Posted on 06/06/2005 2:49:58 PM PDT by CHARLITE
A new front has opened up in the debate over evolution and creationism in Utah, with a proposal to require the teaching of divine design in public schools.
State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of divine design, also known as intelligent design, in conjunction with evolution in schools.
Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum, which has previously sought the inclusion of divine design in the public school science curriculum.
School officials argue that any laws requiring the teaching of divine design could be found in violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.
Supporters of the proposal contend, however, that divine design is not the same as creationism. Unlike creationism, divine design simply acknowledges that the world is so complex, its development must have been guided by some higher power. Proponents do not specify who that higher power is.
Currently, public schools in Utah are required to teach evolution, but not alternative theories. Some teachers have independently chosen to introduce the topics of creationism or divine design in their classrooms.
The issue of what to teach in schools regarding evolution has been an ongoing debate. Recent cases have gained nationwide attention.
In May, the Kansas Board of Education held hearings to decide on new science standards. A three-member committee heard arguments from proponents of intelligent design and evolution. Last week, written arguments from both sides were submitted to the Board. The Board is expected to decide on new standards by the end of the summer.
One of the most publicized cases last year concerned evolution disclaimer stickers that were placed on the cover of ninth grade science books in Atlanta, Georgia. The stickers said that “evolution is a theory, not a fact,” and warned students that “material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
Six parents filed a suit against the Cobb County School District, charging that the stickers violated the separation of church and state. The school district argued that the stickers were meant to open up discussion on the topic of evolution and alternative theories of the origin of life.
In January, a federal judge ordered the stickers to be removed. The school district began removing stickers from over 30,000 books in May, although an appeal is pending on the judge’s ruling.
The new proposal in Utah is yet another iteration of the creation-evolution debate. The issue is expected to be brought up when the next legislative session begins in January.
Comments: susan@christianpost.com
MAQM place mark
Suggesting that Matchett-PI is as honest as Bill Clinton is insulting. To Clinton.
If Darwinism is not a religion, why adopt religious symbols?
The other thing I find funny about the Darwinism religious symbol is: the fish usually symbolizes "being fishers of man's souls" or "saving souls" - does this Darwinism religious symbol mean "Darwinism devours one's soul"?
Clearly Darwinists are jealous of all the fun religion has with symbols and dogma.
I don't know, what about "Darwisnists" who are also theists?
I believe it would be impossible for one to be a theists and against intellenge design - unless one beleives in "Gods" that do absolutely nothing.
"Do you judge them just as harshly for teaching gravitational theory as purely naturalistic? Are you aware that science seeks only naturalistic explanations for observations?"
Gravity is repeatable. Therefore, it is subject to experimentation, and public acceptance or refutation. And, even in gravity, it is the equation, not the model, that can be determined by experiment.
Evolution is not so. Evolution is a historical argument, where you can only get to evolution by having naturalistic assumptions. I don't need naturalistic assumptions to get to gravity. I can calculate the equation from the data. Whether or not supernatural forces are at play is not truly dealt with in science, only that the equation is repeatable within a margin of error. However, for evolution, we have to take naturalism a priori in order to justify the claims of evolution.
And when did evolution move from theory to fact?
Your faith in what?
Now pby, you know the answer to that. You've been around these threads long enough.
A scientific "theory" is a description of how a process operates. Like "electrical theory". Or "Music theory", like the class my daughter takes in college.
But electricity and music are facts too.
The "theory of evolution" describes the process. But the FACT that evolution happens is a fact.
You knew that. How come you're playing dumb?
The roll of the dice in Vegas aren't repeatable. But "dice theory" I'm sure is studied in that town and is a real science. I assure you that dice, and odds, exist.
Same with evolution. The theory describes it's actions, and like it's impossible to predict what will come up on the die, the fact that something will always come up with dice and evolution is a forgone conclusion.
Same old creationoid error -- claiming that if something isn't repeatable, it isn't science. By that goofy standard, astronomy isn't science, because we can't repeat supernovae, and we certainly can't repeat the big bang. Nor is geology science, because we can't re-create the history of the earth. I wish, just once, that we'd encounter a creationist who had the first clue what science is. But then ... if a creationist had a clue, he wouldn't be a creationist.
you can repeat an observation of gravity. things fall down. even a detailed observation. things fall with a constant acceleration that is the same, regardless of weight. The speed of a falling object may be altered by the resistance of the air to its passage.
the theory of gravity, which leads to conclusions about the motion of the planets the existence of vast regions of microgravity where there is no predominate "down", on the other hand is something I doubt you have directly observed.
that "when did evolution move from a theory to fact" line, is the same old hackneed stuff that creationists pull out of there sock drawer everytime this subject comes up. It is fact. proven fact. The only thing about it that resembles a theory is some of minutae and fine detail which is irrelevant to the proof of evolution.
I put the word in capitals for a reason.
My Faith in the Risen Lord.
Dice (if tossed according to casino rules) do behave stochastically®.
So...apparently you also have a problem with the way evolution is taught in public school science classes?
If it was taught as just observation of the natural, then I would agree with you...but it is not. The NCSE and public school science classes go beyond natural observation and they interpret through philosophical assumption. Their philosophical assumption disavows the Creator using natural processes to create.
I can think of four just off the top of my head - maybe others will have some free "play time" to add to the list:
[1] You said you weren't offended and infuriated by the term "village atheist."
[4] You deny that you only know the tune to one song, ie: "You're a Liar"
bttt
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.