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

Skip to comments.

‘Healthy skepticism’ bill appears to be ailing [Intelligent Design in Missouri]
Kansas City Star ^ | 02 April 2006 | KIT WAGAR and TIM HOOVER

Posted on 04/02/2006 9:35:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

A new tack for trying to introduce supernatural explanations for the origin of life into Missouri’s public school science classes appears dead this year.

Legislation backed by conservative Christian groups sought to discredit the theory of evolution by requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.

Called the Missouri Science Education Act, HB 1266 would require science instructors in sixth through 12th grades to promote “healthy skepticism” about any theory of biological origins. State assessment tests would be required to include a section on such criticisms and alternate explanations about the origins of life.

The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Wayne Cooper of Camdenton, was approved by the House Education Committee last month.

The committee’s chairwoman, Jane Cunningham, a St. Louis County Republican, cast the deciding vote in favor of the bill.

But each committee has a limited number of bills that it can move to the House floor. Cunningham said she simply doesn’t have room for Cooper’s bill.

“The bill had a very positive hearing,” Cunningham said. “I think that’s because it’s a different bill than has been introduced before, so it’s not as controversial. It basically says to teach theory as theory and fact as fact.”

Cunningham’s description understates the controversy surrounding the bill. The Education Committee approved the bill 7-6. The bill was opposed by a wide range of teacher groups and school organizations, and several faith-based groups.

Otto Fajen, chief lobbyist for the Missouri affiliate of the National Education Association, said the bill’s intention is to water down science education, which bodes ill for the nation’s economic future.

“We need to be doing our utmost to increase science literacy so our kids can compete,” Fajen said.

Cooper said the measure would improve the discussion of science by fostering open inquiry.

[Omitted a few paragraphs at the end about immigration proposals.]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-82 last
To: WKB
"I thought that would be called a lie."


Ok, I won't argue with that.
51 posted on 04/02/2006 7:30:52 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Ok, I won't argue with that.



Oh please do.
It's no fun if you don't argue


52 posted on 04/02/2006 7:32:39 PM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
perhaps they think that the majority of their constituency is composed of scientifically illiterate boobs.

...and propose legislation to keep them that way!

53 posted on 04/02/2006 7:32:45 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WKB

"Oh please do.
It's no fun if you don't argue"

Then I'll agree. :)


54 posted on 04/02/2006 7:34:47 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
You will forgive me if I am skeptical of your claim. I find it difficult to trust the scientific credibility of an individual who claims that insulin is a "dangerous drug" and suggests that diabetics would be better off without it.

Nobody is more dangerous than an idiot with a "cause".

55 posted on 04/02/2006 7:36:12 PM PDT by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
...and propose legislation to keep them that way!

The idealists keep thinking that maybe it only looks that way.

56 posted on 04/02/2006 7:37:34 PM PDT by balrog666 (Irrational beliefs inspire irrational posts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

scientifically illiterate boobs.




Is that the new name for evos?


57 posted on 04/02/2006 7:41:55 PM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: WKB
"Is that the new name for evos?"

No, it's an old name for a certain kind of anti-evo. :)
58 posted on 04/02/2006 7:44:01 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Some boobs are ok
and some are not.


59 posted on 04/02/2006 7:45:37 PM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: WKB
"Some boobs are ok
and some are not."

Depends on whose boobs we are talking about. :)
60 posted on 04/02/2006 7:49:06 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("Things are not what they always seem.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

We can't go on agreeing like this
I am going to bed


61 posted on 04/02/2006 7:50:29 PM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"What a feeble argument. Nothing has 'watered down' science as much as pushing the statistically devastated philosophy of evolution as 'science.'"

Nice word soup. What does 'statistically devastated' mean?

62 posted on 04/02/2006 7:53:39 PM PDT by b_sharp (Unfortunately there is not enough room left here for a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WKB
"So what you are saying is there are doubts about the theory of evolution??

There is no doubt within science about the SToE. It is a well tested and verified science. There are minor questions about a number of the mechanisms contained by the SToE, such as the relative roles natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection and drift play in directing the frequency of alleles within a population. There are also questions about the ability of natural selection alone to produce macro-evolution. Those, and a few other questions are well known and quite visible, no scientist is attempting to hide them.

63 posted on 04/02/2006 8:08:22 PM PDT by b_sharp (Unfortunately there is not enough room left here for a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Sounds pretty MAJOR to me!!!


64 posted on 04/02/2006 8:13:56 PM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: WKB
"Sounds pretty MAJOR to me!!!"

Why? There are many other mechanisms that can work individually or in concert.

65 posted on 04/02/2006 8:19:27 PM PDT by b_sharp (Unfortunately there is not enough room left here for a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: WKB
Is that the new name for evos?

Is that your best attempt at troll logic?

66 posted on 04/02/2006 8:27:37 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The problem isn't real scientists: The problem is the proliferation of psuedo-scientists, and the support that they receive in the form of silence from the scientific community at large--and the scientific community here on FR--when they start worshipping nutjobs like Pianka.

Meeting Doctor Doom(Saving the Earth with Ebola)

67 posted on 04/02/2006 8:43:01 PM PDT by demoRat watcher (Keeper of the Anthropocentrism Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WKB
So what you are saying is there are doubts about the theory of evolution??

There is "doubt" about all science. The error is in attempting to use faulty semantics to suggest that there is more "doubt" about evolution than there is about anything else within science, when this is not the case.
68 posted on 04/02/2006 8:58:02 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: demoRat watcher
So they have 2 semester of General Chem instead of 4, like pre-med students have. Big deal. I personally have known professors of Biochemistry, Quantum Mechanics, and Astronomy with Ph.Ds to spare who think nothing of homosexual marriage, polygamy, pornography, abortion on demand, etc etc. Do you think 2 more semesters of Organic is going to steer them toward the light?

Also..so they take one semester of Cal.. Big deal. Many, many medical schools don't even require ONE semester (Harvard, Yale, being the exception).

69 posted on 04/02/2006 9:29:32 PM PDT by Windsong (Jesus Saves, but Buddha makes incremental backups)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Windsong
Exactly Bump,

How many semesters of anything actually steers a soul to the light?

Wolf
70 posted on 04/02/2006 11:00:27 PM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp; WKB
So as to toe, the mechanisms are unknown (minor questions) but 'the theory' is a well tested and verified science.

Sounds pretty mushy and contradictory. What say you?

Wolf
71 posted on 04/02/2006 11:20:01 PM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; WKB
/Is that the new name for evos?/

Is that your best attempt at troll logic?

Well it sure beats out anything you have ever put out, don't it shuck?

Think this would be a good time to come out with all that 'expressive imagery' you have in the 'back pocket'?

Now don't worry shuck, you have carte-blanche. I wont 'come back' at you on this one, it just might be seen as a 'personal attack' And we don't HAVE ANY OF THAT AROUND HERE., now do we?

Wolf
72 posted on 04/02/2006 11:26:32 PM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

paranoid much?


73 posted on 04/02/2006 11:52:26 PM PDT by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
paranoid much?

I will put it this way.., obtuse much?

If I put your idea of 'fun or humor' back at you as to mock Confederate heritage, I doubt you would find it very funny etc.

But I will not do that for several reasons, for one as having a TX/AK heritage from the 1840's.

Just what is your message anyway?

Wolf
74 posted on 04/03/2006 12:11:44 AM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

Correction, I will put it this way back at you to "obtuse much?"

W.


75 posted on 04/03/2006 12:17:02 AM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; WKB
to suggest that there is more "doubt" about evolution than there is about anything else within science, when this is not the case

The caveat that is apparent to all but you, is the 'no doubt' exists only in your mind (or perhaps the minds) that adhere to this cult.

Wolf
76 posted on 04/03/2006 12:34:13 AM PDT by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; shuckmaster; b_sharp; RunningWolf

There is "doubt" about all science.




Thanks I'll stay with God's Holy Word then.
No ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves,
etc etc etc.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and
the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

Rom. 10:13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”


77 posted on 04/03/2006 3:32:52 AM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: WKB
Thanks I'll stay with God's Holy Word then.
No ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves, etc etc etc.

Nope, just contradictions, misconceptions and outright inaccuracies.

The Bible is great philosophy, and a wonderful faith, but a lousy science text.

78 posted on 04/03/2006 7:08:45 AM PDT by highball (Proud to announce the birth of little Highball, Junior - Feb. 7, 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: WKB
No ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves, etc etc etc.

As I have said before, a claim is not strengthened merely because of a lack of conditional or tentative terms in it. Your reasoning for accepting "God's Holy Word" over observed reality is fallacious.
79 posted on 04/03/2006 8:08:05 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
"So as to toe, the mechanisms are unknown (minor questions) but 'the theory' is a well tested and verified science."

First let's restore the context of my statement so that readers of the post can see how you've purposely misquoted me.

"There is no doubt within science about the SToE. It is a well tested and verified science. There are minor questions about a number of the mechanisms contained by the SToE, such as the relative roles natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection and drift play in directing the frequency of alleles within a population. There are also questions about the ability of natural selection alone to produce macro-evolution. Those, and a few other questions are well known and quite visible, no scientist is attempting to hide them.""

The mechanisms are known, the degree to which each contributes in a specific situation is in question. Further, since it is virtually impossible to be sure all mechanisms are known, there is some speculation that there may be currently unknown mechanisms that contribute in certain circumstances. This concern is held by the minority of biologists where the majority feel we have an excellent grasp of the major mechanisms. Is there more to learn about evolution? Absolutely. Are there questions about what is known of evolution. Many. Is this unusual in the sciences? Not at all, answering and formulating new questions is what science is all about and any representation of science as other than this is at best misguided and at worst prevarication.

In the future I would prefer if you kept your vacuous, logically inept, and largely incomprehensible posts to yourself.

80 posted on 04/03/2006 8:34:13 AM PDT by b_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: WKB
"Thanks I'll stay with God's Holy Word then. No ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves, etc etc etc. "

That is of course your prerogative. However, despite all the assurances of inerrancy many of the events described in the Bible are demonstrably incorrect.

All that lack of 'ifs, ands, buts, maybes,could haves,might haves, etc etc etc.' does is prevent necessary corrections to the stories contained by the Bible.

What it does for science is encourage a convergence of knowledge to the best approximation of physical truth possible. It allows for a refinement in the accuracy of our explanations.

There I go again using qualifiers in my comment. Shame on me.

Science does not assume that everything is known, nor does it assume that everything can be known. What it does do is acknowledge that the methodology that has evolved to its current state over the last 300 years is the best method for gaining knowledge about our physical world.

81 posted on 04/03/2006 8:58:01 AM PDT by b_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Teachers:
Those that can, do; those that can't, teach.

Thinking:
Those that can, do; those that can't, pray.

82 posted on 04/03/2006 11:29:41 AM PDT by WildHorseCrash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-82 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