Anti-Darwin Bill Fails in Utah

[TehBorken]

 Finally, a little common sense in an unexpected place- the Utah House of Representatives.
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"]Anti-Darwin Bill Fails in Utah

By KIRK JOHNSON
(story [a href="vny!://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/national/28utah.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin"]here[/a])

In a defeat for critics of Darwin, the Utah House of Representatives on Monday voted down a bill intended to challenge the theory of evolution in high school science classes.

The bill had been viewed nationally, by people on each side of the science education debate, as an important proposal because Utah is such a conservative state, with a Legislature dominated by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But the bill died on a 46-to-28 vote in the Republican-controlled House after being amended by the majority whip, Stephen H. Urquhart, a Mormon who said he thought God did not have an argument with science. The amendment stripped out most of the bill's language, leaving only that the state board of education "shall establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction."

Legislative officials said the bill was not likely to be revived before the scheduled adjournment of the Legislature on Wednesday. The Origins of Life bill, in its initial form, would have required teachers to issue a disclaimer to their students saying that not all scientists agree about evolution and the origin of species. It did not mention any alternative theory to Darwinism, but was viewed by some supporters and opponents as part of the drive to encourage the teaching of intelligent design, which says that life is too complicated to have evolved without an architect.


 

[tenkani]

Classic.

I mean, it's true that some scientists question the precise workings of evolution. This should not surprise anyone. There is quite a bit about the workings of gravitation that we can't explain as well (google the theory of "intelligent falling" for a good laugh). On the other hand, very few scientists take issue with the basic tenets of the thoery. In the mainstream scientific community, evolution is seen as the only theory with a significant body of evidence behind it.

Intelligent design does not meet the basic criteria of a scientific theory. It's just an untestable, unfalsifiable assertion and thus falls under the umbrella of matters of faith.

[Witch]

"Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Discovery Institute, a research group based in Seattle that has promoted the ideas of intelligent design, called the vote "a loss for scientific education," "

As if Mr Luskin would have any idea at all of what constitutes "scientific education (sic)"

[TehBorken]

tenkani wrote:
[div style="font-style: italic;"]Intelligent design does not meet the basic criteria of a scientific theory. It's just an untestable, unfalsifiable assertion and thus falls under the umbrella of matters of faith.[/div]
Exactly.

[Adam_Fulford]

I kind of like Mormons, as a whole.  But, speaking from experience, they're scary on the sports field (one of the few areas where they're allowed to cut loose, I guess).