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 ...
Careful, most evolutionists I've read would then make a leap in logic to conclude most evolutionists most evolutionists consider homosexuality acceptable and then assert their conclusions were scientifically founded.
No, they wouldn't, because most evolutionists aren't that incompetent with statistics, but thanks for sharing yet more false assertions with us.
Perhaps if you started a grass-roots effort...
Sample:
"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders at the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand." -- Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution, 1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995) But surely, Havoc is finally right *this* time, eh? Dream on. The anti-evolutionists have been fantasizing about evolution crashing down since before the Civil War... Uh huh. Sure. Any day now.
Just for some perspective, scientists have the nature of matter itself absolutely figured out now , right?
Incorrect. By introducing a bill regarding I.D., they are not really outlawing anything ... but they are 'inlawing' the meaning of a word instead, science.
Thank you, Humpty Dumpty...
Word-juggling aside, I stand by my statement.
btw, laws are to be enforced, by gov't, no?
Right.
Can you identify any other words 'gov't' is attempting to delineate by statute?
Sure, hundreds -- check out the "definitions" section of nay criminal code. For example, the Federal Code defines "firearm" and "weapon", as well as "homicide", "incite", and so on.
Why is it that some people on these threads always assume that if you don't take creationism seriously that you must be a Godless atheist? These people do science, and conservatism, a disservice.
That should read "Godless Communist." Redundancy is the enemy...
No, nor do they claim to. Meanwhile, the anti-evolutionists keep making all sorts of claims about things they can't possibly know, and all sorts of false claims about thing which have been established to the contrary. Few groups can boast the anti-evolutionists' rate of being wrong so often on so many topics.
"Just for some perspective, scientists have the nature of matter itself absolutely figured out now , right?"
Foul ball!!! You have to say in the lines!
One does not follow from the other.
"These people do science, and conservatism, a disservice."
Too much exposure to creationism must be bad for you I guess...
But I had Darwin Doses by the truck load. It just didn't stick.
If 'possibilites' exist to be explored then they existed before we created them, right?
and btw, you didn't define how you comprehend absolute truth. Thanks for adding it...
I do know why it's important.
And honor doesn't just appear, unlike the way mold will grow as a consequence of unplugging the refridgerator.
Correct.
You said I was incorrect regarding your outlook about absolute truth. Ok. Do you have links which discuss your understanding about what Truth is, exactly?
No need for a link -- truth is that which matches reality.
Too much exposure to religious belief posing as junk science must be bad for your mental health.
"If"... They may well not exist until we do envision them. "Possibilities" are ideas, not concretions.
Even if they do have some sort of existence prior to our envisioning them, your conclusion still does not follow -- one can not conclude that therefore there is a God or gods. Mere existence of [fill in the blank] is not sufficient proof for that, unless one is fond of the fallacy of begging the question / circular reasoning.
Anyway, last election, some homeschoolers around here got into a discussion about Bush vs. Kerry, and I made a lot of enemies, got the silent treatment at the next get-together, and was glad to finally know who those people really were and move on. ;-) That's the whole beauty of free association - we can pick and choose our friends. :-)
So, if government-controlled schools were shut down, yes, there would be "liberal enclaves" of homeschoolers here and there. But, there would also be conservative groups and everything in-between. That's the beauty of educating in the free marketplace. Free association is the rule. We are free to pick and choose for our children. We can decide to associate with one group and not another.
Not so in a public school. You're stuck with your local school system. I had one child in public school for a short time, and I was the "speak-up" type of parent. The problem is, when you're outnumbered, you can speak up every single day and majority-rule will still dictate what your children do and learn.
"No need for a link -- truth is that which matches reality."
Ah. What is reality? I'm really asking...
Ping!
It seems even Nobel Laureates are having a hard time figuring such mystical quantum revelations about things like particles revolving both clockwise and counter-clockwise at the same time. As they say concerning QM, the more we understand about this, the sillier it gets. To me, that just leaves the door open to things such as a possible force outside of what can be known as having started all of this. QM is so cool!
And I'm someone who agrees with some of the logic behind evolution. But why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Just because something isn't endorsed via scientific method doesn't mean it can't be happening. All kinds of inductions can be made from QM.
And remember, some of Einsteins work was theorized via thought experiments. And also some of science thought to be rock solid (oops, guess there's no such thing, just wavicles) gets absolutley turned on its head when thought to be fact through the years.
I can still shoot in the sixties.
Of course, that's only on a three hole course.
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.