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 ...
Do you really know many, or any, homeschoolers? In our 12 years of homeschooling belonging to three differeent homeschooling groups, usually with dual memberships, I have NEVER come across the mindset you have described. While I'm sure there are liberal homeschoolers out there, I have yet to meet any. The homeschooled kids I've met are all bright and well adjusted socially. None that I have met are liberal by any stretch of the imagination and all are very aware of the social and political issues that are facing this country today. They know what they believe and why.
"...an echo-chamber of liberal propaganda," IS a public school. Kids aren't taught to think for themselves as much as parrot back what the teachers teach. It happened to me in public high scool and even public universities.
Hey, when I encounter an NEA cheerleader here at FR, I get skeptical.
Yup, there you go with *another* one...
I know, I know, you have not indicated you support the NEA.
Wow, the little light over your head *does* turn on, however infrequently...
Ahem anyway ... I think the beam comment applies here...
I'm sure you do think that.
I think somehow your words would be far more trustworthy if you'd spend a bit of time indicating how folks become more conservative and vote Republican more often as a function of being exposed to the overwhelming evidence of evolution.
Gee, you mean like these from prior posts of mine?
It's important that conservatism does not let itself be tainted by the dishonest antics of a fringe element. This way leads to political defeat, as when all eight Republican schoolboard members in Dover Pennsylvania in a Republican district were booted out and replaced by eight Democrats during the recent election, because the Republican schoolboard members had made the mistake of catering to the AECreationists, and ended up misleading schoolchildren, putting grossly dishonest propagandistic "textbooks" into the school library, and perjuring themselves under oath in a trial.And:
ATTENTION KARL ROVE: Creationism is a hopeless issue! Keep it out of Republican election campaigns. Wanna keep winning elections? Dump ID!And:Actually, it's pretty obvious he *has* dumped it -- and had never adopted it in the first place.
In fact, I often wonder whether the "You've gotta be an AECreationist to be a 'real' conservative" folks have ever noticed that the most prominent conservative commentators have all studiously avoided ID/AECreationism entirely.
You never hear Rush Limbaugh, for example, railing against evolution. And despite the press spin on President Bush's answer to the ambush question about ID, he actually *sidestepped* it, and pointedly refused to actually advocate ID or denounce evolution. And so on, and so on. The vast majority of conservative political commentators, pundits, and politicians treat ID/AECreationism like an embarrassing hot potato, best left locked up in the attic along with crazy Aunt Harriet.
"ACLU attorney Witold Walczak" This says a great deal about the case, the election, and the direction of the debate.And:Yes, it says that Republicans hand victories to the ACLU when they get involved in the "ID"/creationism garbage.
Attacking a field of knowledge that you barely know -- and much of what you "know" is wrong thanks to creationist misinformation -- is a waste of *everyone's* time, including your own. Stop mouthing off without knowing what in the hell you're talking about. A lot of us have better things to do than correct all the misinformation y'all spew here on a regular basis. And acting like frothing scientific illiterates (okay, maybe it's *not* an act) really does *not* help the conservative cause -- it turns off large numbers of potential Republican voters in the same way (and for the same reasons) as the wackjob/enviro/feminist/"new-age"/crystal-healing/holistic/etc. "don't-confuse-me-with-science" folks turn off potential Democrat voters.And:So if you really do care about conservatism -- go find a new hobby...
And I can concur with several posters' observations, in that I have often tried to bring likeminded friends and acquaintances into the conservative "fold" (or at least vote for Republicans), only to find that one of their biggest reasons for declining has been the antics of the more outspoken anti-evolution (or fundamentalism-is-the-only-way view in general) members of the conservative movement. It strongly reinforces the common stereotype of conservatives as intolerant, or non/anti-intellectual. This is especially true when the person is familiar with the science of evolution, and is thus frequently astounded by the nature of attacks on it, since those attacks often make claims the listener knows to be untrue in a way that any first-year biology student would know better than to make. This is not a good image for conservatism.And:
And I stand by my assessment of how bad it make conservatives look when some of them grossly misrepresent science and those who practice it. It only reinforces the common stereotype of conservatives as being know-nothing, anti-science, anti-intellectual yahoos. Do you think that helps attract more people to the conservative movement? Quite the contrary. I personally know quite a few people who would otherwise be sympathetic to conservatism, but who are unwilling to associate with the movement because they see too many conservatives who do actually act that way. It's the same as how many people are driven away from liberalism by the antics of the hate-America-first crowd among the liberals....and so on, many times over. So yes, contrary to your ignorant presumption, I *do* "spend a bit of time indicating how folks become more conservative and vote Republican more often as a function of being exposed to the overwhelming evidence of evolution". Happy now?
But, that just is not something you are known for.
Only among people who mistake their false presumptions about me for reality, and who haven't bothered to actually pay attention to what I really write. People like you, for example.
It is a crying shame.
Yes, your ability to jump to false conclusions and be utterly convinced of their reality *is* a crying shame.
Just think of it. Together, we might end once and for all this fruitless conflict, and unite to attack the real enemy! Liberal Facist/Commie Democrats who would love to legalize all sexual dysfunction, and above change the age of consent laws.
Feel free to wake up and join me someday.
Heck ... it's just a function of imagination you know.
Yes, I know that's what you rely on. Personally I try to stick with reality, and I spend a lot of time and effort working to determine what it is.
Sort of like what one finds out during a round of golf. I forget ... are you a golfer Ichneumon??
No, I never had much interest in it.
The "Birds of a feather" quote comes to mind... When one finds oneself consistently on the side of liberal Democrats, Barney Frank, the anti-American ACLU, Barry Lynn, and People for the American Way, it's time to question your judgement.
Do you really know many, or any, homeschoolers? In our 12 years of homeschooling belonging to three differeent homeschooling groups, usually with dual memberships, I have NEVER come across the mindset you have described. While I'm sure there are liberal homeschoolers out there, I have yet to meet any.
That's been my impression as well, but note that I was talking about a "future" situation. What I meant was if some folks here had their way and public schools were abolished, then education would "balkanize" into various islands of private schools and/or homeschooling. In that scenario, there would be a lot of liberal "enclaves" of private schools catering to liberals, and/or homeschooling focusing on liberal indoctrination.
"...an echo-chamber of liberal propaganda," IS a public school. Kids aren't taught to think for themselves as much as parrot back what the teachers teach.
Yes and no -- while there's a lot more liberal crap in public schools than most of us would like, it isn't (except in rare extreme cases) as bad as the kind of "echo-chamber" I was writing about, where it's liberal curricula taught to liberal students, with nary an opposing view or idea anywhere to be had. And again, parent involvement can go a long way towards bringing schools back to something closer to the center -- schools do lean liberal, often strongly, but when conservative parents fight for balance it can and does have an effect.
It happened to me in public high scool and even public universities.
And yet you didn't turn out liberal. ;-)
From the perspective of a person who identifies faith with lack of justification, evolution and science appear to be more trustworthy and rationally justified system of beliefs. Such a perspective tends to discount spiritual evidence.
From the perspective of a person who considers God exists and is able to have a relationship with Him through faith in Christ, an entire new domain of the spirit is manifest. In order to develop an epistemology or new thinking in the believer that not only accounts for every piece of evidence maintained by evolutionary theory, but also to acknowledge the domain of the spirit, a new theory of Intelligent Design emerges.
IMHO, both believer and unbeliever, if honest will acknowledge the evidence used in either theory. There are many statements made by both in their particular vocabularies, based upon previous premises, which become dogmatic in their later development. Such advanced dogmas tend to cause immediate rejection by an advocate of the alternate position.
I don't know any Freeper who finds themselves "consistently" on the side of the folks you list.
But I thought that ID has nothing to do with religion!
That's the Dems for you, banning intelligence in favor of stupidity.
I wish you were a golfer - you'd see things differently if you were. I'm guessing you have a trauma memory on a golf course, which goads you to never risk that sensation ever again. But I testify in all sincerity: become a golfer, I mean, Golfer, and your life will never be the same. It will be better.
"...and so on, many times over. So yes, contrary to your ignorant presumption, I *do* "spend a bit of time indicating how folks become more conservative and vote Republican more often as a function of being exposed to the overwhelming evidence of evolution". Happy now? "
Ahh. Now who's looking dogmatic. Post after post which, fairly I'll grant, indicates that folks are turned off by over zealous bible thumpers. Ok ...I'll grant these folks do not accelerate the winsomness of being in the GOP.
But that is not what I asked you. I asked you for EVIDENCE that EXPOSURE to the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of EVOLUTION brings out the 'conservative voter' latent in some hapless Public School educated fellow.
You see, we bible types are pretty convinced of something: exposure to GOD creates GOP voters. Exposure to Darwin creates selfish survivalists who love all messages from Today's Democrats.
This is evidence by experience, and articles like the one I posted here ... where DEMOCRATS are attempting to enshrine Darwin by legal fiat ... a survivalist tactic if there ever was one.
But for the sake of arguement, I'm just hoping in that vast library of links you have, you have just 2 links to studies which show how effective the teaching of evolution is in bringing about GOP voting patterns.
It would be equally dishonest in the reverse case -- if evolutionary biology tried to elbow its way into the pulpit while falsely pretending to be revealed religion.
Junior, archive?
"I want ye to kill every gopher ya see" placemark
"Critics say intelligent design is thinly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science."
Let's see...So the opposite of that would be, "Thickly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science." And I'm just guessing here, but evolution fits that description quite nicely...
No. It's a placemark. With a Caddy-Shack quote to remind me of what/where the thread topic is.
Paranoia is not pretty.
How long will it go on? If you look at the debate in the same way that we view the crackup of the democratic party, I think the answer is self-evident. The majority of Americans rejects Evolution utterly. The best numbers they have are 6 percent in the ruling party believing it in undilute form and 13 percent total. The soft numbers give them a nod up to 40 percent; but, it's a nod, not wholesale support. The numbers are soft and are where Creationists are gaining much of their ground.
The best descriptor for the evo crowd right now is panic. They don't want to admit it; but, the evidence of their actions betrays it day in and day out. The fervor with which they hit ID is full scale lunacy. And they don't have the slightest clue that it's tangiential. ID is not religious - has nothing to do with religion. But, it serves to make their fight a two front war with both fronts advancing against them. They may think they've won something with court battles and schoolboards; but, the majority public is with Creation and ID. And you can't legislate or adjudicate that. They have to prove their case and cannot.
A key point to make is that they've pretended the theory is scientific. The crowd doesnt' believe that when it is discussed forthrightly. The longtime hidingplace has been behind science. When people don't find it scientific and they're hiding behind science.. just does them no favors. The copout on proofs drives many away as well. Once you beg off proofs, you've lost the audience with no real way to overcome it.
The lunacy is not at critical mass yet; but, when they're referring to Ken Ham and Dr. Dino as dangerous threats akin to the Taliban, it isn't far off. The fat lady has been warming up for a while. I wouldn't be too surprised when she starts belting it out. There is just too much being learned each year and the best they can do is take something that discredits them and spin it to look the opposite way
"When there is a concerted and cynical effort to distort and pervert science education, don't be surprised when people start taking action in response, to set, maintain, or protect standards of education.
Yep, democrats will always try to protect their standards of education by forcing them on us just like the communists.
Nice to see you have taken their side. :)
I can see the democraps, liberals, socialists, and a group certain FR members uping their donations to their true champions for this "uphill fight" .... the ACLU. After all, the ACLU is hero of the left wing and evolution science agenda. If this "uphill fight" looses in the legislature (and it will), then we will see this agenda promoted through the courts. I am glad conservatives have secured a better position is the Supreme Court.
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.