Scientists win Texas evolution debate

Source: KXAN NBC

Controversial measure fails preliminary vote

Proponents of an amendment that would mandate teachers explain the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution to Texas high school students suffered a blowing defeat Thursday morning, when the measure failed during a preliminary vote. The vote was 7-7 and the amendment needed a simple majority in order to pass.



The Texas Freedom Network, an organization that has been fighting against teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” evolution called the vote “a victory for sound science in the state of Texas,” on its blog just minutes after the vote.

Read more: http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/scientists_win_Texas_evolution_debate

I would say that I am shocked, but I live in Georgia where it is much the same or worse.

And the measure needed just one more vote to have passed.

One person wasn't present. I can't remember what side that person would have voted on.

:)

> Sanity Wins For One More Year!

The truth is "Sanity dodges a bullet this year" ...

50:50 is not a victory, it is a draw and when you are fighting
ignorance of this nature, it is frighteningly close to defeat.

Interesting turn of phrase. Not particularly effective. :rofl:

I'm shocked that the vote was 7-7. Half the administrators are ignorant. That's terrible.

WTF?

mikey_the_rat

A hard-won victory for science.

Now to defeat the legislation that one wingnut legislator promised to push through if the "strengths and weaknesses" language wasn't added back to the standards.

if man and fish can peacefully coexist.

if the fish could fight back.

:)

Creepy. Hey, we should write a script!

lol

Sherman the Great White shark does in the comic strip to catch a beach ape for lunch.

heh

evolution that is so damn unacceptable? My God isn't a cheap and cheesy Amazing Kreskin doing parlor tricks. My God operates on logic and intellect. Nothing that I have ever seen or read would invalidate evolution as they way we came into being.

Is it the 'God made man in his image' thing? Because when Moses asked God while they were conversing on Mt. Sinai what his true shape was, and God told Moses 'whatever shape I want it to be'. So that can't be it.

What is it?

It is not the Theory of Evolution as that is one of the strongest theories in science...The weakness is the Bronze Age beliefs these religious freaks have! They want their children, ALL children to be stupid! Dinosaurs played with kids STUPID!

I blame the so-called moderate Christians for not standing up and making their voice heard! They are scared! They are scared they will be called Atheist or heretics!

The media are owned by fundamentalist Christians.

No need to insult the folks from the bronze age.

Grumblarg The Axemaker and his tribe would be horrified to be compared to those idiots. :)

In fact, nothing else makes sense.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They have painted themselves into the corner that every last word written in the Bibleand given them by their preacher is of Divine Oragin. Hence not so much as a punctuation mark could possibly be out of place. There entire belief system would be shaken to the core if it was proven that the Earth was created in only 5 days, nevermind millions of years.

That belief in the divine inspiration of the original authors and their clergy extends to anyone involved in it's translation. It may not make sense to you and me, but they are convinced.

They might say the theory of evolution is the best explanation based on what we can now observe and filtered through our current level of understanding. But they don't say it is absolutely 100% correct for all time. To do so would be anathema to the concept of scientific inquiry.

center of the universe. I don't ever recall in my Lutheran Bible study the Bible saying anything about the earth's movement relative to the sun. Yet The Christians decided they'd kill you for believing the earth traveled around the sun.

Now, apparently it's OK to believe what everyone knows.

This will be the same. Some Christians will vilify anyone that believes in Evolution. Eventually, after years of ignorance they'll all say.... "It's OK to believe in Evolution. We've changed our crap so the truth is now an OK thing to believe in."

Until some other issue comes along.....

if science showed or proved that some Buddhist beliefs/ideas were wrong what would he do. He replied something to the effect that we - meaning Buddhists -
would have to rethink our beliefs/ideas.

The creationists CLING to the whole earth created in seven days concept, and most are so DUMB they don't realize that there are TWO creation myths in Genesis. Each has a different order of creation. ooops. Which myth to take literally ...

See, God had to have worked on a 24-hour clock, so that's how it had to be ... fossils are fake ... oh, I don't know what else. :eyes:

I thought evolution was settled science back when I was in school. I'm absolutely floored that we are still debating this piece of stupid in states with large populations ... states that help determine the content of textbooks nationwide.

Isn't that a documented fact?

are no more dinosaurs. New theory of how the dinosaurs became extinct. Sarcasm alert. But, you heard it here first.

Centaurs, unicorns, dragons, FSMs, Cyclopes etc. didn't get there on time. :cry:

My mother is 100 percent convinced that unicorns existed, exclusively because the Old Testament says so. Lack of any remains of unicorns anywhere in the world is irrelevant.

It's a mistranslation of the Hebrew text.

But that's okay. You know the old saying: if the KJV was good enough for Moses, it's good enough for me.

;)

Cartoon by the late, great Charles Addams...

... I don't see any bigger problems.

How come, these guys always say "They theory of evolution is not perfect, so it has to be debunked entirely." ?

Why not write a book about the fundamental successes of ID? Oh, and the book MUSTN'T contain the words Darwin or evolution.

It's made-up mythological bullshit. As such, science beats it hands-down every time.

No God in schools. In fact I would love to see it happen however. Imagine how pissed off parents would be if a science teacher spent a whole week explaining ID's weaknesses.

They do not belong in SCIENCE class. There is a reason why the theory of evolution has not been replaced after 150 years; there is no better explanation based on the evidence, facts. Period.

ID and Creatism belong in church.

While we're at it - what are the fundamental successes of ID anyway?

.... They can never accept reality, or anything that contradicts their dogma.

preaching to the American Indians (as shown in the illustrated Book of Mormon)?

Sometimes we win a fight in Texas. And Texas Freedom Network deserves a big round of applause for their hard work. But there will be a second vote on Friday.
By the way the Texas Freedom Network's blog is here

tfnblog.wordpress.com


Even though the news article mentions a bill in the Texas Lege, there are more reality based science supporters in the House than there are on the SBOE. It should be DOA at the Lege.

:kick:


Sonia

by quoting passages from the bible and I suppose that is what they wanted to do.

I deal a lot with folks on the education committees. We lobby and attend hearings for the AFT and HFT.

I thought that was how science worked? :shrug:

Check out the bios of some of Texas board members, and you'll see how the coded language works.

Theories are not simply abandoned because they have a weakness. They are refined - or possibly used to explain phenomena under a limited set of conditions.

Newtonian physics has weaknesses - but it is used all the time (just as an example)

Science is robust and self-correcting -- there's no need to point out "weakness" that isn't there.

"an amendment that would mandate teachers explain the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution"

What's the outrage about teaching the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories?

So, yes, it certainly was, in the long view, about teaching I.D.

inquiry, to be false. Even the theory of gravity sits there just waiting for scientific research to bear it out as false. Not likely to happen, but that is truly what I find so noble and beautiful about science.

I know you didn't intend for that to be humorous but I found it quite funny, without gravity, nothing would "sit there"..

I just have a warped sense of humor, sorry.

:P

You see so-called weaknesses thrown around, but they're made up nonsense propagated by fundamentalists that has long been explained or is simply not true. Not to toot my own horn, but I have a PhD in a field of biology, and I can't think of any significant weaknesses to the theory; it's simply a fantastic, robust explanation for the natural world that has only become strengthened with the blossoming of our understanding of genetics.

ToE is unassailable as a description of natural processes, better understood and developed than even the theory of gravity. Therefore it must be misrepresented at every turn or they have no hope of defeating it. This is straw man as strategy.

Once when I was young, I bought a fancy short-wave radio. I sat down to read the owner's manual. When I got to the end of the book I found a section titled "Theory of Operation".

I was shocked.

"Theory"?

I thought to myself, "I don't believe this! They're not even sure how this thing works? How can that be? They're the ones who designed and built it!"

But then I continued reading and it soon became clear to me that they knew exactly how it worked. Evidently they meant something different by the word "theory" than what I was used to. To me, a theory meant a guess about something uncertain, such as when Sherlock Holmes tells Watson that he has a "theory" about who committed a crime. This section of my radio's manual was highly technical, and I realized that "theory" meant exactly that - it was about the technical stuff. The word has a scientific meaning that is significantly different from its everyday meaning.

As I continued to study electronics and science in general, I learned that there are a lot of other scientific words with special meanings that differ from their everyday meanings, and I also learned that, just as Newton's Theory of Gravitation doesn't imply uncertainty about whether gravity exists, neither does the term "Theory of Evolution" imply uncertainty about whether evolution exists. The theory of evolution is just a description of the technical process that makes evolution work.

I'll be mentioning the concept that 'theory has more than one meaning' from now on thanks to this post. Thank you for this.

I'm actually on the side of selection/evolution/nature. In learning about the methods to study genomic and protein sequences, I find it "just makes sense" that evolution is real.

Perhaps the concept of intelligent design could be introduced in conjuction with chaos theory, approaching both not from an evolutionary point of view but just looking at anything and figuring out if it is created by chance or by design.

but to be FAIR and IMPARTIAL, we'll have to teach EVERY SINGLE Creation story of EVERY SINGLE people on Earth. Persian, Scythian, Assyrian, Hittite, Egyptian, Eskimo, Chinese, Norse, Banthu, Polynesian, Aboriginee, etc. etc.

Why do they assume it will only be THEIR mythology that gets taught if they win? As mythologies go it's a) in the minority and b) not as exciting as a lot of other stories.

While we're at it, teach Chemistry vs Alchemy, Electromagnetics vs Magic, Flat Earth vs Round Earth, Modern Astronomy vs Biblical Astronomy... Why limit it to just Evolution versus just the Genesis Story? Let's get it ALL in there!

Shouldn't have been so close, or even a question, but whew.

Fucking creationist idiots. SUCK IT!

And the only weakness in the Theory of Evolution is in the imagination of these creationists. Their knowledge of evolution and biology is so limited that they embrace all sorts of nonsense claims by creation-pseudo scientists. For example they often claim there are no transition fossils. This, of course, is ridiculous as there are a number of famous fossils of transitional species. Just one example.

dinosaurs and birds yet creationists often say it is only a bird of no significance. This is why they can't be allowed a hand in science curriculum.

that there are SO MANY transitional fossils out there that it has in some cases been a pretty arbitary judgement as to when speciation occurred - exactly what you'd expect if an organism was under constant evironmental selection pressures. So I laugh at the 'no transitional fossils' BS - it's 180 degrees the other problem - the vast majority show signs of in-process transition.

Somewhere in one of Douglas Adams' books, one of the characters points out that there was no way to win with God, because any supreme being that would create a paradise but put an irresistible but prohibited fruit tree right in the middle of it was out to get you and was gonna take you down one way or the other eventually no matter how righteously you lived.

transgression okay with his father. In the OT, obedience in every detail is key; in the NT, respentance and reliance on Jesus is key.

Then again, I guess a God who can be satisfied with the humans He created only if His only Son dies agonizingly.....

They have 12-15 years to brainwash those kids, scare them with fire, give them chocolate rabbit eggs???? for Easter and toys for Saturnalia, oops, Christmas.

What does evolution do? Does it even have institutes where people amass and take their kids for 12-15 years? Do they threaten to turn you into a burning neanderthal for all eternity if you don't believe during your mere lifetime? What about chocolate dinosaurs for the kids?

These fundies have it all going their way. The stupid folks will simply hear a crack of lightning and think, "See God told you so!" What we need are infiltrants who will boldly stand up and say, "No! Thor, the god of thunder hath spoken!"

I was just having a discussion with a colleague about this, and though she supports the theory of evolution it still bothers her, as a person of faith, that it claims that we share common ancestory with apes.

Beat out chocolate bunnies every time. Combine that with field trips to view dinosaur bones at the museum and a few movies featuring a tyrannosaurus rex...how can god compete with that? :smoke:

It's the name of an old Germanic goddess of fertility, Eostre. Rabbits and eggs aren't exactly symbolic of the resurrection, eh?

Here's St. Bede 'splaining it back in the 600's:

Eostur-monath has a name which is now translated Paschal month, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance.

Don't you know Fundies would pitch a fit if they knew this? :D

are well aware that the timing and some of the symbols of their holidays originated in pagan or pantheistic religions.

Many of those I grew up with would be shocked at the pagan origins of Christian holidays (shocked for 2sec before they closed their minds back up, that is).

Hell, my Dad still fully believes Jesus spoke 17th century English 'cause all Jesus quotes are in 17th century English!

You know several of these fundamentalists haven't a clue that the bible has undergone a few revisions in the past millenia. I wouldn't be surprised to learn some of 'em think the original was in modern English.

I used to know several fundamentalists who were upset about the pagan roots of Halloween and refused to have anything to do with it. When I asked them why they put up a tree at Christmas then, well, "that was different."

1. Darwin invented evolution and lost his faith. This shows that evolution is dangerous to your faith and my faith.

2. Evolution shows that we are apes. Not typical apes, but apes nevertheless. Our ancestors only gradually lost most of their hair, started walking upright, grew larger brains, and learned to speak a language with metaphors, subordinate clauses, irony, and other traits not shared by other animals. There is no sharp dividing line between human and non-human apes. The process took several million years. All this makes a mockery of the biblical creation myth.

I do think it is fair to teach children what a theory means, and that includes strengths and weaknesses. Because many theories have been changed if not downright overturned over the years--such as the theory that the sun revolved around the earth.

Teaching the "weaknesses" of evolution shouldn't be a backdoor into teaching creationism though, I will agree with that.

As such, it has stood up to mountains of scientific research and has not yet been falsified. The cool thing about science is that evolution may one day be found to be false, and scientists are o.k. with that. This is not likely to happen which is what makes it the cornerstone of biology.

NT!

Based on their observations of the skies. The invention of the telescope brought about a rethinking of that theory and the introduction of the "radical" heliocentric theory.

Which is why even passing observations of the real world blew it out of the water. To rise to the status of a Theory (the technical explanation of a Law), a hypothesis has to have survived a whole lot of experimental testing and evaluation. I can't think of a single Theory (capital T) that has been overturned in toto. Modified, yes, completely abandoned, no.

Strengths: so far it explains everything.

Weaknesses: it does not address how life started in the first place, but it gives us some hints.

to explain what created the creator, and then what created the being that created the creator... ad infinitum.

We don't know exactly what got the ball rolling, but we have a pretty good idea. We know for example that it happened as early as it was physically possible for it to happen. We know that is was much easier for bacteria to evolve than it was for natural selection to take the next step towards complex life. Beacteria = 3.8 billion years old. More complex critters = a mere 500 million years. A visitor coming to earth at a random time in geologic history would probably have seen so sign of life until that visitor began its microscopic analysis.

From the Big Bang on, it has a great record, growing stronger every day.

didn't walk among the dinosaurs?

rest of the Bible, you are free to interpret as figurative.

:hide:

...ugh, the fact that it was 7-7 is just disgusting. I imagine this means that half of the people on that board were Michelle Bachmann clones.


:puke:

Whether you believe it's part of a greater plan or not, evolution is sound science.

I guess the fundies think the decision blows.

Let's say for the sake of this thought experiment that this creator does exist. Now let's say this supreme being/creator has this off the wall idea. The creator sets in motion a little experiment. This creator sets up the initial conditions for life on this small planet and let's the experiment run its course with no interventions by this said creator. Life develops and evolves on its own from these initial conditions with no further input from this creator. It is all just a little experiment to see what happens.

We could pose hypothetical scenarios all day long. They are still fairy tales. When you have some solid evidence to back it up give me a call.

I'm on your side. I was just trying to make the point that the believers limit their god by thinking small. Guess I didn't make it clear.

NT!

all I was saying was that believers in this myth limit their god by thinking small. IF this mythological being were real and not a myth how does evolution limit its power? Again I'm with you.

NT!

Then who needs him? Let's edit this thing of useless characters.



Y'know what gets me? All these parents so worry about their kids learning about evolution....they were all taught about evolution when they were in school and it made no difference. It didn't stick. They are still ignorant of the basic ideas of evolution and science in general. Why do they think their kids will be different?

I'm on your side. The believers just have to take the next step - which most won't - and realize that the myth makes no sense. The process of changing their minds could begin by suggesting to them that evolution was the tool used to put the whole thing together. You ween them from the myth slowly and maybe some will see that it is a myth and realize the truth. Most probably never will.

thinking, this is all emotional. It makes them feel better when they believe their myths, so they cling to them. When they feel secure enough in themselves that need will fade.

I guess I'm just a hopeless believer in logic and facts winning out over myth and superstition :-)

I'm not sure precisely why, but many (if not most) textbook publishers tend to design their books around what Texas would adopt because of how it pays for it's books (up front, I think), and if the fundies had required Texas books include this then a lot of other states would have ended up adopting them by default.

Limed for truth.

If I remember correctly, Texas has state-wide textbooks adoptions. That's a LOT of kids, so publishers want to please Texas. Given the "forward thinking" of many Texans, that has made me nervous.

And they are crazy down here. Of course I live in the same county as Ron Paul, so I see some real wackos. Thankfully Austin is still in charge. :)

I love the fact that one of the advocates of allowing "creationist" teaching instead of only science based teaching is named the "Free Market Foundation".

The whole theory that makes "Free Markets" supposedly superior to "Government Regulated Markets" is totally based on Darwin. "Survival of the Fittest" applied to companies is the supposed reason free markets are more efficient. If these people believe that God "managed" the creation of people, shouldn't they try and emulate God and try as best they can to "manage" our economy? Instead they spurn the type of management they imply that God uses and think that American regulation of businesses should follow the Godless methods of Darwin.

They must be the most Godless Christians ever to say that "Free Markets" are a good thing.

TFN President Condemns Shocking Book Endorsement by Texas SBOE Chairman

New Book Attacks Evolution Supporters as ‘Atheists,’ ‘Monsters’ and ‘Morons’

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 18, 2009

Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller is calling on the chairman of the Texas State Board of Education to withdraw his irresponsible endorsement of a new book that portrays scientists as “atheists,” parents who want their children to learn about evolution as “monsters,” and pastors who accept the science of evolution as “morons."

“Maybe Chairman McLeroy doesn’t realize how deeply offensive those insults are to people who want our schoolchildren to get a 21st-century education their science classrooms,” Miller said. “But it’s shocking that he would endorse a book that viciously attacks the faith of people who simply disagree with him about sound science.”

A review by McLeroy of “Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences’ Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They’re Descended from Reptiles” has been posted on the Web and promoted by Christian Newswire. McLeroy characterizes the book, self-published by Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr., as “unique” and “insightful” and affirms the book’s central conclusions. “The questions it raises are important; they deserve a hearing,” he writes.

--------------------------snip-------------------------
more:
http://www.tfn.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5739

.. and this is the most ridiculous insane
controversy.

There is nothing either strong or weak
aboutthe theory of evolution. It's
science, and as the scientific method
continues to apply, the theory itself
will evolve.

It's not a matter of belief either.
It is a theory based on evidence and
proof.

Mixing science and religion is like
trying to mix oil and water... just
insane.

It just goes to show that the Republicans really are our Taliban !!

Uh....don't they do that anyway? I mean, explaining the strengths and weaknesses, changes and puzzles solved and unsolved, of the complex evolution of Evolution itself sounds fascinating. One need never go near religion except to explain how it holds up progress and never once seriously intrudes of Evolution's validity.

The Fundy wing has run a long and patient campaign to take over the administration of the state. They will work hard to win places that few others even want - say, the ever-trite position of Dogcatcher. They have been saturating govt. in TX from the ground up, and as things are, will win this initiative one day.

One would LIKE to think that the now-stronger winds of the progressive movement would blow their plans away, but if the 20th Century hasn't yet made an impact, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for their enlightenment.

A great many teachers simply don't mention evolution at all, or barely treat it. So the significance of these tenuous legal and political victories shouldn't be overestimated.

:patriot:

Free from mandated thought control.

Having lived in Texas my entire life, this legal victory is great news to my ears. I'm ready for Texas to move forward. The fight to push forward is long from over unfortunately.

every 10 or so years in TX. I may be off on the time-frame, but it will be a long time before this type of debate can happen again.

The strengths and weaknesses provisions passed.. on both counts.

I am sure that scientists everywhere would love to openly talk about the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory, as well as intelligent design.

But, what creationists really mean by "open discussion" is "I get to spend half the class time talking about the Bible." Scientists who believe in intelligent design know their theories do not support the existence of Jesus, Allah, or the FSM. Rather, they support the existence of an unknowable force which orders this universe. But, creationists will use such speculative science to lend legitimacy to their myths, without ever engaging in honest debate about what we know. If they were honest, they would admit that all our powers of science and reason insist we know nothing about God except that It might exist.

So, smart people must pretend to be against open discussion, because we know damn well that biology class ought never to involve the Bible or any other religious idea, and we know that, if we allow "intelligent design" theories to be discussed, assholes will use that as an excuse to talk about Jesus everyday in our schools.

Nice bit of propaganda there, KXAN.

Heated debate over teaching evolution


Updated: Friday, 27 Mar 2009, 12:07 PM CDT
Published : Friday, 27 Mar 2009, 11:04 AM CDT

* Karen Brooks, Kimberly Reeves

AUSTIN (KXAN) - The state education board on Friday voted to allow educators to continue discussing alternatives to evolution but added the condition that those discussions be based on science.

The decision struck what some call a compromise between religious and conservative groups who wanted to keep original standards allowing for discussion of "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution in classrooms - and liberal and progressive groups who wanted a guarantee that creationism would not be allowed in the discussion over how the earth was formed.

The change was authored by moderate board member Bob Craig of Lubbock.

The State Board of Education has gone back and forth on the issue since January, when it tentatively voted to change the 20-year-old code that let teachers and students explore what's wrong with the theory of evolution and discussion creationism as a alternate theory on how the earth was formed.

The final language, approved on a 13-2 vote, now says that "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations in all fields of science, by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students."

More at link: http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/state_education_board_reverses_science_vote

"Strengths and weaknesses" do not apply to scientific theory. It either is, or it isn't. Ugh. :puke:

Texas sucks ass.

"in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations in all fields of science, by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students."

Other than the odd redundant use of "in all fields of science" it's not bad and does not leave room to bring Creationism or Intelligent Design into the Science classroom, as neither have any scientific backing.

that this was going to end up in an ugly, Dover PA style embarrasing lawsuit if they kept anything other than empirically-based science in the science classroom.

You and I agree that Intelligent Design doesn't use "empirical evidence, logical reasoning and experimental and observational testing" and therefore doesn't qualify as a scientific explanation. But creationists, some of whom have PhD's in scientific fields, will say that it does. Teachers who are creationists will assume they have permission to discuss ID along with Darwinian evolution.

What bothers me most is the phrase "all sides of scientific evidence". This suggests a sort of journalistic balance, which I think will mean a colossal waste of time in the classroom. I believe this is a cynical ploy to confuse students and dilute the content of biology classes.

As an analogy, imagine a high-school physics class giving equal time to the theories of Newton, Descartes, Aristotle, and Velikovsky. Such a class would indeed encourage critical thinking by the students, but it would not be adequate preparation for college science classes.

However, do you think that this is the final word? Won't the specifics of this change have to be made crystal-clear, especially regarding language used in biology textbooks? I certainly don't see this as an invitation for I.D. materials to be used in science classes. Do you think the sound science side will file a lawsuit similar to the infamous Dover, PA case? The scientific community came out in force in that case, and I'm sure that this final vote had been anticipated and that that community will not let this just simply stand without an all-out fight.

My hunch is that teachers from both sides of this debate will continue to present evolution from the position of their choice. I know that I will continue to teach sound science in my classroom and will continue to point out the fatal flaw of pseudo-scientific thought.

To answer your question: no, this isn't the final word. One battle was won, but the war goes on.

The forces of superstition are well organized and well funded. They see Darwin as the Antichrist. With glazed expressions on their faces, they pick up their bibles and pitchforks, marching backwards into the middle ages.

No matter how often the courts strike them down, they get back up - like the splinters of the broomsticks that were chopped up by the sorcerer's apprentice in Disney's Fantasia.

This was always about sneaking creationism into the science curriculum, and as far as I can tell nothing in the language of what passed suggested that this would be tolerated.

I'm seeing this as a step forward for Science classes in America.

:P

gosh come on, every self-absorbed far righter of Texas douche bag knows the Earth is flat. :freak:

We've all seen that pirate movie. Also we all know Bush was a great economic President.

:popcorn:

The facts are all in Evolutions cart..PERIOD.