"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.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Keep religious fairy tales out of public schools!

[VadeRetro]

A later provision specified that such instruction would include information about "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."

I could go along with this if there were any. Still looking for that creation/ID "good penny."

[JCEccles]

Stifle debate, suffocate science, all in the name of the liberal state religion.

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.

[Alama]

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...

[SampleMan]

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

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.

[Alama]

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!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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)."

Nobody else mentioned burning at the stake but you. You made that part up.

"My point as usual is to point out the subjective passion among Darwinists, which I think greatly reduces their credibility."

And you did so by adopting a Martyr complex and Victimhood status that is no different than what the left does.

[From many - one.]

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.

[Gumlegs]

Do we debate the validity of molecular bonds in chemistry class?

No. In economics class. Moody's just downgraded molecular bonds to triple-B over B-minus.

[Alama]

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!

[SampleMan]

Reread my last. I know that you are aware of what "figuratively" means.

I could have just said, "I detect zealotry.", but I'm blessed with a flair for the colorful.

As for being an ID martyr that would be a bit difficult given that I'm not part of the cause. But I do find ID'ers to be far more pleasant people on these posts.

This is usually where I get accused of being a closet ID'er (not fooling anyone) in conflict with the one and only true belief. If you'd like to pillory my ideas instead, I've summed them up fairly well on a different thread.
#31 if you care to look. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1656301/posts

I think religion should be taught in religious classes and that science should be clear when it is projecting theories beyond what is actually known (but I'm fine with them being taught). From archaeologists that create entire civilizations from shards of pottery, to Darwinists that insist all change can only be the result of survival of the fittest, (and yes religious people too) I think too much certainty about the uncertain is arrogant and begets conflict.

My apologies for once again forgetting that figurative, and colorful comments are a bad idea on these threads. In retrospect it was very unwise, and worse it is a repeat sin for me. I should force a 10 minute delay on myself for all ID/Darwin threads, or better skip them altogether.

[atlaw]

Legislated "truth" is a brittle and hollow thing.

It seems you failed to notice that the "legislation" at issue here was to mandate the introduction and promotion of creationism, not evolution.

[atlaw]

What about sound principles of naturalism? Why are they so free in the lab?

Maybe because no has yet figured out how to study supernaturalism in the lab?

[longshadow]

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....

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Reread my last. I know that you are aware of what "figuratively" means."

I know you didn't mean that ID'ers were literally being burned at the stake, nor did I say you said that. I was pointing out the overwrought way that ID'ers/creationists like to play the victim and be the drama queen. Boo hoo, your theology isn't being taught in science classrooms. Get over yourselves.

[SampleMan]

Boo hoo, your theology isn't being taught in science classrooms. Get over yourselves.

? Finish reading my previous post please, as your above makes no sense in relation to it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"? Finish reading my previous post please, as your above makes no sense in relation to it."

I already read it. I don't believe you are not an ID'er.

And your histrionic example burning heretics at the stake marks you as a drama queen.