Posted on 06/06/2005 2:49:58 PM PDT by CHARLITE
A new front has opened up in the debate over evolution and creationism in Utah, with a proposal to require the teaching of divine design in public schools.
State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of divine design, also known as intelligent design, in conjunction with evolution in schools.
Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum, which has previously sought the inclusion of divine design in the public school science curriculum.
School officials argue that any laws requiring the teaching of divine design could be found in violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.
Supporters of the proposal contend, however, that divine design is not the same as creationism. Unlike creationism, divine design simply acknowledges that the world is so complex, its development must have been guided by some higher power. Proponents do not specify who that higher power is.
Currently, public schools in Utah are required to teach evolution, but not alternative theories. Some teachers have independently chosen to introduce the topics of creationism or divine design in their classrooms.
The issue of what to teach in schools regarding evolution has been an ongoing debate. Recent cases have gained nationwide attention.
In May, the Kansas Board of Education held hearings to decide on new science standards. A three-member committee heard arguments from proponents of intelligent design and evolution. Last week, written arguments from both sides were submitted to the Board. The Board is expected to decide on new standards by the end of the summer.
One of the most publicized cases last year concerned evolution disclaimer stickers that were placed on the cover of ninth grade science books in Atlanta, Georgia. The stickers said that “evolution is a theory, not a fact,” and warned students that “material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
Six parents filed a suit against the Cobb County School District, charging that the stickers violated the separation of church and state. The school district argued that the stickers were meant to open up discussion on the topic of evolution and alternative theories of the origin of life.
In January, a federal judge ordered the stickers to be removed. The school district began removing stickers from over 30,000 books in May, although an appeal is pending on the judge’s ruling.
The new proposal in Utah is yet another iteration of the creation-evolution debate. The issue is expected to be brought up when the next legislative session begins in January.
Comments: susan@christianpost.com
Get a clue. Radioactive isotopes decay into daughter elements at a fixed rate. By determining the ratio of mother to daughter elements in a sample one can determine when that sample formed. This is one reason things like Moon rocks and meteorites are a big deal. The latter are debris left over from the formation of the Solar System. by determining their age, one can determine when the Solar System formed.
Yes, there is always going to be a margin of error, but when it comes to the age of the Earth, that margin of error is in the tens of millions of years over a period of 4.5 billion years -- or about 1 percent.
Apparently you love digital watches and gadgets, but don't think much of the process of acquiring the knowledge that allows us to make them. Actually, I APPRECIATE the process that goes into such and the knowledge that goes into making them. I appreciate those who make it possible for our technology.
BTW, nice putdown... I'll remind my four-year-old nephew to use it.
Yes, there is always going to be a margin of error, but when it comes to the age of the Earth, that margin of error is in the tens of millions of years over a period of 4.5 billion years -- or about 1 percent. Yes, I guess there's no margin of error to anything.
Yes, radioactive isotopes decay at a fixed rate so I guess all such processes have happened the same rate over time. I'm glad you were alive at beginning of time to see how much material there was to start with. What was it like to time travel?
If they didn't, the universe is in big trouble. See, herein we find the, for want of a better term, scientific ignorance of average creationist. If decay rates were higher in the past, the planet would've been cooked, and the evidence for that would be all around us. However, it isn't, and the planet does not appear to have ever undergone this proposed "nuked" phase.
Biological evolution is tied in with a dozen other scientific disciplines in such a way that they reinforce each other and results from one line of research can be fed into another in a wildly disparate field. When creationists start picking at evolution, they discover (much to their chagrin, I'm sure) they have to unravel everything from astronomy to zoology. In your line of reasoning, you have to attack both chemistry and nuclear physics to make your case.
If they didn't, the universe is in big trouble. See, herein we find the, for want of a better term, scientific ignorance of average creationist. If decay rates were higher in the past, the planet would've been cooked, and the evidence for that would be all around us. However, it isn't, and the planet does not appear to have ever undergone this proposed "nuked" phase.
Yes, I am ignorant. Yes, all such radioactive and geological processes have remained the same throughout all of history. We have learned everything there is to learn and there is no more to learn.
Biological evolution is tied in with a dozen other scientific disciplines in such a way that they reinforce each other and results from one line of research can be fed into another in a wildly disparate field. When creationists start picking at evolution, they discover (much to their chagrin, I'm sure) they have to unravel everything from astronomy to zoology. In your line of reasoning, you have to attack both chemistry and nuclear physics to make your case.
Yes, there is a lot of order to the disorder. That is why I believe it was guided in some way. I can't help that I like having a human for a long lost relative, not an amoeba.
BTW, I've seen articles about this guy here (in the article) and he is somewhat of a kook (though not all the time).
Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity is fatal.
Yes, all such radioactive and geological processes have remained the same throughout all of history. We have learned everything there is to learn and there is no more to learn.
No one said that. You're sort of coming across petulantly here. We know enough about radioactive, chemical and geological processes to have a high degree of confidence that they have remained unchanged since the beginning.
I can't help that I like having a human for a long lost relative, not an amoeba.
While the amoeba is probably not in your direct line of descent, even creationists cannot reject the data which points to a common ancestor of all life on Earth. Hell, viral insertion markers in DNA give researchers obvious clues as to who is related to whom and how far back that relationship goes. As I said in the past, there are literally thousands of lines of research and mountains of evidence that have brought forth the modern theory of evolution; your average creationist is woefully ignorant of just how extensive this research and evidence truly is. When Ichneumon posts his massive "Evidence" posts, he isn't even scratching the surface of what is out there -- and his posts come with copious bibliographies to actual research papers (not MSM interpretations of such).
Yes, all such radioactive and geological processes have remained the same throughout all of history. We have learned everything there is to learn and there is no more to learn. I guess I better watch out for those calderas that happen so often nowadays.
No one said that. You're sort of coming across petulantly here. We know enough about radioactive, chemical and geological processes to have a high degree of confidence that they have remained unchanged since the beginning.
Actually, I meant to come across pestulantly there.
---I can't help that I like having a human for a long lost relative, not an amoeba.---
While the amoeba is probably not in your direct line of descent, even creationists cannot reject the data which points to a common ancestor of all life on Earth. Hell, viral insertion markers in DNA give researchers obvious clues as to who is related to whom and how far back that relationship goes. As I said in the past, there are literally thousands of lines of research and mountains of evidence that have brought forth the modern theory of evolution; your average creationist is woefully ignorant of just how extensive this research and evidence truly is. When Ichneumon posts his massive "Evidence" posts, he isn't even scratching the surface of what is out there -- and his posts come with copious bibliographies to actual research papers (not MSM interpretations of such).
There are a lot of creationists that allow for evolutionary priciples. For example, we all know that animals adapt to their different habitats and that animals can be classified into different families on the basis of different characteristics they may have developed. With me, that order and that fact that we have physical laws signify someone being behind it.
I disagree. An amoeba is in my line of descent. His name is Fred.
I'm not going to step into the muck and say that evolution is only a theory, but again, even with all the so-called evidence, there is still no absolute way as to how the world was created. I must admit, that I don't have time to sit around and figure out if I came from a pile of goop or not.
You never did answer my time travel question.
I must admit that your sense of humor seems to disappear with evolution. Oh well...we all evolve.
Because evolution is based on some things that we can see and creationism is based more on things we can't (and there are a whole host of versions to it), yes, they shouldn't be given equal time, BUT I see no problem with someone having a discussion about things like intelligent design.
Breaking 2x4s place mark
One point to ponder: If evolution works by individual mutation and passing that mutation down through offspring, then how do recessive genes exist. Unless there is severe long term inbreeding, any recessive gene will disapear in a few generations, especially if there are preditors.
Another point to ponder: Many species become extinct every year on average. However you never hear of new ones being created (by nature). They may find new ones or reclassify ones, but they all have been around for a long time, just not on the list. With over 2 million classified, we should get a few new ones each year to "replace" the ones that go extinct. Otherwise the number goes towards zero. This has happened several times and then the "clock is restarted" with the next "better" group.
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.