"Intelligent design" legislation in New York dies

National Center for Science Education ^ | 26 June 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

When the New York State Assembly's legislative session ended on June 23, 2006, Assembly Bill 8036 died in committee. If enacted, the bill would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man." A later provision specified that such instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."

The bill was never expected to succeed; its sponsor, Assemblyman Daniel L. Hooker (R-District 127), was reported as explaining that his intention was more to spark discussion than to pass the bill, and as acknowledging that the bill was "religion-based." Moreover, Hooker is not planning on seeking a third term in the Assembly due to his military commitments: he is expected to be on active duty with the Marine Corps until at least early 2007.

[PatrickHenry]

Dan Hooker, obviously a patriot, was honest enough to declare the faith-based nature of his proposed legislation. I think it's a first.

Everyone be nice.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 380 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[Jeff Gordon]

The Creationism mutation known as Intelligent Design is quite weak. The Science anti-virus is defeating it on a massive scale.

[samtheman]

I have a problem with legislation that would mandate:

instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."

It's wrong to say that there's any science today that is "effectively challenging the theory of evolution"; it's important for the public schools to go with the scientific concensus on things like a sun-centered solar system and the fossil/DNA records of evolution.

However, I'm not against legislation allowing a discussion of the critics of evolution, even in science class. Too many people misunderstand what evolution is, how it works, and what evolutionary science is, and how that works (they say things like "it can't be falsified, therefore it's not real science").

It's important, in my opinion, in order to promote the understanding of evolution, to allow the debate about evolution (no matter how un-scientific on the other side) to proceed in public schools, even in science class. As long as the motives for allowing the debate are plainly stated: we're showing you these unscientific critiques, kiddies, so that you can contrast them with how science actually works.

[samtheman]

And you're right. Dan Hooker is obviously a patriot. I'd rather have Dan Hooker in the legislature than some leftist who happens to agree with me about evolution (and probably doesn't understand it any better than a creationist does, just knows it's a position he's got to take).

[Vaquero]

I couldn't imagine it getting a foothold in NY unless you took out the NYC equation. Then again the Buffalo, Binghamton, Ithaca (city of evil....of course), Syracuse, Albany, Rochester, etc equation would still be in play and I still think even without NYC it would be a non issue. (if I left out your liberal bastion, forgive me...you are lumped in with the etc. contingent)

I truly hate agreeing with liberals on anything. I personally dont consider it a liberal/conservative issue. I consider it a science issue.

Unfortunately folks on both sides of the fence DON'T.

[SaveUS]

"any science today that is "effectively challenging the theory of evolution";"

But the trick is to make Creation a Science and go after evolution that way. It is hard to challenge ZAP because it requires no proof or physical evidence. I can just about guarantee that if a reasonable challenge to evolution arises, scientists will be the first to perk up and listen. Creation is not a reasonable challenge.

[SampleMan]

Another heretical movement burned at the stake of dogmatic, proselytizing, secularism.

[samtheman]

What is ZAP?

I agree with you, the challenge is not reasonable, but I think refuting it in science class will go a long way to helping the kiddies understand why evolution is science, and what science is.

[ml1954]

If enacted, the bill would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man."

Kindergarten? He wanted kindergarteners to "receive instruction in all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man." LOL.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Yes but. Yes, but given the demotic acceptance of such as alternative medicine, introduction of controversy before understanding of the heterodoxy is what got us to where we are. Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat the lessons of the past applies to science as well as everything else.

[freedumb2003]

As long as the motives for allowing the debate are plainly stated: we're showing you these unscientific critiques, kiddies, so that you can contrast them with how science actually works.

I applaud the spirit of your post, but in reality it doesn't work. Can you imagine alchemy in chemistry class as an alternative to show how real chemistry works? Prayer in physics class as a contrast?

You get the idea. And on top of that you would have to introduce ALL creation myths -- not just the Judeo Christian one.

I think that religion should stay in theology and philosophy class. Science should be taught in science class.

[Blackirish]

Science wins one.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

crevolist ping.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Another heretical movement burned at the stake of dogmatic, proselytizing, secularism."

I'll say one thing for ID'ers/creationists: they sure know how to do the Drama Queen thing without effort or, apparently, thought.

[SampleMan]

I'll say one thing for ID'ers/creationists: they sure know how to do the Drama Queen thing without effort or, apparently, thought.

Thanks, but I've really got nothing on you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I'm not the one with the wildly hysterical whining about being burned at the stake.

ID'ers (creationists) *Drama Queen* like other people breath.

[Alama]

Good for him...

And good the bill died...

[RadioAstronomer]

It's important, in my opinion, in order to promote the understanding of evolution, to allow the debate about evolution

I do not agree. Do we debate the validity of molecular bonds in chemistry class? No difference IMHO..

[hawkaw]

"any science today that is "effectively challenging the theory of evolution";"

I agree with this point stated by another freeper:

But the trick is to make Creation a Science and go after evolution that way. It is hard to challenge ZAP because it requires no proof or physical evidence. I can just about guarantee that if a reasonable challenge to evolution arises, scientists will be the first to perk up and listen. Creation is not a reasonable challenge.

This is a very important point as science is not absolute.

If you want to challenge the various scientific theories and hypotheses in evolution, you need to do it scientifically. And scientists do look at different observations and testing all the time to either prove or disprove the scientific theories. However, the various scientific theories involved in evolution have been tested over and over and continue to prove they are correct.

In science, you cannot use religion such as ID or creation to disprove a scientific theory since there cannot be an absolute conclusion (eg. there is a God) before you run your test.