Posted on 05/10/2006 5:25:06 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
When the Alabama legislature adjourned on April 18, 2006, House Bill 106 and Senate Bill 45 died. These identical bills purported to protect the right of teachers to "present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views in any curricula or course of learning" and the right of students not to be "penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views." In language reminiscent of the Santorum language removed from the No Child Left Behind Act, they specified that "[t]he rights and privileges contained in this act apply when topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological or chemical origins." HB 106 and SB 45 closely resembled previous antievolution bills in Alabama -- three bills introduced in 2005 (HB 352, SB 240, and HB 716) and two bills introduced in 2004 (HB 391 and SB 336) -- all of which failed.
I would agree. At the same time, argumentation isn't about the person, it is about the logic of the argument and the truth of it. No matter the language skill in stating the argument, if it fails on logic/truth, it fails. I guess my bottom line here is that for as obviously intelligent as he is, his argumentation differs from the dumbest amongst his group only in vocabulary, not substance. That should tell you to look at the mindset and argument rather than credentials and personality.
Some have said, prior/after, as to C. Darwin- that the likely hood of any convergience of specie is only in the well funded postere' of a simple mind. Thank you for the revisionist chalk marks. You are standing tall.
Why is there air placemarker
I live in a region of Alabama that has more Ph.Ds per capita than any other place in the country, except certain regions of California. One would think that being the case neither of these bills should have even been proposed in this state. However, nearly all those doctorates are in engineering of one stripe or another, and knowing the mindset of engineers, and the fact there are more fundamentalist Protestant churches per square kilometer here than just about any place else, it appears that even one of the most educated regions of the country can fall prey to ludditeness from time to time.
I'm sorry you found it necessary to question someone's honesty over a simple disagreement. I don't have time today to engage in debate, so I'll just note that there are specific cases where evolutionists have gone to court to precisely protect evolution from being challenged. The Cobb County sticker case comes to mind, where stickers that accurately described the theory of evolution and encouraged students to study it with an open mind were ordered removed by a federal judge. Supporters of evolution couldn't bear the thought of their theory being presented in a manner short of outright acquiescence.
Thanks for your response. Of course we're in disagreement with Dimensio. We wouldn't be here debating otherwise. But I do respect him and the others here on both sides who are willing to debate without too much rancor (we all get a little edgy sometimes)!
"Who among the most base idiots on this forum would go out and buy something based on what it's advertised to do and not return it when it fails to live up to it's claims."
YEC's.
The National Center for Science Education has a penchant for Orwellian language. What is titled as an "Academic Freedom Act" suddenly becomes an "antievolution bill." There is nothing in the language of that legislation that seeks to replace the philosophy evolution with other philosophies, only language that allows free discussion of any principles that might apply in a public, academic, scientific context. Of course such a bill is redundant because the First Amendment already protects us from tyrannical groupthink.
I point out that Creationism and ID are mythology and that TToE is science.
I challenge CRIDers like yourself to defend such statements as you make that TToE is flawed.
I have yet to be taken up on that challenge.
Should students demand the right to not be penalized in any way because they subscribe to the position that math sucks? That history is boring?
Generally speaking, students in a school *should* be penalized for not learning their lessons. If students are *not* penalized for failing to master the material, then school is a farce and should be called something else entirely such as "day care."
For opposing feel-good legislation such as this we're cultists and homos?
You're right. It isn't about the opinions of scientists either: What scientists "believe" or assert. It is, however, entirely about what scientists DO: What ideas they fruitfully use or implicate in ongoing, original research.
It is about the truth.
Which is why what scientists DO is important, rather than what they (or lay commentators) say. It's in actually doing science that you force your theories to bump up against reality -- the ultimate arbiter of truth -- and succeed or fail in the process.
Being called a homo, a nazi, a terrorist, a cultist, a communist, and an idolator makes me want to take my ball and go home.
That's good! Why have I never heard of the Salem hypothesis before? I would propose a further possibility -- that it also applies to those with degrees in computer science.
Your posts are getting pretty silly.
Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war
After reading a lot of your posts from last evening, and analyzing their scientific content, I found a picture of your "dogs of war" and the "havoc" they are capable of. ; - )
OK, we know that no one has conducted extensive observation of macro-evolution in that no one has lived for gazillions of years... Experimentation...uh, not aware of any reproducible experiments of macro-evolution...creative reflection...uh, THAT MUST BE THE REASON for the dogmatic certainty of the evolutionists.
...They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Well, from your post we know that ..."A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data..."
Think: "70 million year old fossil bone" with soft tissues...
...laws, which "...can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations..."
Question: which scientific laws support macro-evolution?
...tested hypotheses...
...How has macro-evolution been tested?
...logical inferences.
O WOW ... logical inferences - I think I found the OTHER REASON for the dogmatic certainty of the evolutionists.
So, I come up with - creative reflection and logical inferences as the pillars of evolution. That's frightening!
The theory of evolution was being singled out, from all the rest of science, in a manner designed to cast doubt on it.
Do you think the advancement of science was the reason for the stickers? Or, perhaps, was there a more fundamental reason?
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.