Salt Lake Tribune: House spikes evolution disclaimer bill

though I chuckled, Butters is actually the most sympathetic character in South Park. I cannot sympathize with Buttars.

Simpsons did it!

Didn't he want to call his bill "Divine Design"? Think there's any connection between his religious convictions and his disbelief in a common ancestor with apes?

Just askin'.

Anyway, hope he and idiots like him get swept out of office. I'm actually glad when these nuts reveal themselves for what they really are. Now that's a divine design.

Comment #82558 Posted by DJ on February 27, 2006 07:08 PM (e) Didn't he want to call his bill "Divine Design"? Think there's any connection between his religious convictions and his disbelief in a common ancestor with apes?

And if he had an IQ above the Points Per Game average of the LA Clippers, he would have then said, "Of course, there's no way of knowing how many protein sequences in a given space are 'specified', so that idea is completely worthless, except of course maybe for getting rich off creationist rubes..."

Waterloo in Dover! Waterloo in Ohio! Waterloo in Utah!

ROTFLMAO at Dembski...

"There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape. I didn't," said Sen. Chris Buttars

And here was I thinking that he was a superb example of a transitional form

— corkscrew

Moses was all, Waterloo in Dover! Waterloo in Ohio! Waterloo in Utah! ROTFLMAO at Dembski...

Re "Waterloo in Dover! Waterloo in Ohio! Waterloo in Utah!"

And here I thought Waterloo was in Europe someplace...

Uh, on second thought, never mind that. :)

Btw, doesn't it ever occur to some of those people that the genetic, anatomical and biochemical similarities between chimp and human are going to still be there regardless of evolution/creation? And that with creation and/or ID, that means the "designer" caused those similarities on purpose? Ergo, their model implies that humans are less special than otherwise since we were "designed" to blend in with the neighbors.

Henry

NCSE board member and BYU biology professor Duane Jeffery wrote a short, terse and to-the-point editorial dissection of the bill. There are in Utah a lot of people who understand and appreciate biology generally, and evolution theory more specifically -- and many of them are, like Jeffery, rather devout Mormons.

Among well-educated people, truth has a better shot at winning. It helps when the local church of most persuasive power is not opposed to evolution.

The Salt Lake Tribune "Urquhart opposed Buttars' bill because he doesn't feel that science conflicts with religion and said it was misleading to single out one theory as unproven."

NCSE report "Despite opposition from the state's scientific and educational communities, protests from the ACLU of Utah and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and critical editorials in the state's leading newspapers, a revised version of the bill was passed by the Utah Senate on January 23, 2006, by a 16-12 vote."

http://steveu.com/blog/2006/01/evolution.html

Senator Urquhart has a blog. I shouldn't be surprised anymore that Joe Random politician has a blog.

desertnews.com, Urquhart said: "The backers of this bill are saying this bill has nothing to do with faith or religion," Urquhart said. "If that's the case, and we're only dealing with this on the basis of science, this becomes a very easy decision: There's only one scientific theory regarding the diversity of the species. That theory is evolution."

Keith Lockitch (Index at talkreason.org) 'Intelligent Design': Religion Masquerading as Science "One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause. By the very nature of its approach, "intelligent design" cannot be satisfied with a "designer" who is part of the natural world. Such a "designer" would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such. The only "designer" that would stop their quest for a "design" explanation of complexity is a "designer" about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study--a "designer" that "transcends" nature and its laws--a "designer" not susceptible of rational explanation--in short: a supernatural "designer."

Science survives or not based on in internal religious squabble?

No, a sensible science-education policy survives based on the fact that a good many Christians support good science education.

And, there are tens of millions of fundamentalists for whom science does conflict with their religion. And, they are NOT going to change anytime soon.

They've been publicly discredited in several forums recently, people are starting to stand up to their bullying, and more persons of faith, including some rather large established churches, are publicly saying that facing reality is not ungodly. That's some serious beneficial change -- what more do you expect?

Rep. Scott Wyatt, a Republican from Logan, said he feared passing the bill would force the state to then address hundreds of other scientific theories --- "from quantum physics to Freud" --- in the same manner. "I would leave you with two questions," Wyatt said. "If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?

Buttars said he doesn't believe the defeat means that most House members think the Darwinian theory of evolution is correct. "Absolutely not. It means the vote was wrong in my opinion," Buttars said. "I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape." In fact, evolutionary theory does not assert that humans were descended directly from apes, but rather holds that apes and humans --- and all other species --- are descended from common ancestors.

The Salt Lake Tribune article is no longer available online. Interesting.

An engineering degree renders the recipient an instant Renaissance Man.

There's a new one up on the Salt Lake Tribune. Maybe the original was an AP article, and they wanted to replace it with a local one?

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3554104

Forgive me if this has been posted here before, but there was an interesting article about ID in Utah on the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/national/05evolution.html?ex=1141275600&en=9ecca05f932602af&ei=5070

He seems to make the case that Mormons are keenly aware of their "minority status" in the Christian world and are therefore less likely to support "shove dogma down everyone's throats" legislation than others...an interesting read.

New triffids, or the evil spirits have come to rest in the home of someone else, pick your metaphor: There is a creationism eruption in Nevada, now:
http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/int_ref/TruthInScience.pdf

Nevada? Tell kids evolution is mathematically impossible?

The issue of human and apes is more complicated than that. It is because "ape" means something different to biologists than it does to the lay public. To the former it refers to a group of closely related primate species, and their recent common ancestors. To the latter it refers to only the other extant ape species.

Several points:

1. Humans are apes, or more properly "great apes".

2. Humans are descended from great apes.

3. Humans are not chimps, bonobos, gorillas, or orangutans, the other extant great ape species.

4. Humans did not descend from any other great ape species.

4. Humans did not descend from any other extant great ape species.

4. Humans did not descend from any other great ape species.

Sorry, that was meant to be

4. Humans did not descend from any other extant great ape species.

Please help me understand something.

What was meant by this statement: "Maybe, Wyatt, I don't know. Do you have an engineering degree? An engineering degree renders the recipient an instant Renaissance Man."

I've been lurking here on PT since right after the Kitzmiller decision. I've learned a lot, not being a biologist by education. Mostly, I've had my prior views on the IDM and evolution strengthened. I've used some arguments I've read here when speaking with IDiots on other forums. I'm on your side.

I'm also an engineer. A very educated and experienced one. Very accomplished in my field.

You biologists etc. may not realize that you may need us in being critical of ID. D stands for design, remember? Who really designs stuff around here? Who you gonna call to help you really criticize a design if needed?

Perhaps the quote above isn't a slight on engineers, but others here have been.

How about practicing some professional courtesy?

Dave

2hulls: I believe the comments you speak of were meant as a slight to engineers pretending to be biologists, or pretending that their knowledge of engineering qualified them to infer "design in nature;" or perhaps they're just a slight against a certain retired engineer who posts nonsensical falsehoods under many assumed names; but they're not meant for engineers in general.

I can buy that. Thanks for the elaboration.

No competent engineer I know would pretend to be anything else, except a student of science and reason.

That said, we do have our nut cases........

Dave

2hulls: I believe the comments you speak of were meant as a slight to engineers pretending to be biologists, or pretending that their knowledge of engineering qualified them to infer "design in nature;" or perhaps they're just a slight against a certain retired engineer who posts nonsensical falsehoods under many assumed names; but they're not meant for engineers in general.

That doesn't surprise me much - I have a cousin with an M.S. in mechanical engineering who can't seem to understand how "Pandas" is different from a Physics or ME textbook...his brother-in-law is a medical doctor (!) who apparently shares his views on creation...

... Buttars said. "I don't believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape."

by Dizzy -
"That doesn't surprise me much - I have a cousin with an M.S. in mechanical engineering who can't seem to understand how "Pandas" is different from a Physics or ME textbook..."

Raging Bee, see what I mean?

Dizzy - can you possibly make an even more over generialization?

Dave

An engineering degree renders the recipient an instant Renaissance Man.

— steve s

NSCE's article says in part -- SB 96 then went to the House of Representatives Committee on Education, where it underwent further revision; in particular, the directive to the state board of education to emphasize the existence of disagreement among scientists with regard to "any theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race" was replaced with a directive to "stress that no scientific theory, hypothesis, or instruction regarding the origins of life or the origins of species has been indisputably proven." The new revision of the bill was narrowly passed by the Committee on Education on February 8, 2006. Then on February 27, 2006, Representative Stephen Urquhart (R-District 75) amended the bill's text, leaving only "The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction." The gutted bill was then defeated, the Salt Lake Tribune explains (February 27, 2006), "to stop the Senate from having the ability to revive the issue." Buttars told the Tribune that it was "doubtful" that he would propose a similar bill in the future. -- from http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/UT/603_antievolution_bill_in_utah_def_2_27_2006.asp

Andy, how come you post under all these different names? Ain't that against the rules?

Nah, this can't be Larry the maroon, or Larry the retired engineer, or Larry the federal judge, or Andy the maroon, or Andy the lawyer, or Andy the Ohio administrative expert, or Andy the co-evolutionary biologist.

This must be ... Andy the Utah legislator!

Tell us, Andy: was it necessary to change your religion to get this new legislative post?

The amazing Andy, "revisionary" renaissance man of many stripes (but don't be deceived: the white strip down the middle is still the creamy filling inside the maroon).

This all looks very fishy. Who is Rep. Urquhart and what gave him the authority to rewrite a bill that had been approved by the Committee on Education?

— My name is Legion

I am quite familiar with the sleazy tactics of politicians.

— Landarry H. Farfarfromsmart

Since Larry once more demonstrates that he is an unethical, ignorant crank, I repeat my questions.

I'll keep repeating them, Larry until you answer them. Or until they ban you.

Lest my two basic points be lost in that last message of mine, I will repeat them (to go along with "Shut up, Larry"):

1. Larry, given that everyone knows that you're now posting under "Andy H" (and several other names), and given that this is in violation of the Thumb posting rules, are you aware that you are making yourself look like an idiot?

2. Given that you have no training, education, or experience in the subjects you are discussing, why should we pay any attention to your opinions?

Note that these are very honest questions: I would like to know the answers.

Who is Rep. Urquhart and what gave him the authority to rewrite a bill that had been approved by the Committee on Education ?

Comment #82819 Posted by Andrew McClure on February 28, 2006 11:21 PM

Who is Rep. Urquhart and what gave him the authority to rewrite a bill that had been approved by the Committee on Education ?

He is the majority whip of the Utah House of Representatives, and a member of the Utah House Public Education Appropriations Subcommittee and House Education Committee. The most logical assumption in this case would be that he was given the authority to rewrite that bill by the House of Representatives of Utah.

1. Larry, given that everyone knows that you're now posting under "Andy H" (and several other names), and given that this is in violation of the Thumb posting rules, are you aware that you are making yourself look like an idiot?

2. Given that you have no training, education, or experience in the subjects you are discussing, why should we pay any attention to your opinions?

Note that these are completely honest questions: I would like to know the answers.

I have never heard of a single legislator being given carte blanche to rewrite a committee-approved bill.

— Larry

I thought that the usual procedure in amending committee-approved bills was to have the full legislative body vote on a motion to amend, but no vote was taken to approve the changes that Urquhart made in the bill --- see http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006/status/sbillsta/... .

What happened was that the bill that the House voted on was not SB96 at all, but was something completely different; in fact, the final House bill was called a "substitute" bill. The final bill, which left only the words, "The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction," was not merely trivial but was frivolous --- see http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006/bills/sbillamd/s...

2hulls:

"Dizzy - can you possibly make an even more over generialization?"

I mentioned two specific people in my extended family - an MS/Eng. and MD - as examples (hopefully exceptions), not as generalizations. The point was *not* that all doctors and engineers are creationists, it was that being an engineer or a doctor doesn't automatically make you a "well-informed consumer" of creationist vs. scientific literature.

Yes, Rilke's Granddaughter -- I confess my great ignorance and humbly prostrate myself before your infinite wisdom.

Comment #82804 posted by Corkscrew on February 28, 2006 09:32 PM Larry, why is it that when you see anything that you think might disadvantage ID, regardless of your complete lack of knowledge of the policies in that state (no, it's not California, the Brown Act doesn't apply) and the background to the case, you always always assume that something fishy is going on?

I think the most amusing instance was where you were calling "shenanigans" on a ruling that supposedly prejudiced the Ohio Board's decision against ID, before having it pointed out to you that it was a Creationist who'd made that ruling.

Yes, there are sleazy politicians out there. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Rep. Urquhart is one of these, or are you just relying on your (demonstrably unreliable) political instincts?

Yes, Rilke's Granddaughter --- I confess my great ignorance and humbly prostrate myself before your infinite wisdom.

— Larry

It has nothing to do with advantaging or disadvantaging ID --- it is just about following proper procedures.

— Larry

Something is not necessarily right just because a creationist did it --- I wonder where you ever got that idea.

Something is very sleazy about allowing a single legislator to rewrite a committee-approved bill.

Larry: given your demonstrated -- and often admitted -- lack of knowledge of the subjects of which you speak; given your constant refusal to answer questions regarding your motives and dishonest use of multiple names; given your blatant repetition of arguments that have been refuted several times before; given your explicitly-stated disregard for all facts and logic that contradict your assertions; given the mockery you now consistently attract; and given your now-obvious reputation as a lonely pathetic dishonest cranky loser; I have to ask the following questions:

Why do you continue posting here, when you are clearly unwilling to deal honestly with us?

What makes you think you can convince anyone of anything here?

What makes you think your assertions have any credibility?

Yes, Rilke's Granddaughter --- I confess my great ignorance and humbly prostrate myself before your infinite wisdom.

I think Larry should go to law school and after graduating and passing the Bar exam he should go to work for the Disco Institute.
The Judges hearing the cases would have far less patience for Larry than we do, especially when be starts calling them "fundy-hating Darwinist fanatics". He could effectivley destroy any credibility they have left in a few months. Either that or Larry could become a scientist and try to get funding to research ID from the Templeton foundation. Of course the Disco institute does't really want to do research because it would most likely produce evidence that further supports the ToE and not ID. And that would just be doing the scientists work for them.

Sincerely,
"fundy-hating Darwinist fanatic"

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/03/evolution-opponents-sue-russian.php

Hmmm. Interesting way of introducing God into school. Not even US based.

Moses cries out: Waterloo in Dover! Waterloo in Ohio! Waterloo in Utah!

Comment #82803 Posted by Steviepinhead on February 28, 2006 08:53 PM (e) Nah, this can't be Larry the maroon, or Larry the retired engineer, or Larry the federal judge, or Andy the maroon, or Andy the lawyer, or Andy the Ohio administrative expert, or Andy the co-evolutionary biologist. This must be ... Andy the Utah legislator!

Blush!

Larry/Andy is, of course, too easy a target, which usually reduces one's score considerably. In fact, Larry has been "hit" so many times, from so many directions, by so many comic "archers," that it's getting to be a real challenge to find a chink in the previously-landed "arrows" through which to slip in a new one...

But, for lack of a more evasive target, we persevere.

The truly sad thing about Larry is the sad and downright pathetic nature of his posts. He's so lonely, so friendless that he'll endure infinite ridicule for his ignorance just to get someone to notice him. It is really extraordinarily sad.

And if he could learn anything, he might have actual friends.

But he can't. And apparently doesn't.

And that is saddest of all.

Comment #82874 Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on March 1, 2006 10:30 AM (e) 1. Larry, given that everyone knows that you're now posting under "Andy H" (and several other names), and given that this is in violation of the Thumb posting rules, are you aware that you are making yourself look like an idiot?

I expect it's up to whether the individual post-creator (in this case, Reed Cartwright) wants to be bothered, either to do something drastic, or to take the time and trouble to move each Larry or Andy post to the Bathroom Wall.

In Andy's case, his various aliases and his repetitive style and "concerns" are so well-known, that no one who is at all familiar with Panda's Thumb is fooled for long.

Also, a fair amount of sentiment has been expressed to the effect that Larry's maunderings do serve some minimal useful purpose, either in displaying the mendacity and vacuousness of ID thought, or in occasionally prompting a reply which may prove educational to the innocent lurker--if never to Larry himself.

Under these circumstances, the failure to impose some kind of consequence probably does little harm. This is, of course, no guarantee that those who might violate the same policy in some more devious or egregious fashion would not draw a consequence upon themselves.

Leave Larry, or lurkers will lament his leaving.

Leave LaLaLarry FaFaFarFlungDung, or alliterationists everywhere will lament his leaving.

Not to mention Otis (FaFaFa) Redding...

Waterloo in Dover! Waterloo in Ohio! Waterloo in Utah!

Also, a fair amount of sentiment has been expressed to the effect that Larry's maunderings do serve some minimal useful purpose, either in displaying the mendacity and vacuousness of ID thought, or in occasionally prompting a reply which may prove educational to the innocent lurker---if never to Larry himself. Under these circumstances, the failure to impose some kind of consequence probably does little harm. This is, of course, no guarantee that those who might violate the same policy in some more devious or egregious fashion would not draw a consequence upon themselves.

http://www.bryanerickson.com/