Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill requiring evolution disclaimer clears House
Claremore Progress ^ | 2/27/04 | Sean Murphy

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: creation; crevolist; education; evolution; god; scienceeducation; textbooks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-310 last
To: PatrickHenry
"Evolutionists for Evolution!"

Can Darwin Central adopt that as it's new slogan?

Pleeeease!!
301 posted on 03/01/2004 2:43:35 PM PST by Condorman (Changes aren't permanent, but change is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Bring it up at the next meeting.
P L A C E M A R K E R
302 posted on 03/01/2004 4:27:44 PM PST by PatrickHenry (A compassionate evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Dear Dr. I do not wish to disagree,but in 1953 A group of scientist lead by a Kenneth Oakley put the bones to further test and determined that the skull was only 600 years old and that the jawbone was that of an orangutan that had the teeth reshaped by filing. Further, all the bones had been chemically treated to make them appear older. So, yes I believe the British Museum, and others who have come to the same conclusion, it was purposeful scientific fraud. A question for you now, Do you think Eoanthropus Dawsoni was genuine?
303 posted on 03/01/2004 5:42:46 PM PST by Frankss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Frankss
It was a real example of Intelligent Design. I remember when the radioactive dating confirmed what I had read earlier, namely that only the Out-Of-Englanders still accepted Piltdown.
304 posted on 03/01/2004 7:47:20 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Check out HTTP://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html. You will find some further testing showing the skull to be 600 years old and the jaw 500 years old. Also, there is a list of other fragments,other teeth, Piltdown II, the chemicals they used to stain the bones ect. The dates are debatable, but my point is that it is a clear and purposeful scientific fraud. I don't think anyone believes in Piltdown Man, no matter where they live.
305 posted on 03/02/2004 8:47:39 AM PST by Frankss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Frankss
I don't think so either. My point is that Piltdown was suspect from the first. There was a lot of nationalistic support because France had the Cro-Magnons and Germany had the Neanderthals.
306 posted on 03/02/2004 9:17:43 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
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.

How is selection pressure applied to a particular population by humans fundamentally different than any other selection pressure?

307 posted on 03/02/2004 2:11:53 PM PST by Condorman (Changes aren't permanent, but change is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
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)

308 posted on 03/02/2004 2:27:19 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
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.

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

309 posted on 03/02/2004 10:06:49 PM PST by qam1 (Are Republicans the party of Reagan or the party of Bloomberg and Pataki?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
What do you mean by selection pressure?

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.

310 posted on 03/02/2004 10:36:57 PM PST by qam1 (Are Republicans the party of Reagan or the party of Bloomberg and Pataki?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-310 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson