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.
This is no different than the people who don't mind activist judges so long as they are "conservative".
Evidence? When did you become plural?
Finally, I'm not making a point about ID'ers, I'm making a point about you. So far though, you've done a better job of painting that self-portrait than me.
I'm reminded of people who respond to "calm down" with a 30 minute scream fest about how they're "not upset!", and label everyone who doesn't take their side as the enemy.
Yes, thank God...er, never mind...thank the unfeeling random acts of synapses firing in the brains of those multi-cellular life forms in New York. They've saved the kids from learning about an alternative to the wholly unprovable theory of macroevolution.
You reminded me of that too.
Go list more examples of evilutionary persecutions against ID'ers with someone else. Your ranting is getting a little, well, boring.
Have a great life! :)
Good to see you. Don't be a stranger.
If you said what I said about ID, or anything close to it, you wouldn't be comparing the death of this bill with burning heretics at the stake.
You mean if I had deep personal disdain for them, and took every opportunity to be as nasty as possible to them by calling them idiots, etc.?
FYI, as mentioned several times previously, my post was in response to the attitude of someone like you, not to the bill not being passed.
You are the equivalent of the loud obnoxious drunk at the end of the bar, that you don't want on your side in a discussion. Maybe you're at the wrong end of the bar to understand this analogy.
I had already posted before you made your cut and run declaration. My apologies. I will quite certainly leave you alone. ;)
Ooops. Both are theories that try to explain the diversity of species and origin of life. So thank ___ the government won't allow an alternate explanation to the wholly unprovable/undemonstrable theory of macroevolution.
"Both are theories that try to explain the diversity of species and origin of life."
Really? Could show me where either theory attempts to explain the origin of life?
You're not capable? I s'pose I should have expected that.
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.
I don't know how to make this distinction any more clear. Most creationists (and some evolution supporters for that matter) seem almost congenitally unable to "get it". To see any decision about curricula as directly effecting scientific debate is just absurd. I mean, what are people even thinking when they write or utter such rhetoric? Do they think research scientists are throwing down their journals and consulting highschool textbooks instead???
I agree, it would be great to allow alternative scientific explanations to observed phenomena in the classroom. All theories should be held to the same performance standards before accepted into the scientific mainstream - that is scientists should collect data, study the data, draw falsifiable conclusions, submit them for peer review in mainstream science journals, allow them further review and testing in the field by other scientists across the world, submit them to even bigger journals, then let them be drafted into school textbooks and taught in the classroom.
Evolutionary theory has passed these standards time and time again - but what do you know - there isn't even any peer-reviewed work in any reputable journal on intelligent design - how about that - why do you think that is? Surely you're not suggesting affirmative action for this special theory that hasn't passed this standard as every other theory must?
Capable? Capable of what? I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
I take it then that you are unable or unwilling to support your own position. It seems to me that your understanding of both Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution is flawed.
That'w why peer review and replication are fundamental.
You don't think the drivers behind the ID jalopy are coming from a Christian background? Behe, Dembski and their DI cronies? LOL! That takes the cake.
Do you actually bother the read anything on these threads?
The ID peddlers know nothing about biology or science whatsoever, but want to tell us all how to teach it.
God help this country in the 21st century.
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.