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.
The aliens told me this morning that they will help us prove evolution once and for all. Then all moral foundation will be destroyed and we can finally throw off our lab coats and run wild!
I never wear anything underneath mine....evolution will be proven any day now!
I wonder when the creationists will realize that The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Robert Louis Stevenson, which was published in 1886, is a metaphor for what happens when a good man (Dr. Jekyll) spends too much time in the lab and discovers evolution. He naturally becomes a wild maniac -- Mr. Hyde!
MRRUUUHAHAHAHAHA!
Worst mid-life crisis until Bill Clinton. (Can't wait!)
Right. It doesn't "prove" that. But the theory explains the observations, which is what a theory is supposed to do. And it makes predictions (like the kinds of fossils and other evidence we are going to find, and the kind we will never find) and such events lend powerful support to the theory.
Creationism is also a theory.
Utterly wrong. It explains nothing (a "miracle" is not an explanation). It is contradicted by far too many observed facts. Creationism is an article of religious faith. Which is fine. But it's not science.
Really? What sort of experimental tests support it? How, in detail, does it account for the fact that if a pseudogene is found in a cow and a whale, it will also be found in hippos, but if it's not found in hippos it won't be found in whales either?
What predictions does it make? If a fossilized rabbit were found in Precambrian rocks, or a pseudogene were found in chimps and gorillas but not people, we'd have to discard or **severely** modify standard biology. What observations would lead to the conclusion that creationism was wrong?
Time for some cold hard reality:
1. Darwinism begins with a "miracle". That's correct - PatrickHenry's beloved theory begins with a "miracle" at best and "hell if I know" at worst.
2. The Big Bang is extremely hard evidence of a point of creation (thus creationism). When it comes to the creation of the universe the strongest evidence is for a point of creation (creationism) and NOT "cosmic evolution" or steady-state.
What sort of experimental tests support evolution between species?
The big flood killed off a lot of plants and dinosaurs but that fact is what is recorded in the "fossil record".
You do live up to your monicker:
Darwinism (därw-nzm) n. A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
Darwinism \Dar"win*ism\, n. (Biol.) The theory or doctrines put forth by Darwin. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)
Darwinism n : a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection (WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University)
So you are wrong - unless you can provide evidence for your seriously paranoid claim that "creationists" created the term as a bogeyman man.
"Darwinism," as a "cult" or "science" or "philosophy" began when creationists decided to create a boogey man that doesn't even exist.
Please provide supporting evidence for this silly claim. (we know the dictionaries are not on you side)
"Darwinism," as it's meant to mean, began when Charles Darwin published his book on the matter of species change over time, which, i guess, was a small miracle in 1859.
Duh.
oh, wait, you mean in a cosmological sense that "it all began" with a miracle blah blah blah. i almost forgot who I was posting too. sorry to waste my time.
Is that statement supposed to make sense? I guess it is your way of admitting evolution is based on a very unscientific foundation. The problem you find impossible to grasp is creationism is a cosmological theory and evolution is not so evolution can not sustain the requirements you place on creationism thus rendering your argument pretty much null and void.
Ducking the subject of cosmology is a very poor way of supporting your side of the debate. Bottom line: Evolution/Darwinism and Creationism share a malicious (or unexplainable) origin.
BTW: currently the only hard evidence we have for the creation of the universe is a singular creation event (Creationism). That means there is very strong evidence to support the biblical representation of creation. I am not a biblical literalist but I do find this tidbit amusing - it is fun to watch cocksure evo-reactionaries squirm or change the subject with lightning speed.
What makes this so funny this thread is about a disclaimers related to the origin of life. The Evo-reactionaries are having a fit because of this disclaimer and then later in the thread the evo-reactionaries admit evolution does not even address the issue of origin of life. Do the evo-reactionaries realize how silly and inconsistent their arguments truly are?
You call it crap because you do not understand it.
God created everything through some supernatural means, including life. Then life evolved...the 2 previous sentences are not inconsistent with the theory of biological evolution. so what.
Oddly enough, I agree with you on this statement (actually that is my current position to some degree).
Cosmology is not crap - it is the key to the debate. Many evo-reactionary attacks on creationism lack understanding of cosmology and the evidence we currently have.
From my perspective: many aspects of evolution are as good as facts. Evolution between species is on less firm ground. Biology is a science therefore it most teach the currently accepted scientific princples and theories - not religion-based explanations. When the subject of the origin of life and the cosmos (cosmology) comes up, evolution is on very weak ground and what ground it holds is purely theoretical. For this reason a disclaimer that states "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact." is a good thing because this disclaimer states the facts and statements like this will encourage students to think rather than assume science has it all figure out. This should not freak evolutionist out because very little time in school is spend studying the origin of life and evolution does not even address the origin of life.
This thread is about a disclaimer related to cosmology (not biological evolution). Calling cosmology crap is position based solely on ignorance.
All generalizations are false.
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.