Posted on 06/27/2006 3:41:53 AM PDT by 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.
Everyone be nice.
|
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.
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).
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
crevolist ping.
Thanks, but I've really got nothing on you.
Good for him...
And good the bill died...
I do not agree. Do we debate the validity of molecular bonds in chemistry class? No difference IMHO..
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.
Keep religious fairy tales out of public schools!
I could go along with this if there were any. Still looking for that creation/ID "good penny."
When will you and the ACLU learn that all such heavy-handed tactics are destined to fail? Legislated "truth" is a brittle and hollow thing. The more you seek to protect it from scrutiny, the more brittle and hollow it becomes.
And your fervor for it makes you all look like petty Stalinists drawing plans for a gulag to warehouse and segregate the enemies of the state where they won't challenge or annoy the "true science" party apparatchiks.
It was a pretty big mutation, because ID has some very fundamental differences with creationism.
It is my contention that ID actually lends credence to creationists, however. It shows that scientists who are not approaching the field from a Christian perspective still observe problems too great to be met by naturalistic answers in the theory of evolution. However, they don't want to turn and say that God created. (Whether it is because they fear their pro-evolution peers, or just fear to name God at all, I don't know.)
Therefore, they invent a mushy middle; some unknown creator (X) fills in the gaps of Darwinism, and that's all there is to it.
Not a very sound conclusion (although they back up the science pretty well) but it shows that people without a Christian framework still recognize fatal flaws in evolution.
Well it seems to me that the people that want to stiffle debate are the one peddling intelligent design... As it isn't a scientific theory...
My original post, to which you posted, was in reply to what struck me as wildly hysterical glee at burning heretics at the stake (figuratively of course). My point as usual is to point out the subjective passion among Darwinists, which I think greatly reduces their credibility.
Tell me honestly. Do you really oppose a critical examination of the evolutionary model (and its inadequacies) in the classroom?
Granted, it seems a bit much to do so legislatively, but critical thinking is important, and it would seem few teachers actually address how weak some parts of the theory of evolution are.
I've said before that I don't support forced teaching of intelligent design or creationism in the classroom. And again, it seems a bit extreme to force teachers to examine evolution critically (and since such legislation has often failed, it would seem many agree with me), but if they won't do it, then I'm not opposed to legislative bodies making them.
I don't know any scientist, real one, who believes in intelligent design...
As Pasteur (a devout catholic) once said: "I always leave my religion in the cupboard of my lab..." This is how science evolves...
Sound Christian principles (or Hindu, or Mulsim, or Buddhist) are to be left outside of the lab!
Back in the Dark Ages (50's) we got phlogiston in my basic chemistry class.
They did a good job of explaining how it had been a scientific approach and how it was shown to be incorrect.
In bio we got told about creationism but there it was clearly pointed out that that was a religious stance that had nothing to do with science or evidence.
No. In economics class. Moody's just downgraded molecular bonds to triple-B over B-minus.
I don't know any scientist, real one, who believes in intelligent design...And liberals didn't know anyone that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.
As Pasteur (a devout catholic) once said: "I always leave my religion in the cupboard of my lab..." This is how science evolves...But really, it is impossible to leave one's preconceptions behind. Just as I could not expect myself or any other to abandon one's political beliefs or somehow compartmentalize them and ignore them.
Sound Christian principles (or Hindu, or Mulsim, or Buddhist) are to be left outside of the lab!What about sound principles of naturalism? Why are they so free in the lab?
Science isn't an election... Which means that the majority may believes in something and it is still wrong...
The only thing you should use is the scientific method... And religion isn't part of it!
It seems you failed to notice that the "legislation" at issue here was to mandate the introduction and promotion of creationism, not evolution.
Maybe because no has yet figured out how to study supernaturalism in the lab?
A later provision specified that such instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."[emphasis added]
A vacuously satisfied condition....
? Finish reading my previous post please, as your above makes no sense in relation to it.
Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere are saddened.
Of course not. That would require a strict adherence to the facts, instead of projecting what you want to believe. That pretty much says it all, and sums up my point nicely.
Out of curiosity, do my negative views on Palestinian actions make me a defacto Jew?
Vice insisting that I'm an ID'er, you could just use a turn of phrase on a time honored slur, "ID lover!".
You know it is only a matter of time until these ID deviants begin an underground resistance of forbidden teaching in the public sector. Have you given much thought to punishment? These people need to be put in their place. (Like 'burning at the stake', this is known as hyperbole, it is often useful for pointing out the ludicrous to people who cannot see themselves as others do.)
This is silly. The early grades (and especially kindergarten) are not an appropriate time for the abstract concepts involved in evolution and ID. The kids will have no idea what the teacher is talking about.
At this age a lot of children don't understand that if you change the shape of something, it still has the same mass and volume. Yet this assemblyman wants to introduce abstract concepts to them like descent with modification and "irreducible compexity" (whatever that might be).
Dumb.
Thanks for the ping!
"Of course not. That would require a strict adherence to the facts, instead of projecting what you want to believe. That pretty much says it all, and sums up my point nicely."
No, it would be because I DO adhere to the evidence, and your posting history does not support you claim.
"You know it is only a matter of time until these ID deviants begin an underground resistance of forbidden teaching in the public sector."
Cry me a river.
Since this thread is about evolution being taught in the classroom, I asked about evolution. Start a thread about another iffy realm of science and I'll ask for free inquiry and discussion on that.
Except that, I don't think there are any other aspects of theoretical science up for question like evolution, and I don't think evolutionists have to squelch debate on anything else except evolution.
Which pretty much sums up the motivations behind this garbage 'controversy':
String Theory: no legislation required
Global Warming: no legislation required
Evolution: Gotta pass some laws challenging this unproven theory! Call you congressman! It's for the children, after all...
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.