Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Intelligent design" legislation in New York dies
National Center for Science Education ^ | 26 June 2006 | Staff

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; US: New York
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; bewareofluddites; commonsenseprevails; crevolist; goddooditamen; idiocydefeated; idjunkscience; notagain; pavlovian; zeusdoodit
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-274 next last
To: Recovering_Democrat; SampleMan
...about an alternative to the wholly unprovable theory of macroevolution. ...

Please give a few of the experimental results confirming this so-called alternative. For example, what does it say about genetic markers common to domestic cats and dogs? Does it make any predictions about wild animals, or other kinds of animals? Have any of these predictions been tested and found to be true or false?

You know what standard biology has to say on this sort of question, and you know that its predictions have come true.

Why doesn't the "alternative" have to adhere to the same standards?

81 posted on 06/27/2006 1:50:22 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla

God help this country in the 21st century.




It's a state issue. And it's only interesting in the fact that some states are currently competing tooth and nail for science-based industries.


82 posted on 06/27/2006 1:53:06 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Sorry, not my argument, and I'll just have to admit to not understanding the premise of the "theory of macroevolution". Is that an ID premise, or a Darwinian premise? Never mind, I guess I can read the posts myself. My only real assertions on this subject are that I don't think competitive advantage is a logical explanation for certain evolutionary traits, and that Darwinists are prone to asserting too much and getting far too emotional. I'd say the same thing about ID'ers, but I never get flamed by them.
83 posted on 06/27/2006 2:27:10 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

"What is ZAP?"

LOL It is the SaveUS word for Instant Creation of everything that ever was or ever will be.

I really don't think religion needs to be in the classroom for any reason. For the same reason both ways. We have freedom of religion, or freedom from religion. Bringing it up in a classroom just lends itself to forming a government sponsored opinion either way. Let people be free in their homes to do what they wish within the law, but don't force any religion on anybody.


84 posted on 06/27/2006 2:28:26 PM PDT by SaveUS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
...My only real assertions on this subject are that I don't think competitive advantage is a logical explanation for certain evolutionary traits, ...

Fine. Show some theoretical and/or experimental results to back this assertion up, run it through the gauntlet of review and replication by skeptical experts, and maybe someday there will be something to teach in high school.

But as long as 99.7% (estimated) of biologists agree that standard ToE is fundamental to an understanding of life, that's what gets taught as science.

85 posted on 06/27/2006 2:34:01 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Yes, you're right. It would be opening a can of worms. I withdraw my suggestion.


86 posted on 06/27/2006 2:44:44 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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

You know JC, I always look forward to your arrival on these threads. After I have read the DUFU all the way through, it is a super kick to see our own moonbats.

As has been pointed out to you countless times, evolution is open to debate and in fact debates occur wthin it all the time. But mythology is not "debate." It is like proposing that angels holding airplanes up is an "alternate theory." I remind you scientific theories explain things, they don't describe them. Things fall down: describes Gravity. Theory of Gravity: explains WHY things fall down (or don't in some cases).

You have fossils millions of years old. You have a progression of physical evidence that points an arrow. Deal with it. If you have an alternate theory that doesn't rely on diefic intervention, we are all ears (eyes).

87 posted on 06/27/2006 3:01:38 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The Left created, embraces and feeds "The Culture of Hate." Make it part of the political lexicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
That'w why peer review and replication are fundamental.

CRIDer peer review: "Hey, hand me your Bible."

88 posted on 06/27/2006 3:03:10 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The Left created, embraces and feeds "The Culture of Hate." Make it part of the political lexicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
It was a pretty big mutation, because ID has some very fundamental differences with creationism.

It is what they have in common that makes them of the same species. Their common DNA is devine intervention.

89 posted on 06/27/2006 3:22:24 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon (Is tractus pro pensio.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
CRIDer peer review: "Hey, hand me your Bible."

Can you imagine if theology had the same level of review and skepticism as science does? Christian theologians would have to prove their assertions to the satisfaction of Muslims, Hindus, et al, before they could publish.

"well, that's a very pretty theory, but since it can't account for the fact of totem animals..."

90 posted on 06/27/2006 3:34:39 PM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
"well, that's a very pretty theory, but since it can't account for the fact of totem animals..."

That is HILARIOUS!! LOLIRL.

91 posted on 06/27/2006 3:48:41 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The Left created, embraces and feeds "The Culture of Hate." Make it part of the political lexicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Yes, you're right. It would be opening a can of worms. I withdraw my suggestion.

I get convinced of stuff all the time here. Sign of an intelligent, probing mind :)

92 posted on 06/27/2006 3:52:57 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (The Left created, embraces and feeds "The Culture of Hate." Make it part of the political lexicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Fine. Show some theoretical and/or experimental results to back this assertion up, run it through the gauntlet of review and replication by skeptical experts, and maybe someday there will be something to teach in high school.

Experimental results? You mean like putting giraffes in a pen with only low bushes, adding a million years, and recording the results? That would be nice. I'll get right on it. I'm unaware, however that that has been done for standard TofE in regard to the subject I'm speaking.

I could compare hundreds of sets of animals that have infinitesimally small difference to see if they have any comparative advantage in breeding. However, I'm smart enough to know that a result that showed no advantage would simply be dismissed as "insufficient". The beauty of your position is that my experiment, no matter the outcome, would never be accepted as conclusive.

However, I don't believe that there is a single bit of proof that says I'm wrong. If giraffe's necks simply got longer with time due to a natural progression of change in the DNA, they would either cope with it or go extinct. At some point, competitive advantage would stop the evolution.

I frankly don't think 99.7% (estimated) of biologists would disagree with me on that. And until I hear a reason why its not more logical than believing that extremely minute changes result in more offspring, I'm sticking with it. And I think its healthy for science to ask such questions, and even more healthy for scientists to have a better answer than "we all agree that we're right and you're wrong."

Now, you don't seem to have read all my posts, and that's OK, but you are challenging assertions that I have not made, such as ToE being taught as science. There are certain aspects of evolution that are absolutely fact, as supported by the fossil record. Then there are theories, such as "why did a particular animal evolve a given way". At this point evolutionists love to speculate, and that's fine and can be fun, but the bottom line is, they just don't know. Just as I get annoyed at anthropologists that recreate an entire civilizations social structure from a few shards of pottery, I get annoyed at the presumption of certainty in some biologists about "why" certain animals evolved the way they did. All they generally know is that the animal evolved, and the change wasn't so detrimental that it led to extinction.

93 posted on 06/27/2006 3:56:08 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

Yes, I know there are no demonstrable examples of macro-evolution. Thank you!


94 posted on 06/27/2006 4:11:03 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla

Not different from other religious fanatics all through history...


95 posted on 06/27/2006 4:16:53 PM PDT by Alama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Are giraffes legs and necks too long or too short?


96 posted on 06/27/2006 4:19:32 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Are giraffes legs and necks too long or too short?

As their legs just touch the ground without any excess, I must say they are just right. Of course this is always the answer isn't it?

97 posted on 06/27/2006 4:23:27 PM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
LOL, a good one but not the one I was looking for. 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. :-}

Not to mention the fact that male giraffes are much taller than female giraffes. I guess they were male chauvinist pig giraffes who bent the trees down so their mates could chow down.

98 posted on 06/27/2006 4:27:47 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

the "theory of macroevolution"

Never heard of it. Could you please summarize what it says?

99 posted on 06/27/2006 4:58:27 PM PDT by ml1954 (NOT the BANNED disruptive troll who was seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-274 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson