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.]
We can't go on agreeing like this
I am going to bed
Nice word soup. What does 'statistically devastated' mean?
There is no doubt within science about the SToE. It is a well tested and verified science. There are minor questions about a number of the mechanisms contained by the SToE, such as the relative roles natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection and drift play in directing the frequency of alleles within a population. There are also questions about the ability of natural selection alone to produce macro-evolution. Those, and a few other questions are well known and quite visible, no scientist is attempting to hide them.
Sounds pretty MAJOR to me!!!
Why? There are many other mechanisms that can work individually or in concert.
Is that your best attempt at troll logic?
Also..so they take one semester of Cal.. Big deal. Many, many medical schools don't even require ONE semester (Harvard, Yale, being the exception).
paranoid much?
Correction, I will put it this way back at you to "obtuse much?"
W.
There is "doubt" about all science.
Thanks I'll stay with God's Holy Word then.
No ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves,
etc etc etc.
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and
the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
Rom. 10:13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Thanks I'll stay with God's Holy Word then.
No ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves, etc etc etc.
Nope, just contradictions, misconceptions and outright inaccuracies.
The Bible is great philosophy, and a wonderful faith, but a lousy science text.
First let's restore the context of my statement so that readers of the post can see how you've purposely misquoted me.
"There is no doubt within science about the SToE. It is a well tested and verified science. There are minor questions about a number of the mechanisms contained by the SToE, such as the relative roles natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection and drift play in directing the frequency of alleles within a population. There are also questions about the ability of natural selection alone to produce macro-evolution. Those, and a few other questions are well known and quite visible, no scientist is attempting to hide them.""
The mechanisms are known, the degree to which each contributes in a specific situation is in question. Further, since it is virtually impossible to be sure all mechanisms are known, there is some speculation that there may be currently unknown mechanisms that contribute in certain circumstances. This concern is held by the minority of biologists where the majority feel we have an excellent grasp of the major mechanisms. Is there more to learn about evolution? Absolutely. Are there questions about what is known of evolution. Many. Is this unusual in the sciences? Not at all, answering and formulating new questions is what science is all about and any representation of science as other than this is at best misguided and at worst prevarication.
In the future I would prefer if you kept your vacuous, logically inept, and largely incomprehensible posts to yourself.
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.