Full Text of HB 179

I finally got the full text of HB 179. This causes me to change some of my earlier comments. This bill is not intended to modify the state standards produced by the Department of Education. Instead it introduces another state standard that teachers must comply with when they develop their lessons. Of course, the bill still provides for no development of a model curriculum to meet its decree and does not include any language specifying what teachers are to do if no “factual scientific evidence” against evolution exists. In other words, what are teachers in the real world supposed to do?

Any way here is the full text.

House Bill 179

By: Representative Bridges of the 10th

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

To amend Part 2 of Article 6 of Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to competencies and core curriculum in elementary and secondary schools, so as to provide for the presentation of certain scientific evidence whenever any theory of the origin of humans or other living things is taught; to provide for legislative intent; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.

Part 2 of Article 6 of Chapter 2 of Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to competencies and core curriculum in elementary and secondary schools, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new Code section, to be designated as Code Section 20-2-148, to read as follows:

“20-2-148.

(a) Whenever any theory of the origin of human beings or other living things is included in a course of study offered by a local unit of administration, factual scientific evidence supporting or consistent with evolution theory and factual scientific evidence inconsistent with or not supporting the theory shall be included in the course of study.

(b) The method of instruction described in subsection (a) of this Code section is intended to strengthen the analytical skills of students by requiring the presentation of a broad range of scientific evidence regarding theories of the origin of humans and other living things. The requirements of subsection (a) of this Code section are not intended to authorize or promote the presentations of religious beliefs.”

SECTION 2.

This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2005.

SECTION 3.

All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scit.us/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/352.
Sent by Unscrewing The Inscrutable on January 28, 2005 5:22 AM

New Blog: Check out Squid Blog, featuring the latest on the elusive Giant Squid and other semi-mythical monsters. HT: Collision Detection. Prof. PZ Myers with a fabulous peice on Metazoan Evo-devo ... OK you pervs, and the obligatory cephalopod snuff... [Read More]

Sent by Unscrewing The Inscrutable on January 28, 2005 10:42 AM

Saint Nate announcesThe Skeptics Circle; a Carnival for skeptics of pseudoscience. New Blog: Check out Squid Blog, featuring the latest on the elusive Giant Squid and other semi-mythical monsters. HT: Collision Detection. Prof. PZ Myers with a fabulous... [Read More]

Use KwickXML Formatting to markup your comments, acceptable tags: <b> <blockquote> <br> <code> <em> <email> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <i> <li> <list> <ol> <p> <qref> <quote> <s> <strong> <sub> <sup> <u> <ul> <url>. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Posted by Dr.GH on January 27, 2005 8:52 PM

Good analysis Reed.

Posted by Roy Jameson on January 28, 2005 2:24 PM

The wording of the proposed bill is vague, without a doubt. No definition of “theory” appears. That is a fatal mistake: Is the scientific understanding of theory meant, or does the bill mean theory in the loose, everyday meanings (e.g., any explanatory account, even a guess, especially those for which evidence is hotly debated). Nor is it clear what is meant by “included.” The bill could be interpreted as follows.

It could require bringing science into English classes, and likely other classes as well. How so? It says:

“Whenever any theory of the origin of human beings or other living things is included in a course of study…”

The word “included” is so expansive that anytime an origins myth or explanation (regarding humans or other living organisms) is mentioned, in any class, so-called “factual scientific evidence” would have to be introduced. In English, mythologic stories are often read and discussed, and some offer explanation for the origin of humans generally or for specific humans.

I doubt that the author had this in mind.

What surprises me is that Creationists et al. seem to have shown little desire of going farther and introducing laws regarding the teaching of the age of the Earth, the origin of fossils, etc. Perhaps that will come too, if they have any legal success with evolution.

Posted by 386sx on January 29, 2005 4:32 AM

In other words, what are teachers in the real world supposed to do?

The creationists just want to get their foot in the door any way they can. Like Mr. Jameson says, perhaps we’ll know what teachers in the real world are supposed to do if the creationists have any legal success at giving evolution the wedgie treatment.

Posted by Steve on January 29, 2005 7:14 AM

Nice looking blog here.

About Bridges, he’s a moron. There’s not a lot more to say. I hate to see Georgia slip down into the Mississippi and Alabama category, but it looks like that’s what’s happening. I’m adding you to my list of GA bloggers, cheers!

Posted by bonae on May 3, 2005 7:57 PM

I found this link as part of my research into the text of de rerum natura which i am studing as part of my book regarding the principal of quantum gravity.

I find this particular law very helpful in opening the possiblity of teaching the ‘Occult Study’ of the species of man ancient text refer to as the ‘Hyperboreans’ that the ‘hyperboreans’ did breed with certain strains of humans resulting in a genetic anomaly that allowed humans to ‘think’. Sure it’s far fetched. But there is NO FACTUAL PROOF AGAINST IT!

Maybe we should teach that Aliens mated with humans along with Darwin’s theory. Suits this new law, and is certainly is not RELIGION.

Ignorance is bliss and this law is a Rave Party.

The Catholic Church is smart enough to distance itself from the creationist topics of Genesis as poetic prose not to be taken ‘litterally’. As a christian and catholic i can only observe that god dislikes ‘ignorance’ and ‘sloth’. Certainly the creationists want to open wide the doors of science to introduce the catalyst of god into the equation and layer a childs ability to survive in a natural world with an inability to grasp abstract concepts of life and organisms. By throwing doubt on Evolutionary Science we open a gateway to question all learning.

Who says that one plus one is two anyway?

There is an absence of a Grand Unifying Theory, so certainly we cannot accept the flaws of newtonian gravity and the principal of relativity.

When we encounter a problem. Let’s just STOP and observe that ‘That is just the way it is’.

Reader, the day that we as Americans start accepting that ‘that is just the way it is’ mentallity of creationism, than the Socialist Manifestos of Lenin and Marx have certainly infiltrated our educational system and we are becomming nothing more than a massive blob of compliant ignorance.

There is a compliance to ignorance, it is called, ‘that is just the way it is’.

The gravity of discounting intellectual rigor with ‘Weak Subsitution Principals in agreement with Biblical Terminoligy’ is going to completely engulf every single child with a promising intellect who might have the ambition to reach one step beyond our current understandings of theoretical science and lead our nation in a process of exposing “Truth”. Though ‘Truth’ apears to have also become an abstract concept of continual debate that we wish to tailor to our own purposes as if we were ‘Gods’ ourselves.

To needlessly poke holes in Darwin is to assume the role of God ourselves and such is the sin of creationists.

Let us needlessly poke holes in all sceintific theory with the manifesto of ‘advancement’ as our principal guiding light for depriving our children of an appropriate understanding of the world in which they live.

And where is the factual scientific evidence inconsistant with the theory of evolution? Area 51 or the bible? Well we can’t TEACH THE BIBLE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL, so let’s fill the educational void we just created with ALIENS.

I’d certainly think the FACTUAL evidence against evolution should be brought forward prior to instituting such a law of absolute ignorance in our ‘modern’ world.

Though the new ‘law’ does in most certain terms teach a discipline of ‘pantheism’.

No wonder the american iq is in a state of decline. We have a generation of ‘creationists’ who are quite simply too ignorant of the physical realities of nature in which to endeavor to grasp the discipline of intellectual study and analysis.

In short, this law does not fit Ockhams Razor:

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

Violating ockhams razor takes us quickly from science to metaphysics.

This time creating a law that not only does not fit the most basic premise of scientific rigor of ockham but will be incredibly successful in leading our children directly into study of panethism and metaphysics.

So for the scientists that are grinning knowingly at the obvious implications of this law such as a panthesistic principal of ‘ALIEN VISITATION’ is opened wide to the mind of young students and maybe they will all become practiced occultists from our mindless violation of the scientific principal of ockham.

This law is ‘Multiplying Needlessly’ and ‘christ jesus my lord and savior as my witness’ is the first step back into the mud from which we sprang.

Like it or not.

I await anxiously for the first student who brings up ‘Hyperborea’ and to the creationists i smile and say.

‘You did it to yourselves’.

If we maintain the scientific rigor of ockham in the study of darwin, we will naturally end up with god.

So don’t take uneccessary shortcuts. They mislead in the most unchristian way.

In my lord Jesus Christ’s name I pray.

amen.

IAM,

Bonae841