrowing and insurgency is in the minds of people – theories don’t rebel nor do they recognize man-made hierarchy therefore they are incapable of overthrowing.

[balrog666]

The real evidence for design:

On the 13th of December 1973, French journalist Rael was contacted by a visitor from another planet, and asked to establish an Embassy to welcome these people back to Earth.

The extra-terrestrial was about four feet in height, had long dark hair, almond shaped eyes, olive skin and exuded harmony and humour. He told Rael that:

"we were the ones who made all life on earth"
"you mistook us for gods"
"we were at the origin of your main religions"
"Now that you are mature enough to understand this,
we would like to enter official contact through an embassy"

Now who can dispute that? I can't wait until they publish their Raelian Holy Book so they will be on an equal footing with Judaeism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Last-Thursdayism, and Giant-Chicken-from-Pasedena-Named-Harry-ism.

[RightWingNilla]

if we can't observe it, we can't observe it thus making it theoretical.

We can observe it.

[JohnnyZ]

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?

They go considerably beyond that re evolution -- but you'll have to ask those people you're referring to about things that bother them and why.

[VadeRetro]

We can observe it.

We just can't make creationists see, admit, absorb, understand, or remember.

[VadeRetro]

Now who can dispute that?

I certainly have no proof that it didn't happen.

[PatrickHenry]

When the aliens arrive, they will designate Darwin Central as their exclusive representatives on earth. I know this because they told me.