Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Quote:

Although the bill "seems innocuous," Rep. Shelley Vana (D-West Palm Beach) said "the folks who came to speak in favor of it all were very clear that they supported it because it allowed them to teach religion in the school system."

It is amazing how frequently the religious right seems so eager to shoot themselves in the foot.

Florida House passes bill ordering 'critical analysis' of evolution in schools
(By Josh Hafenbrack, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, April 28, 2008)

The House today voted along party lines to require Florida's public school teachers to challenge the theory of evolution, a move that some say could bring religious-based alternatives like creationism to the classroom.

But the House's version of the evolution bill differs widely from the Senate's, which already rejected the House's approach of instructing that teachers present a "thorough presentation and scientific critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution."

The House vote was 71-43, with the bill now moving back over to the Senate. The two chambers' versions must be merged in order to gain final legislative approval.

For foes of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, time is running out.

The session ends Friday with weighty issues including the budget and healthcare for the uninsured still unresolved.

Legislators may want to avoid delving back into the divisive evolution debate that swallows up crucial hours of floor time.

Gov. Charlie Crist, who visited the House press gallery during today's evolution floor debate, was noncommittal on the bill.

"I don't know, let's see what the final product is," Crist said.

Asked whether he believes in evolution, he said: " I believe in a lot of things. We should have the freedom to have a good exchange of ideas, right?"

During almost two hours of debate this morning, House Democrats called the evolution bill (SB2692) a back-door attempt to bring religion into schools and a bid by legislators to meddle into curriculum decisions that should be left to school administrators.

Bill sponsor Rep. Alan Hays said the bill is not meant to open the door to theories favoring creationism or intelligent design, which hold as a central tenant that God created the universe.

"This bill does not permit, nor authorize, nor allow, the teaching of creationism or intelligent design," said Hays, R-Umatilla. "This bill does not permit the teaching of religion in the classroom."

But whether the state-mandated "critical analysis" of Darwin's theory would include alternatives like intelligent design would be left to teachers.

The bill, called "The Evolution Academic Freedom Act," is needed because teachers are fearful of presenting a critical view of evolution, said Hays.

However, no teachers in Florida have filed complaints about their lessons on evolution, according to the state Department of Education.

"I'm not here today to give you a specific instance where teachers have been chastised or penalized," Hays said. "It's a preventative measure."

Rep. Carl Domino, R-Jupiter, said the bill would lead teachers to present their personal opinions on evolution in the classroom.

Noting that some people believe the Holocaust never happened or 9/11 was an Israel-hatched plot, Domino said he doesn't want fringe theories introduced in public schools.

"There are a lot of strange things out there that I don't want teachers teaching," said Domino, who joined the Democrats in voting against the bill.

He said it would be difficult or impossible to challenge evolution from a scientific viewpoint since there's near unanimity on evolution in the scientific community.

The Senate version of the evolution legislation, passed last week on a 21-17 vote, created a right for teachers to present the "full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution."

The bill defined the information that could be presented to challenge evolution as "current facts, data and peer-reviewed research."

The two chambers are at odds.

House Republicans say their version is "simpler and more straightforward than the Senate bill on the subject of evolution. Also, unlike the Senate bill, this bill does not create any new 'rights' for teachers," according to memo from the House majority office.

But the Senate seems unlikely to accept the House version, since that chamber already rejected that approach last week.

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Florida House passes bill ordering 'critical analysis' of evolution in schools
(By Josh Hafenbrack, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, April 28, 2008)

"I'm not here today to give you a specific instance where teachers have been chastised or penalized," Hays said. "It's a preventative measure."

The bill defined the information that could be presented to challenge evolution as "current facts, data and peer-reviewed research."

I think that, with the maturing of the internet, and the ease with which crap websites are rolled out, the presence of :Dsign Centered Research" can be viewed as a fact or valid data . It will take much effort to make the legislators aware of the fraud inherent in the ID position. Im afraid that , like it or not, well see a nother series of waste of time suits that, like Judge Jones warned,

..."will squander the courts time"...

..."will squander the courts time"...

Art is a kind of trick played on nature and God, an illicit creation by man.

Could an anus have turned into a mouth

spendi says

Quote:

Could an anus have turned into a mouth

I cant do it

Vote Thins Evolution Bill's Odds
(By CATHERINE DOLINSKI, The Tampa Tribune, April 29, 2008)

TALLAHASSEE - Prospects grew dim on Monday for legislation allowing public school teachers to criticize evolution theory in class when the House approved bill language that the Senate had already rejected.

Monday evening, House and Senate sponsors were holding out hope that House Republicans could be swayed to approve the Senate's version before the session ends Friday.

House members voted 71-43 for Rep. Alan Hays' bill, which requires teachers to give students "a thorough presentation and scientific critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution." The mandatory "scientific critical analysis" does not appear in the Senate version from Ronda Storms, which instead focuses on protections for teachers who criticize evolution theory in class.

Both bills are a response from conservatives to a teaching standard recently adopted by the state Board of Education, which explicitly mandates the teaching of the scientific theories of biological and chemical evolution.

The more briefly worded House legislation survived two days of questions and debate in that chamber, but only after brooking opposition in the Senate. The upper chamber voted 21-17 on Wednesday to pass Storms' version, but soundly rejected the language when Storms offered it as an amendment.

"It's worse than the Senate bill - it's now mandating that you teach about the Raelians," said Senate Minority Leader Steve Geller of Hallandale Beach, alluding to a religious group believing in extraterrestrials and explaining the Senate's concerns that Hays' language would require teachers to present alternative theories.

Geller, who voted against both Storms' and Hays' versions, said the problem lies in the lack of definition for "scientific critical analysis."

"What the hell does that mean?" the senator asked. "It means you have to question it."

Storms, R-Valrico, said the Senate's position was firm, and that the body will have no choice but to refuse to concur with the House and send back the Senate version for consideration again. "We have to get there the way we said we'd get there in the beginning."

Hays, R-Umatilla, said he could not fathom the Senate's concerns with his proposal.

"Take the word 'scientific,' take the word 'critical,' take the word 'analysis,'" he said. "There is absolutely nothing in the definition of any of those three words, singularly or collectively, that would open the door for a religious study. It has only to do with the scientific evaluation of a scientific theory."

That, he said, would leave out intelligent design as well as explicitly religious concepts. "My question to anyone opposing this legislation is: 'What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of the truth?' If so, you're not a scientist."

After the House vote, an opposing group called Florida Citizens for Science released a statement saying they are "afraid of the stunting effect this legislation will have on science education, as students will be exposed to old, discredited arguments against evolution that have their roots in religious protestations against that science, and be misled into thinking those arguments have the same weight as the real scientific findings."

The group added that "We are afraid of people like Rep. Hays, who clearly demonstrate a profound ignorance of science and yet propose laws to regulate that subject."

Both the House and Senate bills began with the language that remains in Storms' Academic Freedom Act, derived from legislation proposed by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

Monday evening, Hays said he thinks his version is the better one, but he will try to pass the original bill. He had not polled House members about it yet, he said, but is hoping that the Senate will send back the bill quickly and that House leaders will give him ample time to persuade enough Republicans to vote for Storms' version.

"Our Democratic colleagues are vociferous in their opposition" to either plan, Hays said, but "I believe we can bring this home."

Asked about the possibility of a last-minute save for the legislation during this final week of session, Storms said, "I believe in miracles."

But I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception.