Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-27-2017 12:31 PM
447 online now:
Dr Adequate, ICANT, jar, ooh-child, PaulK, ringo, vimesey (7 members, 440 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,009 Year: 6,615/21,208 Month: 2,376/2,634 Week: 39/525 Day: 14/25 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
171819Next
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 226 of 283 (650644)
02-01-2012 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:12 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
To me this bill simply gives more power to the local policy makers, the local school boards and educators, instead of a large central government meddling with every facet of everyone lives down to elementary school education, and as a small government conservative, I really do not see the issue.

But this has nothing to do with the federal government meddling, that doesn't remotely come into it. What are you talking about?

The question would be, can a sufficiently local government trample on the constitution? If you live in a small enough, white enough, Christian enough town, can the mayor suspend the First Amendment? The Fifth? The Fourth? The Thirteenth?

It could mean that people in Vienna, MO may, but then Vienna is 99% white, and 80% baptist (normal, Southern, and landmark), and if they want to be ignorant they are going to be ignorant, but trying to control them is not the way to go about it.

the slippery slope mindset that schools all across Missouri are going to teach creationism is what is silly to me ...

Well no-one said that.

If you passed a bill making murder legal, then I guess most people wouldn't murder most other people. So no "slippery slope" there. On the other hand, the murder rate might go up ...

this is a bill for rural people in poor tiny communities, who want to govern themselves, and set their own curriculum.

Well, there is a point beyond which they can't, just as "rural people in poor tiny communities" can't bring back slavery. They're part of the union, they should deal with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:12 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:30 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 5 days)
Posts: 2300
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 227 of 283 (650650)
02-01-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
AE writes:

Creationists may be against evolution but that doesn’t make them anti-science, I am surprised you do not understand the difference.

Not true. Evolution is good science. There is no valid objection to it or the methodology that informs us of it. It also has the virtue of being true. Opposing the truth is innately anti-science. Even if this were not the case, creationists would not be the people to challenge, given their unbreakable addiction to being wrong.

GM writes:

If you think a coot looks like a duck...

AE writes:

I don’t,

Which is why you said it did. Uh-huh.

though you shouldn’t preach the US constitution if you aint one of us, and aint here

So once again, when you have thoroughly lost the argument, you resort to whining that the nasty foreigners are sticking our noses in. Tough. And as far as the constitution is concerned, I guess I'll stop having to explain it to you when you stop pretending that it doesn't exist.

This is a free forum and I'll share whatever opinions I please.

In the mean time, you're still unable to name any secular purpose for this bill aren't you? You can't think of a single reason for the bill to exist. You're doing a pretty shitty job of defending this swill.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member
Posts: 2967
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 228 of 283 (650657)
02-01-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:15 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
Artemis Entreri writes:

I don’t, though you shouldn’t preach the US constitution if you aint one of us, and aint here

You mean no preachification without representation? Just shoot when you see the whites of our typing.

Paul Revere writes:

Just like I don’t tell you how to be a subject of your Queen, I won’t hear anything from you people about our constitution. Mind your own business.

Actually, we're thinking of giving the Queen to the people of Missouri. It seems pointless to have a Christian theocratic leadership in a non-Christian country when a place like MO would really appreciate the unification of church and state under a protestant monarch.

Mind you, we want Ann Coulter in return, so we can torture her in the Tower.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:15 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 229 of 283 (650673)
02-01-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Artemis Entreri
02-01-2012 12:12 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
Artemis Entreri writes:

I agree with you. This bill will probably have to be revised with some of the wordage changed a bit, really it doesn't accomplish anything, nor do I think it would affect much of anything.

If the wording of the bill were changed to provide examples of actual scientific controversies instead of citing the old creationist bugaboos of evolution and a natural origin of life, and to remove the dead giveaway of claiming not to be religiously motivated, then it might be able to pass constitutional muster.

the slippery slope mindset that schools all across Missouri are going to teach creationism is what is silly to me, that the application of this bill is some vast conspiracy to deny people their constitutional rights is even sillier.

I don't know if I'd characterize creationist efforts against evolution as a "vast conspiracy", but it does have a long history. Government advancement of the cause of any religion at any governmental level is unconstitutional, so if the bill does somehow pass it will quickly be challenged. Defending such efforts in court is very expensive for the losing side, but this hasn't seemed to diminish Christian enthusiasm.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-01-2012 12:12 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:22 PM Percy has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11181
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 230 of 283 (650705)
02-02-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 4:35 PM


Re: SHOW ME
I think it is obviously a bill by creationists, but not really a bill to teach religion in science class.

Why do you think that? Its so obvious to me that it is...

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 4:35 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1580 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 231 of 283 (650760)
02-02-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Coyote
02-01-2012 12:36 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
coyote writes:

Sometimes generalizations are accurate.


Rarely, and this probably isn’t the rare case.
Just look at the absolute nonsense on the creationist websites and try to tell me they support science.

That is not necessary, I work with a good number of them, I can just ask them in person rather than read some website. And since we do science here at work, I guess I have IRL examples of creationists supporting and working in science.

All too easy.

Look at the Wedge document from the Dishonesty Institute. One of it's statements is, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." I can only interpret that as forcing the removal of the scientific and naturalistic approach used by science and replacing it with a theistic approach. ("You vill do science our way and you vill like it! Das is alles! Hallelujah!")

There you go generalizing again.
::shrugs shoulders::

And they figure they can get away with it through peer pressure from the community on teachers. I suspect that any teacher who teaches science as opposed to belief wouldn't last long. And I suspect that is the main intent of this bill.

I answered how I felt about this bill and how it would apply in my response to percy in post#215; this bill will not have a state wide effect, and believe me nobody wants a teaching job in Maries County, that doesn’t already agree with this bill.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2012 12:36 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2012 6:25 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1580 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 232 of 283 (650762)
02-02-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Percy
02-01-2012 8:54 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
I don't know if I'd characterize creationist efforts against evolution as a "vast conspiracy", but it does have a long history. Government advancement of the cause of any religion at any governmental level is unconstitutional, so if the bill does somehow pass it will quickly be challenged. Defending such efforts in court is very expensive for the losing side, but this hasn't seemed to diminish Christian enthusiasm.

--Percy

yeah yeah yeah. That is what the "they" said about Missouri's anti-gay marriage amendment, and here we are 8 years later and guess what that amendment is still there.

I guess we will see who is correct if this passes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Percy, posted 02-01-2012 8:54 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Percy, posted 02-02-2012 9:09 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1580 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 233 of 283 (650763)
02-02-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by New Cat's Eye
02-02-2012 10:48 AM


Re: SHOW ME
it is not stated anywhere in the bill.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2012 10:48 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2012 4:44 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1580 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 234 of 283 (650764)
02-02-2012 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Dr Adequate
02-01-2012 3:01 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
Dr Adequate writes:

What are you talking about?

Why some non voter in Nevada gives a shit what people do in elementary schools in Missouri.

If you live in a small enough, white enough, Christian enough town, can the mayor suspend the First Amendment? The Fifth? The Fourth? The Thirteenth?

If the whole community agrees, why not?

Well, there is a point beyond which they can't, just as "rural people in poor tiny communities" can't bring back slavery. They're part of the union, they should deal with that.

Poor rural people in tiny communities never participated in slavery to begin with, WTF are you talking about? Only rich people could own other people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-01-2012 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-02-2012 5:09 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 241 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2012 7:56 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1580 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 235 of 283 (650765)
02-02-2012 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Blue Jay
02-01-2012 1:59 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
Hi Bluejay,
Is it your position that all discoveries that build on previous discoveries count as "doing what has already been done"? So, for example, once we've sequenced the genome of one species, sequencing the genomes of other species would just be redundant? After all, who needs a wasp genome when we've already got a fly genome?

1. Not all but most.
2. No
3. We should sequence everything eventually.
Is this really comparable, in your mind, to giving relatively untrained school teachers the prerogative to scrutinize what has already been scrutinized by multiple generations of better-trained scientists?

I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the “better” studied, “better” trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.

Trixie writes:

There isn't really an appropriate response to this boorishness. However I will not be butting out of this thread, since as a scientist I have every right to comment on attacks on science wherever they occur.


I don’t give a shit what you do, but I won’t respond to you or your opinions on MY constitution.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 02-01-2012 1:59 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Warthog, posted 02-02-2012 7:25 PM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 243 by Blue Jay, posted 02-02-2012 11:02 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11181
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 236 of 283 (650766)
02-02-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Artemis Entreri
02-02-2012 4:22 PM


Re: SHOW ME
it is not stated anywhere in the bill.

Yeah, not explicitly. But it be really stupid to explicitly state in a bill that you're trying to push religion into the science classroom. The bill certainly implies that that's what there trying to do - there is no scientific controversy about evolution... what the fuck are they even talking about?

I guess you'd have to know more about the DI and how they operate to be able to see this for what it is. You're not gonna get it explicitly from the text in the bill, itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:22 PM Artemis Entreri has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Trixie, posted 02-02-2012 7:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15476
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 237 of 283 (650769)
02-02-2012 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Artemis Entreri
02-02-2012 4:30 PM


Re: I've Shown You Mine...
Why some non voter in Nevada gives a shit what people do in elementary schools in Missouri.

Although I am a non-voter in Nevada, I am not the federal government.

If the whole community agrees, why not?

Because of the constitution.

Poor rural people in tiny communities never participated in slavery to begin with, WTF are you talking about? Only rich people could own other people.

How low does your head have to be to have a point that obvious sail over it?

I never said that "poor rural people in tiny communities" owned slaves. I said that their poorness, their rurality, and the size of their communities wouldn't protect them from the Constitution if they wanted to make slavery legal. And I am right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:30 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 9:10 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 238 of 283 (650780)
02-02-2012 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Artemis Entreri
02-02-2012 4:17 PM


Creationist websites are anti-science
Just look at the absolute nonsense on the creationist websites and try to tell me they support science.

That is not necessary, I work with a good number of them, I can just ask them in person rather than read some website. And since we do science here at work, I guess I have IRL examples of creationists supporting and working in science.

I contend that creationist websites are anti-science and can provide some good examples. You seem to disagree somehow.

This is not the proper thread for such a discussion--do you want to start a new one or shall I?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:17 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 9:13 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 1320 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(8)
Message 239 of 283 (650784)
02-02-2012 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Artemis Entreri
02-02-2012 4:43 PM


Re: general reply to the bombsquad
quote:
I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the “better” studied, “better” trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.

This is the crux of the problem.

What is it about people that they think that they can just 'pick up' enough information through the ether to challenge people who have devoted their lives to specialise in a field? It is exactly this type of delusion that sees engineers argue that biologists are wrong about biology.

I can happily accept that any individual can be wrong about any individual point. What I can't accept is that some amateur is right when they attempt to shout louder than the entire scientific community and then whine when people don't agree.

AE, making up your own mind is important. I agree fully. The delusion that you have the necessary background knowledge to fully understand all of the concepts without relevant education as well as the ability to magically find all of the relevant data on the internet is magnificent in its hubris. Especially if you have never contributed any relevant, original work yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-02-2012 4:43 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Artemis Entreri, posted 02-06-2012 9:20 AM Warthog has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1057 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 240 of 283 (650785)
02-02-2012 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by New Cat's Eye
02-02-2012 4:44 PM


Re: SHOW ME
There's no doubt about what this bill is attempting to do.

1. Get religion, ID and creationism into science classes
2. Avoid overtly breaching the Constitution by careful wording.

Do they really think that they're fooling anyone? I suppose that the only reason they keep trying this is because they believe that their version of God is above the Constitution and/or the Constitution isn't worth jack.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-02-2012 4:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2012 9:49 AM Trixie has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
171819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017