Revelation 4:11
Constantly searching for objectivity in the evolution debate...
See my profile for info
Posted on 04/28/2006 2:07:06 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
School officials can't prohibit teachers and students from discussing how life began under a new state law signed by Gov. Haley Barbour.
As originally drafted, the measure was designed to foster discussions about the theory of "intelligent design" and flaws with Darwin's explanation of how humans evolved. However, the Legislature expanded it to simply say no limits can be imposed on teachers and students in class talking about "the origin of life."
Intelligent design is presented as an alternative to natural explanations for evolution, but at least one court ruled it out of public schools because it's considered religious doctrine. A federal judge in Pennsylvania last year said intelligent design is not science and is essentially religion, which the U.S. Supreme Court says can't be taught in public schools.
The bill, which took effect with Barbour's signature, passed the Legislature in March.
"No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life," the bill reads.
While banning school leaders from muzzling classroom discussions on this subject, the new law isn't as detailed as the initial version. The Senate had voted to prohibit schools from stifling classroom discussions about the "flaws or problems which may exist in Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the existence of other theories of evolution, including, but not limited to, the Intelligent Design explanation of the origin of life." The House rejected that language, prompting legislative negotiators to draft the less explicit compromise that's now law.
Local school officials say they've not had a problem and worry the new law is so vague that court challenges may loom.
"That's probably something that's going to be contested. It is very vague," said Lowndes County schools Superintendent Mike Halford of the need for clarification of what can be discussed in the classroom.
"We're starting to see lawsuits pop up from this," said Halford, pointing to other states where disputes have sprung up about what students can be taught about the origin of life. "It's just a problem we don't need," he said.
Columbus High School Principal LaNell Kellum said her school hasn't faced disputes about what evolutionary theories can be discussed in class. "In all my years, we have not had a problem with that. That has not been an issue," Kellum said. "We've not had a problem with that in Columbus."
Noting Darwin's theory of evolution is part of the state's school curriculum, she said teachers use professional ethics and follow the state-written guidelines for teaching their subjects. "Our teachers have been able to use their professional judgment and teach the curriculum without a problem," she said.
Evolution is the biological theory or process of how organisms change with the passage of time with descendants differing from ancestors. Darwin propounded the theory of evolution by natural selection. Intelligent design's proponents say it is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, other suppositions about the origin of life.
However, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are unscientific. A federal judge in December ruled that a Pennsylvania public school district's requirement for teaching intelligent design violates the U.S. Constitution's clause separating church and state.
Another part of the bill would provide high school graduates who plan to enter the work force and not go to college with a special curriculum that provides a much-needed option to the college-prep courses that had been required.
The bill is House Bill 214.
|
It is sad when we have to pass laws to protect freedom of speech.
Inasmuch as the attempt has been made in several States to prohibit in tax-supported institutions the teaching of evolution as applied to man, andSource: AAAS Resolution: Present Scientific Status of the Theory of Evolution.Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a "mere guess" which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and
Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,
The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science.
The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.
1. The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a "mere guess." No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution.2. The Council of the Association affirms that the evidence in favor of the evolution of man are sufficient to convince every scientist of note in the world, and that these evidences are increasing in number and importance every year.
3. The Council of the Association also affirms that the theory of evolution is one of the most potent of the great influences for good that have thus far entered into human experience; it has promoted the progress of knowledge, it has festered unprejudiced inquiry, and it has served as an invaluable aid in humanity’s search for truth in many fields.
4. The Council of the Association is convinced that any legislation attempting to limit the teaching of any scientific doctrine so well established and so widely accepted by specialists as is the doctrine of evolution, would be a profound mistake, which could not fail to injure and retard the advancement of knowledge and of human welfare, by denying the freedom of teaching and inquiry which is essential to all progress.
[Adopted by the AAAS Council, December 26, 1922.]
(The Scopes trial was in 1925.)
About the AAAS:
Founded in 1848, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, which has the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science journal in the world, with an estimated total readership of one million. AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals.
Thanks for the ping!
Do you have the same opinion when a teacher teaches that having gays as parents is a normal family, or that communism is preferable to capitalism?
Do you draw the line anywhere, or is there no line?
Thanks.
Were is ichneumon ?
School officials can't prohibit teachers and students from discussing how life began under a new state law signed by Gov. Haley Barbour.
Since how life began is not addressed by the Theory Of Evolution, much less by science in general, in what classes does this apply? Must be in History classes. Can it be 'discussed' in Geography or English or Shop or Algebra or maybe Physical Education? How about maybe in Health classes
Will they include all alternative ideas about this in whatever class they choose to discuss it in?
Does this mean they can discuss it anywhere, anytime, in any class?
This sounds like a truly feeble, simple minded attempt that makes Dover look sophisticated.
"No local school board, school superintendent or school principal shall prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing and answering questions from individual students on the origin of life,"
If this is all it says, then it says nothing. It's hardly an endorsement of Creationism or anti-Evo. It's so nothing that is is meaningless. But I bet there's some other words in there somewhere. If not the the State Board of Education will have to figure out how to implement "nothing" and you can bet they won't much more than the nothing that is already said. So that puts the onus on the teacher and any teacher that steps over the line will get fried along with the school.
Typical government - make the little guy figure it out and whatever he does will be wrong, but the lawmakers won't have to worry. They can always say - "It was not meant....."
Same as the crap in Kansas. The state board says teachers can do "whatever", but if a teacher does "whatever" the teacher will be the one in the hot seat along with the school. The state Board will again say "It wasn't meant...."
What a cowardly progression.
You repeatedly refer to evolution as a "farce", yet you have not once provided an explanation of why this is so.
Note that the solons of Mississippi have just passed a law protecting that, and more, so long as the teacher is clever enough to work in some connection, however tangential or strained, to "the origin of life".
Does this mean that good science teachers are finally free to talk about abiogenesis theory without fear of retribution from religious fundamentalists?
As always, thanks for the ping...always appreciated..
The sentence in this article that interested me the most was this..."As originally drafted, the measure was designed to foster discussions about the theory of "intelligent design" and flaws with Darwin's explanation of how humans evolved. However, the Legislature expanded it to simply say no limits can be imposed on teachers and students in class talking about "the origin of life."
I would seem from my reading of this(and sometimes I read things wrong, so correct me if I am wrong), that this is an extremely broad decision...it seems as if originally intended, it was written to include primarily the idea of 'intelligent design'...now, rewritten, it seems to simply say, that there are no limits as to how teachers and students may discuss the 'origin of life'...in fact the idea of 'intelligent design' is given absolutely no priority...
In other words, any ideas can be discussed...would that also include the many and other various explanations of the 'origin of life'(which phrase I am having a problem with in the article)...say such things as Native American creation stories, or explanations that we come from seeding from aliens from outer space, or creation and origin of life stories, from Islam, or from the Moonies?...
This decision seems broad enough to include any and many different scenarios, which claim to address the question of the origins of life, and creation of species...
So I read into this, that neither the literal creationist belief, nor the Intelligent Designn belief, will be singled out as the being the only alternatives to evolution...in fact, there are many other alternatives which other religions and other groups of folks claim...
Are all views going to be welcome, or only certain views, and on what basis, and who decides?
So, then, this shouldn't affect any lessons regarding the Theory of Evolution. Flying Spaghetti Monsterites, on the other hand, should be pleased by this victory.
"Yesterday, the Baylor student newspaper printed an article that referred to the Discovery Institute as a "conservative Christian think tank". The DI, as you can imagine, didn't like that description one bit because, frankly, they've spent so many years selling the silly notion that they're not a conservative Christian think tank and it's just annoying when all that propaganda doesn't pay dividends. They fired off a letter and the Baylor paper caved in immediately and pulled the article and made a "correction". The letter said, in part:
The article "Baylor not immune to scholarly feud over origin of life" by Van Darden and Josh Horton inaccurately describes the Discovery Institute as a "conservative Christian think tank." This is false. Discovery Institute is a secular, non-partisan, non-profit public policy center dealing with national and international affairs. It is not religious in any manner and does not embrace any religion, but rather respects each individual's right to choose their personal religious belief.
Source:Scienceblogs.com
Amended Lariat article Here
Another indication that the ID/creation movement has the momentum. It will continue to gain wider acceptance as the failures of evolution become more well-known.
I think this is the key point of the statement. The discussion not prohibited is from individual students. It doesn't say the teacher can just teach anything. It says if a student has a question the teacher and discuss it with him/her. True, the teacher might not share the view of the student or the parent but that is just the chance you take in government schools.
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.