"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.

[wyattearp]

The notion that the giraffes neck and leg dimensions were naturally selected is one that is rather dubious if one has ever seen a giraffe drink water.

So you're saying that giraffes necks and legs weren't designed very intelligently? Are you sure you want to go there? We could discuss the "creation" flaws in a multitude of critters, showing the sheer stupidity of the "designer". That's always fun. ;-)

[LibertarianSchmoe]

JCEccles:Stifle debate, suffocate science, all in the name of the liberal state religion.
Stultis:Obviously neither of those things are happening here, nor possibly could be, since this is about secondary and primary science curricula, not about science itself. All science curricula at these levels are introductory. Introductory curricula simply presents and explains the content of science. Such curricula are not, and cannot be, part of the debate that determines the content of science.

An excellent point. Isn't it interesting that the effort of this movement (ID) is focused on what children are taught? Compare this to the effort being made to actually affect science. That is, if you can find such "effort". Clearly, to these people, what science appears to be, to the outside, is far more important than what science actually is.

[Dimensio]

Why shouldn't it be? Few other areas of science have implications in society (morality, etc.) and those that do (stem cell research is a good example) are up for controversy.

Stem cell research involves an application of science that is controversial. The underlying claims have no moral implications.

Are you suggesting that if a scientific theory produces "implications" for the moral systems of some individuals, those implications are a valid justification to question the validity of a scientific theory? Please explain how alleged "implications in society" amount to evidence that a scientific theory is questionable.

[SaveUS]

"actually address how weak some parts of the theory of evolution are."

Please show me the strengths in the ID theory.

[DoctorMichael]

Praise the Lord!

[SaveUS]

"Glad we got that cleared up."

Its not cleared up. Trying to find flaws in Evolution is simply a foot in the science classroom door that Creationists have been looking for since Darwin published his work. 5 minutes of talking about problems with evolution theory would be spent, and then a fundamentalist would break in with a few snakes, a bottle of annoiting oil and tell the whole class they were going to hell if they didn't follow "God's word". Then they would pass around an offering plate, leave, go have sex with a deacon's wife, or molest a child and say, "It's Satan, he made me do it." Then pass the offering plate again, and slip out the back door. Meanwhile, the science class has a blank look on their face that screams, "WTH"?

[blowfish]

Glad we got that cleared up.

Since there *is* no competing scientific theory, I *am* okay with that. If a competing scientific theory ever emerges, they can be reasonably debated and compared in a science class.
If someone has theological or philosophical objections to a scientific theory, let them be expounded in a theology or philosophy class where they belong.

[Stultis]

Its not easy keeping an iron grip on a doctrine of infallibility. You try to keep it pure, but before you know it, someone is off thinking on their own and even trying to convince other people. Such things just can't be tolerated. Perhaps a system of scientific excommunication could be used?</DRAMA QUEEN MODE>

Please remember to close your tags!

[Recovering_Democrat]

Your long posting shows that the origins of life and life's early evolution are not the same thing.

I'll just go ahead and trust the Museum of Natural History's publication, the title of the article "The Origins of Life" written by an evolutionist and the notation of all those published articles by evolutionists to help me understand what evolution theory purports.

When ideas are published by evolutionists in scientific publications trying to explain the origin of life, I'll use that as a measuring stick for a definition.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'll just go ahead and trust the Museum of Natural History's publication, the title of the article "The Origins of Life" written by an evolutionist and the notation of all those published articles by evolutionists to help me understand what evolution theory purports."

None of which supports your claim that the ToE includes the origins of life. They are separate, as the links you provided showed.

"When ideas are published by evolutionists in scientific publications trying to explain the origin of life, I'll use that as a measuring stick for a definition."

Evolutionary biologists don't study the origins of life, biochemists do.

[jwalsh07]

Are you saying, then, that a wheat genome is not "intelligently designed" until after Monsanto alters it?

LOL, I take it you didn't like the previous answer. I don't know but more than that I don't really care. Mechanisms are small stuff. I'm a big picture kind of guy and in my big picture, God did it all. How God does things is up to God.

As the theory of evolution makes no such claim, I do not understand the relevance of your question.

That's because you are a one note Dimensio, stuck in a box of your own making. ToE is your Holy Grail, not mine. The relevance is simply this, if you live by falsifiability you die by falsifiability. Abiogenesis can not be science and as such, according to that icon of the Darwinian Judge Jones, it should never enter the realm of science. Yet it does!

And I support that but you and Judge Jones to be consistent must oppose it. Ah the irony.

[jwalsh07]

Well, that's all very interesting but I would still like to know why the giraffes neck is too short. Someday, I'll find out!