A Nevada man is in the process of collecting signatures that would amend the state’s constitution to question evolution.
Steve Brown, a Las Vegas masonry contractor with three school age children, is working to get his proposal on the November ballot.
“I just want them to start telling the truth about evolution,” said Brown, a Democrat and member of a non-denominational church. “Evolution has occurred, but parts of it are flat-out unproven theories. They’re not telling students that in school.”
Brown expects “broad support” for his amendment, but he may run into some problems. For starters followers of evolutionist dogma do not allow for any questioning of the theory. Secondly, it seems a bit overkill to place any language referencing evolution in the state constitution. Thirdly, he gets too specific in what he thinks should be said.
The broader statements of simple questioning evolution and allowing for other alternatives has more public and legal support. Brown’s proposal includes things like:
• Allowing that although most scientists agree that Darwin’s theory of evolution is well supported, a small minority of scientists do not agree.
• Several “areas of disagreement” would have to be covered by teachers, including the view by some scientists that “it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself.”
• Students would have to be told some scientists argue “that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a ‘missing link.'”
• They “must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology’s mysteries” and that some scientists contend that sexual reproduction “would require an unbelievable series of chance events that would have had to occur in the evolutionary theory.”
A constitutional (state) amendment? Does such legislation belong at that level? Seems kinda heavy handed.
I mean, I thought that us evolutionary doubters were gonna change the scientific and public opinion before trying to legislate. Hmmm.
Yeah, I don’t think I am in favor of going the constitutional route in this or very many other debates.
BTW, Evil Lonnie just came by my desk and handed me a copy of the Amendments (which I don't know), and I realized why nobody knows them – they don't have official, short, memorable names. I sure never studied them in school (public school, mind you).
Many of the amendments seem to overlap, or have more than one subject that is not easily characterized in a few words. Somebody must have done this already. But here's what I gather.
I. Rights of GRASP (Grievance Redress, Religion, Assembly, Speech, and Press)
II. Right to Bear Arms
III. Protection from Housing Soldiers
IV. Protection from Illegal Search and Seizure
V. Right to Due Process of Law (Protection from Self-Incrimination)
VI. Right to Fair Trial
VII. Right to Trial by Jury
VIII. Protection from Cruel Fines or Punishment
IX. Protection from Misapplication of the Bill of Rights
X. Delegated Power
How many of those do you actually agree with Seeker? Four? Five, tops?
they all look good to me, why? Doesn't fit your view of me? Obviously not.
Only a fool argues with a fool.
What next? An amendment stating that pi equals 3? Or one declaring the world to be flat?
Or that marriage can defind as between same sex partners?
Or that seeker isn't a closet-case?