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.]
That is of course your prerogative. However, despite all the assurances of inerrancy many of the events described in the Bible are demonstrably incorrect.
All that lack of 'ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves, etc etc etc.' does is prevent necessary corrections to the stories contained by the Bible.
What it does for science is encourage a convergence of knowledge to the best approximation of physical truth possible. It allows for a refinement in the accuracy of our explanations.
There I go again using qualifiers in my comment. Shame on me.
Science does not assume that everything is known, nor does it assume that everything can be known. What it does do is acknowledge that the methodology that has evolved to its current state over the last 300 years is the best method for gaining knowledge about our physical world.
Thinking:
Those that can, do; those that can't, pray.
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.