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.
How is selection pressure applied to a particular population by humans fundamentally different than any other selection pressure?
What do you mean by selection pressure? The quote of mine you presented was made in reply to the claim that the man-made genetic mutations of goldfish were somehow supporting evidence for evolution. Are you implying the man-made selection pressure is the same as selection pressure by happenstance? Please clarify your statement.
The goldfish example is an example of genetics, not evolution (if man - intellegence - is involved, it is not evolution)
1) Typical creationist dishonesty and moving the goalpost, You set the parameters
Quote
"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".
Well that's exactly what happened with the goldfish. The lab in this case was the fishtanks and ponds and we have observed over the course of ~1100 years the genetic code of goldfish diverged from their ancestral carp.
2) And what intelligent design? The Ancient Chinese did not have Genetic engineering capabilities so in order for the bubble eye and other breeds to develop they were relying on "Happenstance" mutations and because of those "Happenstance" mutations goldfish have evolved new organs, structures, Chromosome number and genes that are not found in the gibel carp.
3) The evolution of goldfish is parallel to the evolution of male birds like the peacock and birds of paradise which the females only breed with the ones they find the prettiest. The only difference between them is that humans are deciding what's prettier not female birds.
The ones that look the prettiest (well at least to the owners) live and breed and the ones that don't look pretty enough end up becoming dinner or bait, Evolution at it's simplest
Look pretty or end up as dinner, How much more pressure do you need?
The quote of mine you presented was made in reply to the claim that the man-made genetic mutations of goldfish were somehow supporting evidence for evolution.
What man made genetics are you talking about? When the Bubble eye and other breeds evolved the Chinese didn't even know what DNA was.
Are you implying the man-made selection pressure is the same as selection pressure by happenstance? Please clarify your statement.
Yes. The Chinese weren't sitting around 1100 years ago saying lets make this carp into a bubble eye and Wa-La 1000 years later they did it. They were breding a population of goldfish and some had mutations they found favorable. For instance take the step of some Telescopes evolving into the Celestal breeds. The telescope breed has their eyes sticking out of the heads on stalks and in someone's population of telescopes around the year 1870 there was a mutation which caused their eyes to point upward. Apparently the guy raising them liked that mutation and selected for it, With the Celestal eyes being breed while with his telescope eyes he probably cooked up for dinner.
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.