Michigan Anti-Evolution Bill

[goat37]

I was just reading through other posts and articles and came across this one.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2003/MI/741_proposed_legislation_requires__7_25_2003.asp

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-4946


I never thought an entire state could be this follish.

"(a) In the science standards, all references to "evolution" and "how species change through time" shall be modified to indicate that this is an unproven theory by adding the phrase "All students will explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".
(b) In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding the phrase "Describe how life may be the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".
(c) In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding the phrase "Explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".


If this bill passes, I will lose all faith I have in state legislature.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

"(a) In the science standards, all references to "evolution" and "how species change through time" shall be modified to indicate that this is an unproven theory by adding the phrase "All students will explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".

I wasn't aware that ID had graduated to the realm of scientific theory.

I wonder if they'll start adding disclaimers to theories of gravity, atomic theory, relativity, etc. After all, they are also "unproven".

 

[Arikay]

I really wish I was back in high school in that state, maybe even with a creationist teacher, Just so I could give my answer to that question.

So, I wonder if it passes how they expect science teachers to explain why a "creator" is a valid answer.

 

[DGB454]

Why does it matter if both sides are taught? You can always teach your own kids what you believe.
I would think you would support both being taught in the schools. Wouldn't it be very closed minded not to teach all the possibilities?

 

[MartinM]

You're so right. It would be somewhat closed minded not to teach flat Earthism in geology classes.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Why does it matter if both sides are taught? You can always teach your own kids what you believe.
I would think you would support both being taught in the schools. Wouldn't it be very closed minded not to teach all the possibilities?

Only if they also teach that France doesn't exist, World War 2 never happened, and the Moon is made of cheese. See the problem yet?

 

[Arikay]

Because creationism and ID are not valid unfalsified theories. To teach them in science as correct scientific alternatives would be a Lie to the students.

Yes your right, all possibilities should be taught, and they can be, in philosophy class.

Pascals Wager doesnt belong in math, anymore than ID belongs in science. (even though they sound like they should be. )

So tell me, should they teach Flat Earth in science too?

Why does it matter if both sides are taught? You can always teach your own kids what you believe.
I would think you would support both being taught in the schools. Wouldn't it be very closed minded not to teach all the possibilities?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It's also worth noting that the Theory of Evolution does not preclude a Creator. Rather, it is the mechanism by which a Creator may have gone about diversifying life.

 

[DGB454]

Flat earthism is only believed by a tiny group of people. But hey, if you still believe the earth is flat then have fun with that k?
One other thing, Flat earth has been proven false but ID or a creator hasn't.

 

[Arikay]

But do you think that Flat earthism should be given equal time as round earthism in the class room?
I mean, the earth is round is "only a theory"

How about Geocentric vs Heliocentric?
I mean, the sun being the center of the solar system is "only a theory"

Are you willing to allow teachers to give flat earth and Geocentric views equal time in the class room?

What about having your kids write up why the earth might not be round?

Flat earthism is only believed by a tiny group of people. But hey, if you still believe the earth is flat then have fun with that k?

 

[DGB454]

Sorry I edited my post before yours was in. Anyway as I said, Flat earth science is easy to disprove but ID and a Creator is not.

 

[Arikay]

Nope, sorry. ID and Creationism are pretty easy to disprove. At least to disprove in science. Which is why they should be philosophy. Creationism has been falsified for quite awhile, the fact that some are willing to lie (like creationist organizations) and others are willing to ignore evidence, does not change that.

However, Round earthism is "just an unproven theory." Based on the bill, we should teach our kids that the earth might be flat.

You are right though, a creator hasnt been disproven, and it cant, thats why its not part of science.

The "unproven theory" of gravity, has less evidence supporting it than Evolution. Should we teach alternative views to it too?

Sorry I edited my post before yours was in. Anyway as I said, Flat earth science is easy to disprove but ID and a Creator is not.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The problem with ID is that it is much more a political movement than actual science. Last time I checked, the amount of research into ID is slim at best, yet for some reason it should automatically be inserted into high school science classrooms.

Traditionally, science education is "filtered down" starting with published research in scientific journals, then down to universities, and then into high school. This process is designed to prevent faulty or controversial science from making it into the high school curriculums.

For whatever reason, some of those (not all) involved with ID want to bypass this and go straight to classrooms in high school. That they are willing to do so while ID is at best highly controversial and still in its infancy as far as science goes, shows that they are less interested in the honest pursuit of scientific inquiry and more interested in getting religion into the classroom.

Personally, I think the idea of ID is really cool. Proving that life is the result of an intelligent creator would be the discovery to end all discoveries. But the current research (if you can even call it that) and practices of those involved in ID are dubious at best.

 

[Arikay]

Not to mention ID requires a creator.

Meaning that you need to find scientific Evidence for a creator, or even, how to falsify a creator.

If that could be done, ID would probably seem like small potatos compared to it.

 

[goat37]

Flat earthism is only believed by a tiny group of people. But hey, if you still believe the earth is flat then have fun with that k?
One other thing, Flat earth has been proven false but ID or a creator hasn't.

Maybe ID hasn't been disproved (yet) but no scientific evidence supports it.

What REALLY scares me about this whole thing, are the 'qualified' teachers they have to find to teach it. Are they just going to go out and get a pastor or priest or something?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Not to mention ID requires a creator.

Of course, ID doesn't specific who or what that creator is. It could be a Hindu god or a Pagan god or an intelligent race of alien beings or something else entirely.

But of the vocal ID activists, it's pretty clear who they want the creator to be.

 

[JohnR7]

If this bill passes, I will lose all faith I have in state legislature.

Don't worry, there is a new government coming. Christ will rule and reign here on earth for 1000 years. We should not put to much confindence in man's attempt to establish a government.

 

[goat37]

Don't worry, there is a new government coming. Christ will rule and reign here on earth for 1000 years. We should not put to much confindence in man's attempt to establish a government.

Well.. in that case... Let me know when he gets here, I have **** to do from now until I die, so you keep a look out for me, k?

 

[JohnR7]

Well.. in that case... Let me know when he gets here, I have **** to do from now until I die, so you keep a look out for me, k?

If God in His infinite love, mercy, grace and forgiveness gives us all more time on this earth. There is no automatic promise of tomorrow. All we know for sure is we have today. So it maybe a good idea to use what time we do have wisely.

One man in the Bible thought he could take his ease and comfort. He planed to eat, drink and be merry. But God had other plans.

Luke 12:20
But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

 

[lucaspa]

Why does it matter if both sides are taught? ... Wouldn't it be very closed minded not to teach all the possibilities?

It matters because ID is not a valid scientific theory. It is a falsified scientific theory.

ID is more than having a "Creator" do it. Evolution is also having a "Creator" do it. What ID has is a specific HOW a Creator creates: it has the Creator manufacturing organisms or parts of organisms off the planet and then placing them here in their present form.

Everytime we test that off-site manufacturing, we show it to be false.

So, we can't lie to our kids and present a falsified theory as tho it is true.