Interesting Statistic

In an article showing the disparity in positions held on various issues by Utah's Mormons and non-Mormons I found this interesting statistic – although not really surprising, published today in the Daily Herald from a poll done earlier this month by the Salt Lake Tribune.

[Utah's Mormons and non-Mormons] are split on evolution…, with 60 percent of Mormons supporting a Legislative proposal that would require public schools to teach that evolution is a theory on which scientists disagree, and 40 percent of non-Mormons supporting it.

I have to admit, I actually expected the numbers to be far more polarized.

SB96 "Sideshow" Legislation

The Deseret News quotes Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. as having said on Thursday,

"Sometimes, the frivolous and the less important capture headlines," Huntsman said. "The longer-term issues that we face as a state are those surrounding job creation, education, basic mobility, transportation, quality of life — we need to stay focused on those."
As governor, Huntsman said, "that's exactly where my focus is. I'm not going to get side-tracked on any sideshows."

I’m glad our governor is staying focused on what’s really important, because I’m obviously not. This website is all about the frivolous antic sideshow that is Buttars bill. I am the headlines! Ya! :^)

More down to earth, the Daily Herald had a great editorial opinion yesterday concerning this frivolous sideshow in which they detailed four reasons the House should kill bill:

The bill is flawed because it requires action on a false premise. It erroneously suggests that there are competing theories on the origin of life upon which various scientists disagree.

In fact, there is very little science of any kind suggesting how life began, let alone competing theories. The investigation has only just begun, and a bit of sketchy chemistry does not a theory make. But if there are no competing theories, then S.B. 96 is moot on its face and the State Board of Education should be free to ignore it. It requires an impossibility. Because multiple theories on the origin of life do not exist, schools by definition cannot endorse one theory or discuss the variety of others, even if they wanted to.

Its language is ambiguous and suppresses honest dialog.

Not only does S.B. 96 address the origins of life, it demands curriculum requirements "on any theory regarding ... the origins or present state of the human race." The latter phrase is incomprehensible, but we'd say it attempts to make reference to the theory of evolution -- which is an actual theory supported by a vast amount of external evidence. Evolution is widely accepted as fact, as the Big Bang is accepted as the starting point of the universe. There is overwhelming physical and mathematical evidence for both. The Big Bang was spectacularly reinforced by the WMAP probe launched in 2002. Suppressing a teacher's ability to report the wide agreement on these points is intellectually dishonest.

Even if the words of every teacher were monitored and controlled by the Board of Education, this bill would have no meaningful benefit.

The Utah Legislature does not need to protect the religious sensibilities of students in science classes, nor is this the proper role of the state. People have been balancing science and religion in their personal philosophies for centuries. If a teacher says that evolution is currently a widely accepted fact ... well, that is a reasonable statement that is not subject to challenge except from a few on the intellectual fringe. Worries that kids will lose their faith in droves because of an authoritative secular teacher are misplaced.

S.B. 96 is a thinly veiled attempt to force religious viewpoints into public schools. This is not the proper role of government, nor is it practical. If competing religious notions are treated as scientific theories, science class will bog down in philosophy.

Faith is the personal and private domain of the individual. In the quest for truth, one is free to choose science alone, faith alone, or some combination of the two. But that reconciliation process is a matter to be worked out by every free-thinking individual. It is not appropriate to encode this in law.

Science obviously cannot explain everything, nor does it claim to. The accelerating process of discovery raises questions that outpace answers as people continue to inquire, hypothesize, theorize and challenge. In the face of this explosion, all science does is attempt to explain things in rational -- rather than spiritual -- terms. It is proper for the public schools to pursue secular science without guilt, and for the schools to avoid muddying the water with faith-based arguments. Let that discussion happen outside of school, or at least in philosophy class.

(Now speaking for myself, I think an appropriate place to bring this topic up in a public school is in a government & politics class. It can be used as a case study on how public opinion is manipulated and how legislatures use deceptive language in an attempt to maneuver around the law.)

Religion and science are not necessarily incompatible, but whether and how they relate is not a matter for the Board of Education or the Legislature. This is the key. Faith offers some answers that science cannot. Certainly a great many people are convinced that their religious views are correct. But a person's sense of certainty does not turn faith into science.

Science and religion may enhance one another, but reconciliation must never be forced. That process is properly left to the individual alone.

This bill is badly in need of amendment -- or a quiet death. It is symbolism at best. At worst, it undermines independent thought and establishes the Utah Legislature as a tribunal of truth. That is what the Inquisition did.

Personally, I think a quiet death is best. Amen.

Some article updates

Here is a short update linking a few articles that have come out over the past few days and earlier today in case you haven’t read them.

Here is some more welcome editorial opinion in the Salt Lake Tribune. Just letting us know just how extra worthless this bill is.

I mentioned this Deseret News article in my previous post, but I wanted to highlight a few things. Rep. Steve Urquhart is definitely showing himself to be one of our more thoughtful representatives:

House Majority Whip Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, said Tuesday that he cannot support the bill because it does not clarify those competing theories, especially regarding evolution. At the same time, he doubted that those other theories could be clarified because there is only one, intelligent design, which fills the gaps in evolutionary theory by crediting a higher power.

"God has no argument with science, and science does not have an argument with God," Urquhart said. "For many of us, each explains the other."

While the bill does not mention religion, creationism, intelligent design or God, Urquhart said he does not see how it could not be intended to bring those elements into a scientific discussion. But if it truly is a bill devoid of religion, then he wants the scientific explanations.

"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."

Gayle Ruzicka proves she is less thoughtful:

Utah Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka said that religion is not an element of the bill and that anyone who reads it will find that there is nothing to dispute. In fact, the bill only requires that "as long as it's scientific, they can talk about it," but teachers do not have to discuss religious viewpoints.

"We talking about the origins of life," she said. "Some say that we started with monkeys, others say we climbed out of the slime — if you look at everything that has been said, all you can do is point out that there are competing theories."

Slime and monkeys… just another theory… one among many.

Another article in the Deseret News the other day notes that many folks making the decisions up there in the capital don’t really know what this bill will really do. But one thing we do know – Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, gave his thoughts on what this bill will do, “I don't think it does a whole lot of anything”. But for some reason that didn’t stop him from voting for it.

Of special note, those funky creationists over at Answers In Genesis (you know, those guys who have found evidence that some dinosaurs were domesticated animals) well, they have taken notice of our little quarrels as well.

Will SB96 be killed in a House committee?

I was reading a Deseret News article this morning and sat down to try and do a little math. I figure SB96 will land on the table of the House Education Committee here before long. (Please correct me in the comments below if you find any of my thinking wrong here.)

The members of that committee are:

Rep. Margaret Dayton, Chair
Rep. LaVar Christensen, ViceChair
Rep. Ron Bigelow
Rep. Duane E. Bourdeaux
Rep. John Dougall
Rep. James A. Ferrin
Rep. James R. Gowans
Rep. David L. Hogue
Rep. Kory M. Holdaway
Rep. Gregory H. Hughes
Rep. Bradley T. Johnson
Rep. Carol Spackman Moss
Rep. Merlynn T. Newbold
Rep. LaWanna Lou Shurtliff
Rep. Stephen H. Urquhart

Of these 15 members, an 8 to 7 ratio is all that’s needed to either send the bill to the House floor or kill the bill in committee. I figure if all the Democrats vote against the bill, as they did in the Senate, and the article notes that both Urquhart and Holdaway of the Republicans are against the bill, then that’s already 6 votes against the bill. Only 2 more are needed to kill the bill in committee.

Now of course Ferrin is for the bill, and the article mentions that Hogue believes we need to have an “open mind”, which can be translated as he is for it to, who does that leave us?

I figure that amongst the following Representatives all it takes is two of them going against the bill to kill it in committee:

Rep. Margaret Dayton, Chair
Rep. LaVar Christensen, ViceChair
Rep. Ron Bigelow
Rep. John Dougall
Rep. Gregory H. Hughes
Rep. Bradley T. Johnson
Rep. Merlynn T. Newbold

Does anyone know where these folks stand on this bill?

SB96 goes on to the House

Well, no surprise, the Senate passed it. SB96 is on to the House.

It looks to me like there are 17 senators who are dead set determined to lower Utah school's science standards to fit their religious beliefs. If this bill ever becomes law I hope the federal judge who shoots the law down will require these Senators to retake their high school science classes or he will revoke their high school diplomas.

Those “opposing scientific viewpoints” are condemning evolutionists to Hell

Now this is what I really oppose! This is a letter to the editor published in the Cache Valley’s Herald Journal the other day (1/19/06):

To the editor:

I wasn’t going to read the anti-intelligent design Soapbox article by Richard Criddle until I noticed the very last line that stated he was a member of the LDS Church. I wondered why a member of the LDS Church would be against intelligent design, so I read it.

It quickly became apparent that he does not believe in the creation as expounded in the scriptures or by our prophets. That led me to wonder why he wants to be identified as a member of the LDS Church.

I understand those who don’t keep the commandments who want to be identified as members. All of us have our various weaknesses. I also understand those who are less motivated to attend on a regular basis. Some are not as motivated as others. This letter is not about either of those groups.

One of my favorite things is to talk to others about what they believe and why. People’s beliefs are based on what they consider to be facts, their own logic and their feelings. The key to understanding others is to understand what they believe and why. With that in mind, this letter is to those who don’t believe that President Hinckley is a prophet and who still want to be considered a member of the LDS Church.

The LDS Church has come out strongly on a number of issues. Three of those are: God created this earth and all things on it; homosexuality is a sin; and abortion is wrong.

This letter is not addressed to those who disagree with those stances, it is addressed to those who disagree and still want to be considered members of the LDS Church.

Do you believe that President Hinckley is a prophet except on evolution, or except homosexuality, or except some other point? How is that possible? Prophets speak for God, so is God also wrong?

To me, there is a huge difference between those who struggle with, for example, a Word of Wisdom problem and those who make a considered decision that the prophet is wrong. Again, this letter is not addressed to those who have weaknesses or who have decided to leave the LDS Church.

The belief that the president of the LDS Church is a prophet is probably the most key belief that makes the LDS Church different from every other church. So, if you don’t believe that he is the prophet of our savior, Jesus Christ, why would you call yourself a member of the LDS Church?

This letter is a sincere request to have someone explain to me why this group would want to be identified as members of the LDS Church.

What benefit do you expect to receive when you don’t believe?

Joe Maynard

Smithfield

Our state Representatives would do well to pay close attention to the utterly foolish words of Mr. Maynard here. We need to realize that the “opposing scientific viewpoints” that Buttars and other Senators want our high school students to consider will condemn those who don’t agree with them to Hell and Damnation. Take special note of this – where ID goes, so goes Hell and Damnation for those who disagree.

KUTV reports some interesting things said on the Senate floor

My computer doesn’t allow me to listen to the Senates fine audio online. So I have to rely on online news.

KUTV reports that Buttars amended his own bill for clarification. He said, “By inserting these two words, it becomes 100 percent clear that we're talking about various scientific views.'' That’s baloney – see my previous post. Plus, several of the Senators apparently used religious reasons to justify their “yes” vote.

But of special interest was the comment made by Senate Majority Leader Pete Knudsen, R-Brigham City,

"I thought I heard in (Buttars') statement that if one doesn't vote for this, then one could be considered an atheist. If that was the implication, that concerns me greatly. That is not the spirit in which we should discuss this legislation," he said. "There is a place for evolution in life, it's a part of life. It saddens me that one's faith would be challenged on a vote of this bill. I vote no."

A prophecy no doubt of just how divisive this bill will become. I applaud Sen. Pete Knudsen for taking a stand for what is right.

The amendments to SB96 don’t really help

Here are just a few of my initial thoughts on the amendments to SB96.

I can see what they are trying to do by amending the bill to say scientific viewpoints and scientific theory, scientific as opposed to religious viewpoints and religious theory, but this clarification fails to make this good legislation.

First, since there is only one legitimate scientific theory, the theory of evolution, what other scientific theory/viewpoints are there to truly consider? This bill basically requires there to be other scientific theories, but the fact is there isn’t.

Second, there are no doubt several teachers out there who are creationist/ID believers who firmly believe that their religious beliefs are “scientific”. This bill if passed will only do the disservice of encouraging them to introduce their so-called “scientific” theories into the classroom. The bill in a since still gives them “permission” to do that.

What are some of your thoughts?

Articles to read today

A couple of good articles and some thoughtful editorial opinion came out today.

First off, in the Deseret News article it notes that a new book on how Mormonism relates to evolution is available, Mormonism and Evolution: the Authoritative LDS Statements, written by Utah Valley State College physics professor William E. Evenson and Brigham Young University biology professor Duane E. Jeffery. It is described as “a compilation of statements made by or sanctioned by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from 1909 to 2004.” (Note: this book appears to be different from a book published a few years back with a similar title with Duane Jeffery as one of the authors.)

The Salt Lake Tribune has been speaking with several of our local scientists who describe the plentiful evidence for evolution that Sen. Chris Buttars and Sen. Mark Madsen can’t seem to find.

The Salt Lake Tribune also takes direct issue with Buttars Bill in an editorial calling it a “downright lie”. And mentions concerning Buttars mouth, “…every time the West Jordan Republican opens his mouth to address the subject [of evolution], he removes all doubt about the fact that he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.” His references to evolution “display a towering ignorance of the subject.”

Unlike Buttars display of his need for some more education (at least where evolution is concerned), the Deseret News notes how Carol Lear, of the USOE, has been doing her homework on how Buttars Bill lacks intelligent design from a federal courts point of view.

Even though the Buttars bill mentions neither intelligent design nor the Bible, some observers think it was motivated by religious concerns. "If you look at State Board of Education minutes from last summer, Buttars made comments like 'my religion doesn't believe that we descended from apes,' " said Carol Lear, director of school law and legislation for the Utah Office of Education. "I don't know how he can disavow his religious motives."

Lear points to a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wallace v. Jaffee, in which the court struck down an Alabama law requiring a "minute of meditation or voluntary prayer" at the start of each school day. The court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment because the sponsors of the law had religious motives.

The Tribune concludes its editorial with some good advice that may unfortunately become necessary to stop this Bill from becoming law.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is trying to improve both the fact and the reputation of Utah schools in the areas of math and science. But our state's reputation for educational excellence will only devolve if the Legislature is foolish enough to pass Buttars' bill.

The governor should have his veto pen at the ready for this one.

Well, it looks like SB96 has found a House co-sponsor

The guilty party is - Rep. James A. Ferrin, District 58.

SB96 is going to the Senate floor

Based on articles in the Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, and the Daily Herald here are a few comments on the Senate Education Committees discussion on SB96.

As Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, put it: ''Unless there is something out there that I don't know about, the missing link is still missing.''

No amount of evidence can ever be shown. No matter how convincing, or irrefutable. If you brought the fossils, the genes of millions, even if you brought the “missing link” itself and put it on the table right in front of them, they would still say, “the missing link is still missing”. It can never be found. Their literalist interpretation won’t allow it.

Kent Harrison, BYU professor, spoke with far more wisdom,

"There are really no competing theories," he said. "It is a great, unifying idea. The basic idea of evolution is not in question."

"But the answer is not to fall into the same trap that these scientists do, of seeing evolution and religion as opposed," Harrison said. “Evolution and religion can be compatible. Do not pit them against each other, as SB96 seems to do, in a battle in which religion is often the loser.”

"There are many scientists, like myself, who accept both a belief in God and evolution. Evolution is simply the method that God used to create the human body."

"You can not legislate science. Please reject SB96."

Larry Madden, of the Utah Science Teachers Association asked the obvious question,

"Whose viewpoints on the origins of life are we going to talk on? Everyone's?"

Now the Deseret News says that Sen. Mark Madsen “noted nothing in the bill requires any other theory to be introduced.” But I don’t think Madsen is thinking things through here. The stated purpose of the Bill is “to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own opinions”. I would imagine that in order to do that the student would ask the obvious question, “What other theories, besides evolution are there?” Just what does Madsen propose the teacher should talk about?

The ACLU mentions the obvious answer to Madden’s question and the warning that goes with it,

The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah warns that the bill could violate the First Amendment.
Margaret Plane, ACLU of Utah's legal director, points to the language of the legislation that frequently mentions more than one theory and the phrase "consider opposing viewpoints."
Evolution is the only recognized scientific theory, so "the only alternative theories are religious theories," she said. "It opens the door for religion to come into the science classroom."

Despite this the Deseret News notes that Senate President John Valentine, has said the bill is likely to pass in the Senate.

Evolution and losing ones faith

Okay, I’m back in. Those three day weekends ya-know. Now what was I going to say? Oh yes, Buttars Bill. That’s right, a few comments on things from the past few days.

Chris Buttars spoke at the Eagle Forum convention this past weekend. The Daily Herald quotes Buttars concerning his understanding of macroevolution as saying,

"You have big dogs, and you have little dogs," he said. "And you have big cats and little cats, but you don't have a dat."

Truly profound. This shows just how little Buttars and his audience really understand evolution. They don’t even understand what they are attacking.

Also in, from the Associated Press:

Teaching evolution while leaving out creationism "hurts young people,” Buttars said.

He cited a mother who said her two daughters were told by a teacher that they evolved from animals, and, "It totally destroyed their faith.”

Now this is what I really want to comment on - the idea that teaching evolution destroys faith in God. Well it’s not true, or at least it doesn’t have to be. Two things come to mind.

First, people will sometimes lose their faith in God when confronted by evolution because they think it proves the Bible wrong. But it’s not the Bible that is being proven wrong at all. If anything it is our human interpretation of the Bible, which we often mistake for the Bible itself, that is being proven wrong. It’s when we raise our human interpretation to the level of dogma, holding to our interpretation as the absolutely true interpretation, that we run into trouble. When confronted with evidence that our inflexible interpretation is wrong, rather than reinterpret things in a new light, we move to discredit it and ultimately to suppress it, or unfortunately we just lose faith. The solution here is not to discredit and suppress evolution. The solution is to display a lot more humility in how we read and interpret the Bible.

Second, if Buttars & Co. is so concerned about kids losing faith they can do a whole lot better than creating legislation banning evolution. Want to know what the number one reason teens drop their faith, and it’s a big one, there isn’t even a close second – it’s called hypocrisy. Legalism, people trying to just act the part, paying lip service to loving your enemies and others, but demanding “doctrinal correctness”, etc., that is what destroys faith far more than “teaching evolution”. When teens see their elders in the faith acting like jerks, declaring themselves righteous, without being righteous, and then, and this is the key, not repenting, well, teens often just call things like they see them – fake. It seems to me that the church would do a whole lot better to look inside itself and repent than to try to legislate “righteous teaching” to others.

(And lest anyone think that since I am not a Mormon, that I am just attacking the Mormon Church with this accusation of hypocrisy, let me say that the Mormon Church holds no copyright on hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is one of the most universal and non-denominational aspects of Christianity and is far more widely practiced than many of us would like to admit.)

Well, now that I’ve gotten totally off topic, the Deseret News reported,

The Senate president said again there's GOP support for one of those bills, an effort to ensure evolution is taught in schools only as a theory.

But Senate Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich, D-Price, said he believes the Democrats will be "totally opposed" to the bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan.

Since there aren’t many Democrats in this state, this is bad news.

Also, this morning SB96 went to the Senate Education Committee (room W130), and they voted on it. Now we know who the good guys and the bad guys are don’t we. And I notice my neighbor and Senate rep Mark B. Madsen sitting pretty amongst the bad guys :^)

Very brief update & a question

The City Weekly has responded to Buttars anti-evolution Bill again with their usual candor.

… Senate Bill 96, which although only a few short sentences, would dramatically alter the state’s science curriculum. It would require that educators, when presenting any theory on the origins of life must stress that there is no consensus on the theory’s validity.

CW gets some commentary on the Bill from Larry Madden, a representative for the Utah Science Teachers Association, “This whole thing is just ridiculous”.

Amen.

Before I let you go, I have a few questions for you. Just how “dramatically” do you think this Bill will really alter the state’s science curriculum? What will the actual effect be? Especially considering there are so many science teachers like Larry Madden who think the Bill is ridiculous? Or do they think it’s ridiculous? The Pandas Thumb mentions a situation developing in Ohio in a blog post:

Already there are rumors that some creationist teachers are going beyond the ID-based lesson plan to “supplement” it with more blatantly creationist material, with the excuse that “the state board says it’s OK”.

If this Bill passes, would it have the same effect, to encourage certain teachers to “supplement” current materials?

Deseret News Poll

I see from the poll numbers that things haven’t changed much since the last poll they did back in March (mentioned below). On the bright side, the Deseret News article mentions, “Utahns overwhelmingly — 71 percent — want Utah schools to keep teaching evolution in high school biology classes,” which is good news. But the fact that at least 66% of Utahans want to lower our schools science standards by having a religious pseudoscientific theory taught as well is sad to see.



I am encouraged by what our state curriculum director Brett Moulding had to say,

While 66 percent of Utahns surveyed favor intelligent design lessons to balance those on evolution, the state curriculum boss says such discussions don't belong in science class.

"What is accurate science is not determined by a public opinion poll, but rather by what the scientific community comes to consensus," state curriculum director Brett Moulding said. "We do, in fact, have released time . . . for students to pursue instruction in religious ideas, and I would hope that parents who want their children to have some instruction along the lines of the religious way of knowing would take advantage of that."

I do hope the legislature will ignore their constituents for once (what am I saying, duh… they do that all the time) and do the right thing. Scientists and the scientific community determine what science is, not parents and fringe groups with good PR campaigns.

A question for Chris Buttars. Honest.

I have a question for Sen. Chris Buttars,

I see the stated purpose of the Bill is “to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and form their own opinions”. With this in mind, if a student where to ask his science teacher the critically analyzing question, “what opposing viewpoints to evolution are there, and which scientists are disagreeing with it?” - What would you suggest should be that teachers answer?

A. Tell the kid straight up “Intelligent Design, of course, and here’s Micheal Behe’s book to read (if you’d like to).”

B. Silence, look dumb, play dead, or some similar variation.

C. Lie to the kid, and say, “I don’t know”, and try to look really smart.

D. Tell the kid to go talk to his pastor or bishop for more information on science.

E. Tell the kid that it’s against federal law for the teacher to answer that question (then proceed with answer B or D above).

F. Other: ________________________

Readers of this blog (and that includes any of you Eagle Forum lurkers here): What would your answer be?

Buttars on the radio, and some articles on his Bill

Okay, a quick update. Some of it’s a little old, but I have been busy. Here are few articles and a radio broadcast to listen to:

Buttars was on KUER's Radio West today, it will be rebroadcast at 7pm for those of you like me who missed it earlier in the day.

Duane Jeffery, BYU professor, had a new article out the other day in the Daily Herald, definitely worth reading.

And both the Salt Lake City Weekly and the Salt Lake Tribune dish out their opinions on Buttars Bill.

What legitimate secular purpose is served by creating doubt in evolution?

Here’s a question I hope to generate some discussion on if anyone would like to comment.

I think it is obvious that the motivation for supporting this Bill is purely religiously based, and despite the exclusion of certain language in order to avoid a direct run in with the Establishment Clause, I think a good case can be made to show that the only purpose for this Bill is religious and that it is basically designed to aid Biblical Literalists in proselytizing on public schools in order to convert students to their religious point of view. (Got to save them from all that damning atheistic evolution ya-know.) Of course this would violate the “lemon test” and the Establishment Clause, and would ultimately kill the Bill.

In order to have any chance of avoiding this, proponents of Buttars Bill have to show some legitimate secular purpose for the Bill. But what legitimate secular purpose is served by this Bill? What legitimate secular purpose is served by creating doubt in evolution? Beyond the possible argument that it helps students to somehow think more critically, I can’t think of one. But I’m open to hearing other ideas.

Indeed, it has begun! Comedy!

Well, well, what do we have here? A big thanks to Ned Weeks for posting this fine piece of evidence on the Senate Site concerning all those cute comments that magically appeared the other day all the sudden like. See Exhibit A (Comment #61):

Utah Eagle Forum Alert:

Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:39:43 -0700
From: "Utah Eagle Forum Alert"
To: "+ UEF Alerts ?hotmail.com Alerts"
Subject: EAGLES!!! URGENT URGENT ALERT!!!

EAGLES --
PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO POST A POSITIVE COMMENT!!!

Senator Chris Buttars is sponsoring a bill on "Intelligent Design" this year.

It is SO IMPERATIVE that we give support to help get it passed.

The issue is this -- the "separation of church and state people" will NEVER let us have Creationism taught in schools. But purpose of Senator Buttars' bill is to add balance to the teaching of the origin of life -- if the THEORY of Evolution is taught, it should be balanced by the teaching of "Intelligent Design".

The bill is currently being processed -- I don't have a bill number, nor can I direct you to the bill text as yet . . .

However, please go to this link and post a positive comment based upon what you know about the issue. Thus far, the only comments posted are negative ones. http://senatesite.com/blog/2005/12/chris-buttars-bill.html

IT HAS BEGUN!

Thanks for all you do,

Maryann

Unfortunately, It’s time for a little reality

I go on a little vacation and look what happens, the monkeys come out of the trees. I notice several new bloggers who obviously arrived on the Senate Site by request in order to show a little support for Buttars Bill.

Ahh, but what did you expect.

Since it’s the new year, time to make those resolutions, I guess this would be a good enough time to take a little reality check. Reality: despite a tech savvy group of folks who totally oppose this Bill, there is (or will be) a lot of popular support for this Bill. What am I talking about? Let’s take a closer look at a poll published by the Deseret News back in March:



This is basically saying that 70% of Utahans believe that Creationism/ID “definitely” or “probably” should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes, and only a mere 25% of Utahans think that it at least probably should not. Basically, if Buttars Bill where to be put to a popular referendum, it would easily win and pass into law despite what any Judge in Pennsylvania might say, or even the Federal Supreme Court.

Also, though we may not like to admit it, Gayle Ruzicka, and her minions in the Utah Eagle Forum, carry a lot of political weight. And in just a few days, they are going to get energized for the battle by the fruitcake supreme herself - Phyllis Schlafly. If you want a little taste of what she is going to be dishing out read this!

So you know what this means. It’s time to make that new years resolution – use your democratic rights and write your representatives, protest, throw a fit if you feel you need to, before we waste thousands of our hard earned tax dollars rehashing this old debate.

Ahh, but that’s already to late isn’t it.