Posted on 04/02/2006 9:35:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A new tack for trying to introduce supernatural explanations for the origin of life into Missouri’s public school science classes appears dead this year.
Legislation backed by conservative Christian groups sought to discredit the theory of evolution by requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.
Called the Missouri Science Education Act, HB 1266 would require science instructors in sixth through 12th grades to promote “healthy skepticism” about any theory of biological origins. State assessment tests would be required to include a section on such criticisms and alternate explanations about the origins of life.
The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Wayne Cooper of Camdenton, was approved by the House Education Committee last month.
The committee’s chairwoman, Jane Cunningham, a St. Louis County Republican, cast the deciding vote in favor of the bill.
But each committee has a limited number of bills that it can move to the House floor. Cunningham said she simply doesn’t have room for Cooper’s bill.
“The bill had a very positive hearing,” Cunningham said. “I think that’s because it’s a different bill than has been introduced before, so it’s not as controversial. It basically says to teach theory as theory and fact as fact.”
Cunningham’s description understates the controversy surrounding the bill. The Education Committee approved the bill 7-6. The bill was opposed by a wide range of teacher groups and school organizations, and several faith-based groups.
Otto Fajen, chief lobbyist for the Missouri affiliate of the National Education Association, said the bill’s intention is to water down science education, which bodes ill for the nation’s economic future.
“We need to be doing our utmost to increase science literacy so our kids can compete,” Fajen said.
Cooper said the measure would improve the discussion of science by fostering open inquiry.
[Omitted a few paragraphs at the end about immigration proposals.]
In case you're wondering how a high school teacher is supposed to know "Information that appears to be verified empirical data, but is not," I think what they have in mind is the application of the Ken Ham "Were you there?" test.
"Really, the theory of evolution modeled upon the survival of the fittest, requiring the intervention of government programs has been the model followed by the public school system for decades."
What government programs?
I think what they have in mind is the application of the Ken Ham "Were you there?" test.
Sounds like it. The part about things 'that occurred previous to written history' sure sounds like a "Were you there?" test to me.
This sentence, while seemingly impervious to English translation, seems to be repeating the same old canard about evolution being *just a theory* and therefore not like all the rest of science, which is *verified*.
The part that jumped out at me was the 'that occurred previous to written history' part. Sounds like it covers astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, anthropology, etc. as well as biology.
Well, that's all evolution. If it contradicts Genesis in any way it simply must be evolution.
It also rules out Genesis. No human observer was there for the six days of creation. Even Adam, who arrived on day six, didn't witness his own appearance, and he was asleep when Eve was created. So where does that leave us?
Yes, it covers everything previous to Sumeria.
Lovely.
Console yourself, on this issue the ID-iots/Creationists are on the same side as the taliban/islamofacists
Fornicators! (tipping over my easy chair)
Abortion! (it surely must be in here somewhere)
Adultry! (can't think of anything)
Idol worship! (whatever)
It also rules out Genesis. No human observer was there for the six days of creation. Even Adam, who arrived on day six, didn't witness his own appearance, and he was asleep when Eve was created. So where does that leave us?
I dunno. While it rules out teaching Genesis as scince it requires substantial 'critical analysis' of much of biology, astronomy, cosmology, geology, archeology, anthropology, etc.
Sounds to me like the objective may be to indoctrinate that "science can't be trusted".
"The whole public education is funded via level of supposed fitness of the students. The teachers union, feeding programs, medicating, testing, sex ed, self esteem classes and the curriculum selected are all modeled upon the TOE modeling system."
How is this organized? I have seen NOTHING like it where I have lived (NY and NC).
"Food stamps, halitosis and crab-grass is modeled upon the TOE modeling system." placemark
Glanders.
What a feeble argument. Nothing has 'watered down' science as much as pushing the statistically devastated philosophy of evolution as 'science.'
Teachers:
Those that can, do; those that can't, teach.
Is Chinese hard to learn? Because we'll all be having to learn at least a passing amount of Chinese if we're ever going to compete at this rate.
When promoting the philosophy of evolution. A really good example is the plate of skulls that is frequently posted here by evo propagandists.
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.