Skip to comments.`Intelligent design' ban is proposed (Democrats to the Rescue!!)
Posted on 02/18/2006 1:56:49 AM PST by gobucks
MADISON, Wis. -- Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill to ban public schools from teaching "intelligent design" as science, saying "pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom.
The proposal is the first of its kind in the country, the National Conference of State Legislatures said.
The measure would require science curriculums to describe only natural processes and follow definitions from the National Academy of Sciences.
Its sponsor, Rep. Terese Berceau, acknowledged the measure faces an uphill fight in a legislature where Republicans control both houses.
Berceau said science education is under attack across the country as proponents of intelligent design promote alternatives to Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design holds that details in nature are so complex they are best explained as products of a designer, not only unguided natural selection of mutations as with Darwin.
Critics say intelligent design is thinly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science. In December, a federal judge in Pennsylvania outlawed a school district's policy of reading a statement to classes citing intelligent design options.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Talk about a back door validation of the power of I.D. as science. Please Mr. and Mrs. Law Making Democrat: don't stop doing this. I suggest all Blue State Law Makers phone Wisconsin about this for advice, and ram home such laws in their states, where pesky GOPers won't get in the way, like they will in Wisconsin.
What a shock. Libertarians everywhere, however, should be especially outraged. Just imagine what will happen if I.D. actually becomes outlawed as 'science'.
Hint: Think War on Drugs...
I think that the banning of ID in schools should be voted on county by county.
From the NAS web site.
Funny ... I wonder what good Mr. Lincoln would think of using the N.A.S. to define what 'science' is...
But then, Democrats would love government to control what everything means.
Especially words like 'science' and 'intelligent' and, yes Mr. Lincoln, even 'art'.
Good. Let's start by tossing out man-made global warming and homosexuality as a genetic trait.
This turns the first Amendment concept of "separation of Church and State" on it's head, except, of course, that the 1st Amendment says no such thing. That argument has always been just another convenient device for which liberals to attack religious people from some imagined moral high ground.
So, now in the name of tolerance and scientific purity and truth and accuracy, they intend to dictate their faith of secular humanism built upon Darwinian theory into law. Now, THAT's some kind of science - Machiavellian science, but it's all they know.
Black is white, and white is black, and to hell with "right and wrong".
Yep, lots and lots of them, crawling about everywhere! Rumors have it many of them are disguised as having infiltrated many conservative websites too, claiming to be true 'conservatives'.
Sort of reminds me of those groundless 'red scares' the country went through in the 20's and 50's.
Btw, what is a quick way to discern the difference between a fascist and a communist? Both hate democracy and voters, both love gov't owning and running the whole show. Maybe in brief: communism is merely effeminized fascism.
"The evidence for Darwinian evolution is so provoking, and the evidential support for ID so weak, that liberals have decided that the only way to protect Darwin's theory is to legislate it into law."
I know, stunning the decision-making process these liberals have. But as I said, such a move, especially if it makes it into law, can only be very, very good for I.D.
I wonder what other laws exist on the books which 'ban' teaching a subject.
This makes about as much sense as the apocryphal action by various state legislatures to decree that Pi = 3.
Decreeing what is "scientific" by legislation is "science" by assertion of authority, which makes about as much sense as enslaving in the name of freedom. It's consistent with how science is taught in many classrooms, however. Self-refuting instructional method is common, and one of the key problems of the "school" model of learning facilitation.
actually they use "pseudo-science" as a code name for religion
Ask them if the country they live in is the "Fatherland" or the "Motherland"?
Scripture refers to the body, soul and spirit as discernible components of man's anthropology.
Some theology asserts man is born of body and soul, then has his spirit regenerated by saving faith.
The proposed law would tend to limit 'science' and what is taught, merely to the domain of 'soulish' things. This is a self-fulfilling system seeking to deny access to the spirit.
"Ask them if the country they live in is the "Fatherland" or the "Motherland"?"
Hey, that's fair.
The snopes link was really funny, and apt.
"The proposed law would tend to limit 'science' and what is taught, merely to the domain of 'soulish' things. This is a self-fulfilling system seeking to deny access to the spirit."
Yep. And I'm thinking this trend will only increase the flight into that new, wildly successful Boarding School Movement. I mean Home School Movement.
""pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom."
Oh. That means evolution will have to be banned.
The last thing DEMONcrats want is people thinking for themselves.