Hotly debated evolution bills that critics said would inject religious doctrine into public schools in the guise of science also died a quiet death Friday on the final day of the legislative session.
....
Meanwhile, House and Senate supporters, mostly Republicans, were unable to resolve their dispute over two versions of the evolution legislation before the close of the session.
The Senate favored a bill (SB 2692) that would have prohibited school officials from punishing teachers who used "scientific information'' to challenge evolution.
A House bill (HB 1483) would have gone farther, not just allowing such challenges but requiring that schools teach "critical analysis'' of evolution.
The Senate version was based on model legislation advocated by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that supports research on intelligent design. That theory holds that some features of the universe and living things can be explained by an "intelligent cause.''
Some intelligent design advocates claim it's scientific in nature but a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that it is a religious concept.
The Discovery Institute says no state has yet adopted its legislation but five have included critical analysis requirements in their school science standards.
Ensi kaudella sama lakialoite toistuu ja DI sponsoroi entistä suuremmalla innolla. Lakialoite pääsi niin lähelle maalilinjaa, että kaikkia hermostutti. Vastaavat äänestykset lähestyvät muissa osavaltioissa; Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama ja Michigan. Lisäksi DI vihjailee, että esityksiä on tulossa lisää.
Loppuun kaunista retoriikkaa:
More importantly, we still live in America, and although Darwinists are doing their best to shut down and intimidate anyone who raises questions about Neo-Darwinism, we still have free speech, and they can't prevent people from hearing about the debate in the public arena, no matter how hard they try.
"More importantly, we still live in America, and although Darwinists are doing their best to shut down and intimidate anyone who raises questions about Neo-Darwinism, we still have free speech, and they can't prevent people from hearing about the debate in the public arena, no matter how hard they try."
ReplyDeleteTuossa kohdassa tiivistyy ihmetykseni ÄS;ää kohtaan. Onko kyse sananvapausasiasta vai siitä onko se tiedettä? Jos puhe on nimen omaan siitä, mitä julkisissa paikoissa saa sanoa, niin tottakai. Vaikka sitten sukuelinkarvojen muotoilusta saa puhua.
Mutta jos kyseessä on tiede, miten julkiset sananvapausasiat liittyy siihen kysymykseen oikeastaan mitenkään? Ei kai tieteessä ole pakko hyväksyä ihan mitä tahansa vaan juttuja? Että sananvapaus siellä on kuitenkin hieman eri asia kuin muutoin.