New Law Allows for Creationism in the Classroom [Mississippi]

WLBT.com ^ | 28 April 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

School officials can't prohibit teachers and students from discussing how life began under a new state law signed by Gov. Haley Barbour.

As originally drafted, the measure was designed to foster discussions about the theory of "intelligent design" and flaws with Darwin's explanation of how humans evolved. However, the Legislature expanded it to simply say no limits can be imposed on teachers and students in class talking about "the origin of life."

Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution, but at least one court ruled it out of public schools because it's considered religious doctrine. A federal judge in Pennsylvania last year said intelligent design is not science and is essentially religion, which the U.S. Supreme Court says can't be taught in public schools.

The bill, which took effect with Barbour's signature, passed the Legislature in March.

"No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life," the bill reads.

While banning school leaders from muzzling classroom discussions on this subject, the new law isn't as detailed as the initial version. The Senate had voted to prohibit schools from stifling classroom discussions about the "flaws or problems which may exist in Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the existence of other theories of evolution, including, but not limited to, the Intelligent Design explanation of the origin of life." The House rejected that language, prompting legislative negotiators to draft the less explicit compromise that's now law.

Local school officials say they've not had a problem and worry the new law is so vague that court challenges may loom.

"That's probably something that's going to be contested. It is very vague," said Lowndes County schools Superintendent Mike Halford of the need for clarification of what can be discussed in the classroom.

"We're starting to see lawsuits pop up from this," said Halford, pointing to other states where disputes have sprung up about what students can be taught about the origin of life. "It's just a problem we don't need," he said.

Columbus High School Principal LaNell Kellum said her school hasn't faced disputes about what evolutionary theories can be discussed in class. "In all my years, we have not had a problem with that. That has not been an issue," Kellum said. "We've not had a problem with that in Columbus."

Noting Darwin's theory of evolution is part of the state's school curriculum, she said teachers use professional ethics and follow the state-written guidelines for teaching their subjects. "Our teachers have been able to use their professional judgment and teach the curriculum without a problem," she said.

Evolution is the biological theory or process of how organisms change with the passage of time with descendants differing from ancestors. Darwin propounded the theory of evolution by natural selection. Intelligent design's proponents say it is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, other suppositions about the origin of life.

However, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are unscientific. A federal judge in December ruled that a Pennsylvania public school district's requirement for teaching intelligent design violates the U.S. Constitution's clause separating church and state.

Another part of the bill would provide high school graduates who plan to enter the work force and not go to college with a special curriculum that provides a much-needed option to the college-prep courses that had been required.

The bill is House Bill 214.

[PatrickHenry]

301. Toped your prime. Hah!

[PatrickHenry]

That's topped, of course.

[whispering out loud]

I have absolutely no problem with English, I do however have a problem with pompous blow hards who insult anyone who disagrees with them. Bring me one solid piece of unequivocal evidence that supports macro evolution that cannot just as easily be explained away, and then you have room for this pomposity. And where do you get off equating the ToE with a Mozart aria? Now you wanna talk about fundamentally dishonest. Lets compare a shotty half baked poorly supported theory, with a fundamental foundation piece for modern music.

[PatrickHenry]

The creationists claim to accept "micro" evolution, but in the same sentence they announce that there's no evidence of "macro" evolution. It amazes me how they always overlook the obvious fact that each instance of "micro" evolution is an example of a step along the road that -- baring extinction -- must inevitably lead to "macro" evolution.

[trashcanbred]

Secondly, I made no claim to Id, nor to being a scientist, I merely said that you should not approach discrediting something you obviously know nothing about

First... let me just say that as I pointed out, the questions I posed may be found on Creationists web sites as I properly referenced for you. Why you still hold the claim that I know "nothing about it" whereas these very questions have been asked for years puzzles me.

Second, you decided to jump into the thread that Mr."connect the dots" and I were having. The thread's topic was teaching ID in school as a science. He asked a question regarding a flaw in Evolution then got "smug" when no one answered it... so I did answer it and then posed some "flaws" in ID back to him. When Mr."Connect the Dots" failed to answer and you did, I assumed you had picked up the banner of ID from a "fallen comrade" and decided to charge into battle.

You argue that creation cannot be science because we use scientific process to substantiate a belief, but what scientific experiments and or processes were used to found the initial concept of the ToE?

What??!?!?! I can ask you the same thing. What experiments have the ID'ers ever performed? Let's try and get 2 of every species on an Ark. You know dang well that you cannot do any experiments that prove ID and thus... ID is pure fantasy.

Now...for a "small" selection on scientific experiments in Evolution, I refer you to Lenski's long term E. Coli experiment, the Lederberg Experiment, Dallinger's incubator experiment, and the zillion of esperiments that take place on fruit flies. The problem with performing Evolution experiments is that in order to get a "timely" result, the subject has to produce a large number of generations in a short time, right? Why must people keep asking these me these questions? Can't anyone do a simple Google search?

"These fossils look like they could be half ape half man, so man must have evolved from apes" sounds like conjecture to me....... "

Ah well.. when you make simplified statements like this I begin to get nasty again. So...are you a specialist in study of bone structure and skull identification? Do you know anything about the field of study? It is easy and convenient for you to use the simpleton strategy... "duh... looks like normal bones to me". My point is scientists, those who spend their life studying skull structures, spinal chords, etc... of all life (that has one) make these conclusions based on some pretty intense study and scrutiny. That... isn't conjecture. A conjecture is a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork. No one is making simple guesses here pal.

...But make no mistake it takes faith to believe in evolution.

Why... oh why do you do this to yourself? It takes faith to believe that Noah could carry two of every species in his ark. It takes faith to believe that the Earth less than 6000 years old. Everything ID and Creationism proposes is all faith based! Who do you think you are talking to?

Evolution has so much evidence based not ONLY on the fossil record but what we see today (example: antibiotic resistance) that happens all around us it is rather farcical to say it is not a viable theory. So much evidence proves that the Earth is old no one disputes it except Creationists who seem to think radiometric dating is a "subversive technique". Where is the "faith" when we see things happening with our own eyes? Where is the "faith" when the fossil record shows us the farther we go back in time, the less we see of modern day animals? If God did create all the animals at once then why aren't they in the fossil record but there are many other kinds that are? Ever find a fossil of a modern human at the same age as a dinosaur. Why? Why do you not see such a thing? Hmmm... I will give you a hint and it starts with the letter "E".

You study science, and if that is where your faith and values lie, then that is what you should study.

Science is about attempting to find the truth based on evidence and experiment. It has been exceptionally sucessful and the fruits of that success are right in front of you. The computer, the light bulb, all the medicines that you and your loved ones need to keep on living are products of science. Personally... I don't want to attack your beliefs at all. I really don't. But when proponents of ID push it as science... then they open it up to scientific scrutiny. And then when it doesn't pass the mustard the ID'ers still try and push it through the public schools. Subverting the scientific process like the snake oil salesmen that the ID'ers are. I hate it when Liberals try and subvert the history classes, now I got Creationists subverting the science classes. Both you groups are going to send us down the road to hell with your damned brainwashing techniques.

If you don't want me attacking your beliefs fine, tell your ID buddies to keep it out of science class and I won't bother them with logic.

[Coyoteman]

Bring me one solid piece of unequivocal evidence that supports macro evolution that cannot just as easily be explained away, and then you have room for this pomposity.

While you may not agree, evidence such as is included in the photograph below solidified the theory of evolution long before genetics showed up.

There was about one good hominid fossil find in 1859, and I don't know how familiar Darwin was with it. A century later, when genetics started up, there were thousands of good finds and the theory of evolution was being supported across the board.

Then came genetics, so now we have a second, and more definitive, method for tracking hominid evolution--and it says the same thing the fossils do!

But you wanted one piece of evidence of macroevolution. I give you Homo ergaster. It is represented in the photograph below (H) and a good summary of some of the H. ergaster fossils can be found here.

(By the way, this is one of the many "transitionals" we sometimes hear doesn't exist.)

Now to macroevolution: the folks in the photograph got the way they are through microevolution (lots of little changes) over a long period of time. Result? Macroevolution, or speciation as it is more properly called. Simple, no? Each particular species is proof, by itself, of speciation from the others.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[trashcanbred]

my point was that miniature horses are being trained as seeing eye horses now.

This might sound like a silly question but how does the volume of dung compare between a minature horse and a dog?

[js1138]

Macroevolution

[PatrickHenry]

Excellent! It will find a place in The List-O-Links.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Creation/ID is just one possible alternative...what about the others?

Hasty, hasty....they'll smash those bridges with the club of ignorance and demagoguery when they come to them...

[trashcanbred]

Bring me one solid piece of unequivocal evidence that supports macro evolution that cannot just as easily be explained away, and then you have room for this pomposity

Oh I know where this will go... I give you a piece of evidence... you come up with the explanation that it was the hand of God or something. But ok... let's start round one with:

The "Nene" or "Ne Ne" (Branta sandvicensis) a flightless bird in Hawaii

and the Canadian goose(Branta canadensis) .

Based on the fossil record in Hawaii (mostly bones found in lava tubes where they nested),at one time there were three different species of geese that existed on Hawaii. Today there only one survives, the Nene. Now I have seen the Nene up close and well, from someone who has seen and spent a lot of time around Canadian geese, it looks a lot like one except the feet are different (not webbed) and the patterns on it are different.

Now forget my layman's observation for a moment and look at the DNA evidence found in the fossils. Because most of the fossils were found in underground nesting chambers in lava tubes these fossils have a large amount of Mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) left in them to look at(lava tubes blocked the UV radiation from breaking down the mtDNA). And what do you suppose they find? Well... let me quote it for you:

"Alternatively, the mtDNA divergence between large- and small-bodied subspecies could reflect long-term retention of divergent mtDNA clades from which two morphologically divergent lineages subsequently arose. In this case the Canada goose could be envisioned as a “living ancestor” of a diverse goose radiation."

and there's more:

"Still more surprising, those two Canadian varieties—known as the dusky Canada goose and the giant Canada goose, respectively—share more genetic similarities with the nene and its extinct relatives than they do with other Canada geese. This makes Hawaii's geese a genetic subset of the Canadian species."

The whole article is from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=122202 and is a very good read. For another more easier read you can find one at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0206_020206_canadiangeese_2.html.

This is but one example of very very many that exists but it is my favorite only because I have seen these critters up close and sure enough it is very visible to a layman such as myself that it is a funky looking canadian goose that neither swims nor flies.

Now you could create another "explanation" for what we see here... but not a very credible one given the mtDNA evidence now could you? Oh I am sure you could make one up that your mind would believe... but not one anyone else would.

If only the ID'ers had such proof maybe scientists would be a little more accepting of ID.

[trashcanbred]

Bring me one solid piece of unequivocal evidence that supports macro evolution that cannot just as easily be explained away, and then you have room for this pomposity

Oh I know where this will go... I give you a piece of evidence... you come up with the explanation that it was the hand of God or something. But ok... let's start round one with:

The "Nene" or "Ne Ne" (Branta sandvicensis) a flightless bird in Hawaii

and the Canadian goose(Branta canadensis) .

Based on the fossil record in Hawaii (mostly bones found in lava tubes where they nested),at one time there were three different species of geese that existed on Hawaii. Today there only one survives, the Nene. Now I have seen the Nene up close and well, from someone who has seen and spent a lot of time around Canadian geese, it looks a lot like one except the feet are different (not webbed) and the patterns on it are different.

Now forget my layman's observation for a moment and look at the DNA evidence found in the fossils. Because most of the fossils were found in underground nesting chambers in lava tubes these fossils have a large amount of Mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) left in them to look at(lava tubes blocked the UV radiation from breaking down the mtDNA). And what do you suppose they find? Well... let me quote it for you:

"Alternatively, the mtDNA divergence between large- and small-bodied subspecies could reflect long-term retention of divergent mtDNA clades from which two morphologically divergent lineages subsequently arose. In this case the Canada goose could be envisioned as a “living ancestor” of a diverse goose radiation."

and there's more:

"Still more surprising, those two Canadian varieties—known as the dusky Canada goose and the giant Canada goose, respectively—share more genetic similarities with the nene and its extinct relatives than they do with other Canada geese. This makes Hawaii's geese a genetic subset of the Canadian species."

The whole article is from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=122202 and is a very good read. For another more easier read you can find one at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0206_020206_canadiangeese_2.html.

This is but one example of very very many that exists but it is my favorite only because I have seen these critters up close and sure enough it is very visible to a layman such as myself that it is a funky looking canadian goose that neither swims nor flies.

Now you could create another "explanation" for what we see here... but not a very credible one given the mtDNA evidence now could you? Oh I am sure you could make one up that your mind would believe... but not one anyone else would.

If only the ID'ers had such proof maybe scientists would be a little more accepting of ID.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Some Christians have become so accustomed to being abused and shouted down by atheists and the ACLU (employing the power of the state) that they suffer from a kind of Stockholm Syndrome,

And some Christians are so self-righteous and closed-minded that they believe that ANY Christians who don't believe as they do are sick, or e-vil, or both.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Fundamentally, at their core, IDers, creationists and liberals are the same.

I'm working on a list of the similarities.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

(img src" and")http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/kingprout/BURRface.jpg(img src" and")


I stole your horsey....hehe.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Clearly, Darwinian science has failed to address the bull crap gap.

Are you suggesting that someone should look into the bull crap gap?

[King Prout]

hey, pompous blowhard: every person you erroneously paraphrase, every person who provides correction to your fallacies which you blithely ignore, and every person upon whom you project your own sins... you INSULT.

point that accusing finger back at your own silly self.

[Conservative Texan Mom]

OkeeDokee....What did I do wrong?

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Thanks for the interesting and informative answer!
Although, I imagine a certain type of reader, which shall remain nameless, will get no further than "interesting question".

[Conservative Texan Mom]

The horses are house broken. They can put out a lot of dung in one sitting. The dung is, however, is not meat based(gross). It doesn't smell bad. It also dries up and breaks down very quickly. Now, I imagine that the owner is going to have to get their yard mowed more often, because it's going to be well fertilized. I'm not sure how it is handled for apartments. I guess, like a dog, in that the animal lets the owner know when nature calls.

The horses that are being used for this are tiny. I think only one of ours would be small enough to produce a baby that could be used this way. The stallion we bred her with has consistently put out tiny little babies. So, I'm hoping we get a wee little one from her. Her name is Pumpkin.