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.
Is that supposed to disagree with my posts? Teach the theories, but don't pretend they're inviolate, is my position.
I double-dog dare you to make that statement in any college level physics class. Newtonian physics are definitely NOT disproven, when you get into Relativistic physics (which are based upon Newtonian physics) you will soon realize that components at 'real world' speeds, masses and in non-relativistic timelines have for all intensive purposes zero impact upon the Newtonian model. That's why we refer to the LAWS of gravity, the LAWS of conservation of energy, and the LAWS of thermodynamics. Once disproven, the Laws cease to be Laws; they are trashed.
In Relativistic physics, Einstein showed that previously unthought of components in Newtonian physicls become significant, to the point of over-coming Newtonian components. However, the Newtonian components are always there, their contribution to the overall calculation just becomes less and less significant. If you write out Einstein's various Relativistic formulae, you will see that as mass get's more "earthly" or the speed is significatly below that of the speed of light, components will rapidly approach zero. So, if you simply discount these components as of zero value, you have Newton's formulae left over.
Absolutely. The fact that animals change over time is no more disputable than the fact that the sun sits (approximately) at the center of the solar system. The gaps in the detailed models of both are comparable in seriousness. As one example of a gap in the heliocentric model, I give you the long-term stability of planetary orbits. How does that occur? There are several good ideas, but that's a far from settled point.
OK students will not be allowed in college because their text books are going to state that evolution is a theory not a fact (which is the truth).
Your moniker says it all...whattajoke!
C'mon now.
What possible holes could be poked in the accounts of Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark, an Earth that is only 6-7,000 years old & talking snakes???
Thousands of home educated young people are being accepted each year by accredited colleges and universities. Many of these young people have been taught that evolution is a theory. They seem to have no problem being accepted at these accredited institutions (even mainstream secular colleges and universities) every year.
Some of these institutions even make a point of seeking home educated youth for admission, because they know they are prepared to learn, they have a great attitude, and they excel in their studies.
These are facts, Mr. Ignorant.
No, it isn't, although "controversial" was not what I addressed in my post. Just because a few kooks don't believe it, or the moon landing, doesn't make them any less valid.
The main controversy in the teaching of science, to me, is when it takes an atheistic, rather than an agnostic-ish, position.
I don't know about getting into college, but they can forget about a career in science.
This textbook disclaimer nonsense if taken seriously automatically puts OK kids at a disadvantage.
What exactly is the difference? The subject of God is so far outside the scope of a high school science class I can't figure out why this is even a consideration.
Did you even read my post?
"the point is his rules aren't universally applicable"
I'm not going to quibble with you about what "disproven" can or cannot mean. Newton's theory is not universally applicable, though still very useful in normal situations. The intent of my post was clear, and if you want to ignore it, I'm not going to bandy words with you.
Fewer suppositions about what I believe, thanks. The Bible is not a science textbook.
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.