tinyurl.com/c3x7h -> www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/national/05evolution.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26orefQ3DsloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=327549b2Q2FQ27iG5Q27ekSQ26AkkVmQ27mllQ2BQ27lmQ27lqQ276RVck6RLQ27lqG@kLIVck6Q25Q5EVBL
KIRK JOHNSON Published: February 5, 2006 SALT LAKE CITY, Feb. Prayers are commonplace, and lawmakers speak of their relationship with God in ordinary conversation.
Forum: Human Origins So it might be tempting to assume that legislation relating to the divisive national debate about the teaching of evolution in public schools would have a predictable outcome here. The bill, which would require science teachers to offer a disclaimer when introducing lessons on evolution namely, that not all scientists agree on the origins of life has deeply divided lawmakers. Some leaders in both parties have announced their opposition to the bill, and most lawmakers say that with less than a month left in the legislative session, its fate remains a tossup. One of the reasons why is State Representative Stephen H Urquhart, a Republican from southern Utah whose job as majority whip is to line up votes in his party. Mr Urquhart announced last week that he would vote against the bill. "I don't think God has an argument with science," said Mr Urquhart, who was a biology major in college and now practices law. Mr Urquhart says he objects to the bill in part because it raises questions about the validity of evolution, and in part because the measure threatens traditional religious belief by blurring the lines between faith and science. Supporters of the bill, which passed the Senate on a 16-to-12 vote one day before Mr Urquhart's announcement, still predict that it will pass in the House. "I don't have to talk about religion it's of no meaning and it's not part of this discussion," said State Representative James A Ferrin, a Republican and the sponsor of the bill in the House. "It's not about belief, it's about not overstepping what we know." Opponents of the bill, including State Senator Peter C Knudson, the Republican majority leader, openly laugh at talk like that. He and other lawmakers say that part of the debate here is in fact over what kind of religion would be buttressed by the legislation. Although the Origins of Life bill, as it is formally known, does not mention an alternative theory to evolution, some legislators say they think that voting yes could be tantamount to supporting intelligent design, which posits an undefined intelligence lurking behind the miracles of life and which differs greatly from the Mormon creation story. "There are people who say, 'That's not my religion,' or that it will only confuse our children," said State Representative Brad King, a Democrat and the minority whip in the House, who also plans to vote against the bill. "For me, it's sort of that way," added Mr King, whose father, a Mormon bishop, taught evolution at the College of Eastern Utah. Others say that Mormonism, with its emphasis that all beings can progress toward higher planes of existence, before and after death, has an almost built-in receptivity toward evolutionary thought that other religions might lack. Still others oppose the state's inserting itself in matters of curriculum, which are mostly under the control of local school districts. Advocacy groups who follow the battle over the teaching of evolution nationally say that what happens here could be important far beyond state borders. "It's being watched very closely because of the very conservative nature of the state," said the Rev. Barry W Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, based in Washington. "If the legislation is rejected in Utah, it would be a very strong signal that the issue should be avoided elsewhere." Missouri's legislature is considering a bill requiring "critical analysis" in teaching evolution. An Indiana lawmaker has called evolution a type of religion and proposed a bill banning textbooks that contain "fraudulent information."
|
http://csua.com/feed/