Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Storms Grilled On Evolution Bill
(By RUSSELL RAY, The Tampa Tribune, April 18, 2008)

She was asked again and again, but some state senators weren't satisfied with the answer from Sen. Ronda Storms, the author of a bill some say would allow public school teachers to include creationism or intelligent design in their lesson plan.

Four times she was asked: Would teachers be allowed under her bill to teach intelligent design, a theory that suggests an "intelligent cause" is responsible for the creation of the universe.

Each time, the Republican senator from Valrico turned to the language in her bill and said teachers and students would be allowed to present "scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution."

That didn't appease Senate Minority Leader Steve Geller, who was looking for a yes or no answer.

"You've given us criteria," Geller, of Hallandale Beach, told Storms. "I don't want to know the criteria."

Geller asked Storms if she thinks intelligent design meets the criteria of her bill.

"I absolutely believe that evolution should be taught in public schools," Storms said. "I also believe that we should teach the full range of the critical analysis of evolution."

Storms' bill, SB 2692, is a response to the state Board of Education's decision in January to require, for the first time in state history, the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools.

Religious groups and some lawmakers were disappointed in the board's decision. Storms introduced the bill, known as the Academic Freedom Act, after the board's decision.

Storms said the bill would allow teachers to offer students a full range of scientific-based theories without fearing discrimination or discipline from department heads and principals.

"They fear discipline and ridicule," Storms said Thursday. "As a teacher myself, I want to promote critical thinking skills. I'm not trying to teach people what to think."

The bill would provide science teachers First Amendment protection, Storms said.

Sen. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, said the same free speech protection should be extended to Florida's sex education teachers and attempted to add it to Storms' bill with an amendment.

"A teacher may wish to answer a student's question and provide additional information that may protect a life or stop an unwanted pregnancy," Deutch said.

But Storms said the amendment would expose kids in kindergarten to sex education.

"I'm concerned about prematurely deflowering kindergarteners and first- and second-graders," she said.

The amendment was defeated in a voice vote.

The Senate is scheduled to vote on Storms' bill next week. A similar bill is alive in the House, working its way through committee.

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Storms Grilled On Evolution Bill
(By RUSSELL RAY, The Tampa Tribune, April 18, 2008)

The bill would provide science teachers First Amendment protection, Storms said.

(I laughed when I saw a blogger in Florida describe the senator as "bat sh*t crazy".)

(I laughed when I saw a blogger in Florida describe the senator as "bat sh*t crazy".)

I thought the First Amendment provided First Amendment protection.

Panel OKs bill on science texts
(by Bill Barrow, The Times-Picayune, April 18, 2008)

Louisiana public school science teachers could use certain supplemental materials under a bill that supporters cast as a measure to encourage robust debate on issues such as evolution, global warming and human cloning.

Detractors on Thursday blasted the proposed Louisiana Science Education Act as a back-door attempt to inject the biblical story of creation into the classroom.

Despite the nearly two-hour debate, Senate Bill 561 by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, passed the Senate Education Committee without opposition.

The bill would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon a local school board's request, to give teachers "support and guidance . . . regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories." Further, a teacher could use state-approved "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials."

Dominique Magee, a native of St. Tammany Parish who said she was educated in public schools and colleges in Louisiana, told senators the bill was needed because science teachers and professors often dismiss students who question the subject matter as presented. "Students want to be challenged," she said.

Nevers said, "This bill has nothing to do with creationism. This is about letting teachers teach good science." Nevers accepted an amendment that eliminated specific references to "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning."

A bank of witnesses argued against the revised bill anyway.

Patsye Peebles, a 23-year veteran of East Baton Rouge public schools and Louisiana State University classrooms, said good science teachers already reach beyond the textbook and are willing to engage students' questions.

Fred Enright, an LSU professor and head of the school's veterinary science division, said that "evolution has been tested and decided over the last 100 years." What is up for continued scientific debate, he said, is the causation of a specific evolutionary path.

Peebles echoed that argument, dismissing Magee's plea to bring in outside materials that challenge the accepted theory of evolution. "She was not a scientist. She did not know how to interpret these materials."

William Hansel, a researcher at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, said, "All scientists are against this bill," adding that the bill is "an invasion of state by religion."

Two senators with science backgrounds defended Nevers' idea.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge and a physician, said, "I like the fact that we have these young folks saying, 'Let's look under the hood.' . . . This is not a debate about evolution. This is a debate about debate."

Sen. Jack Donahue, R-Covington, said his academic training -- engineering -- is built on "making determination based on facts." He said, "I want my children to be exposed to all the arguments."

One supporter, meanwhile, disputed Nevers' characterization that the bill is not about creationism.

David Tate, a Livingston Parish School Board member, said after the meeting, "I believe that both sides -- the creationism side and the evolution side -- should be presented and let students decide what they believe." Tate said the bill is needed because "teachers are scared to talk about" creation, even when students bring it up.

Tate asked Nevers in the hallway about offering a class built around a debate between the two views of biological development. Nevers deferred to lawyers but said a science curriculum that includes the biblical account of creation would "violate the U.S. Constitution."

In a campaign debate last fall, Jindal, a biology and public policy double major at Brown University, said the state "should not be afraid" of public school discussions venturing beyond established theories about the origins of life.

ros

Quote:

I thought the First Amendment provided First Amendment protection.

So you see, cjhsa, where Darwinism leads when applied to human beings by complete nitwits.

That tale about Einstein being poor in math just doesnt ring true. I have a photo of Einstein by MArgaret Bourke WHite. The photo shows him working on equations on a blackboard.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fm wrote-

Quote:
That tale about Einstein being poor in math just doesnt ring true. I have a photo of Einstein by MArgaret Bourke WHite. The photo shows him working on equations on a blackboard.


I laughed along when I first read that but it struck me afterwards that fm might have meant it literally.

That's when I ROTFLMAO