|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
It would be an inconsistent position, but there might be some room to do so if you weren't pretty careful about your attack. The truth of the matter is that ID is a thin veil over creationism. Very true. As long as you kept any mention of the supernatural out of the discussion and only referred to a "designer" I think it would pass muster with the requirements that ID proponents are pushing.
Another thing to consider is that IDers wouldn't have to sue you to get rid of you. You might be in the position of suing the district in order to get your job back. The real obstacle to passing these kinds of bills is that implementing them has the potential to expose the school systems to very expensive legislation. Even if a biology teacher loses a lawsuit, the teacher is not going to have to pay damages or the school district's legal fees, while the school system faces the risk of having to do both. I agree on both accounts. I am thinking that the ACLU would be very interested in a test case if this bill does pass, and I would hope that there is a teacher with enough moxy and knowledge to do what I have suggested above. Imagine if PZ Myers was a high school science teacher in Missouri . . . Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
While it's relatively easy to pick this Bill apart, it's more difficult to understand why this continues to happen after the Dover trial, after all you'd think the ID crowd would want to hide their performance in court under a bushel. I'd like this thread to discuss why the Dover trial hasn't put a stop to this nonsense ... So basically you're wondering why creationists haven't learned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
NCSE have posted this on their website
Page not found | National Center for Science Education The Bill's supporters are trying to claim that religion isn't involved, but previous versions were drafted by
a group calling itself Missourians for Excellence in Science Education, headed by Joe White, a member of the Missouri Association for Creation, according to the St. Louis Dispatch (March 4, 2004).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
These bills seem to pop up in regularly in some state legislatures. Typically they don't get much of anywhere. Usually the principle backers cannot avoid dragging religion back into the discussion as some resistance pops up.
When the discussion is kept on secular terms, it is apparent that ID is to biology as astrology is to cosmology. ID simply hasn't been presented in a way that it has generated controversy. A few nutty professors, disagreeing with evolution is not a scientific controversy. Cold fusion is further along than ID in this respect. That's usually the point when the squawking about monkeys starts, and the cover is publicly blown. Eventually, the lawyers are forced to warn proponents that defending a single challenge can result in millions of dollars of liability and other millions of dollars in legal fees.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Trixie writes: While it's relatively easy to pick this Bill apart, it's more difficult to understand why this continues to happen after the Dover trial, after all you'd think the ID crowd would want to hide their performance in court under a bushel. It continues to happen because a large percentage of the U.S. public believes the Dover decision was the wrong one, hiding a performance would have little or nothing to do with it. It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents, or by the powerful financial interests of the atheistic scientific community. Probably a combination of both.
I'd like this thread to discuss why the Dover trial hasn't put a stop to this nonsense and why anyone would think that children, just beginning their journey into science and it's methods, would possess the knowledge and critical thinking skills required to assess ID and evolution when supposedly educated adults are unable to, as is demonstrated in all it's awful clarity in the text of the Bill itself. It would also be of interest to determine if the ID crowd have made any advances which would render the Dover judgement outdated and wrong. Another question would be if the scientific community has made any advances concerning the origins of life which would render the Dover decision right. When children are just beginning their journey into science and its methods, they’re immediately told that the book of Genesis is wrong. If the subject of ID is brought up by a student, they can be told that ID is a thin veil over creationism, yet they’re NOT told that evolution is a thin veil over atheism. They may not have the critical thinking skills to realize that, and many of their parents feel that it’s important for that fact to be taught in schools.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Taq writes: After the Dover trial the ID movement has changed their language. They want teachers to "teach the controversy" and/or "teach students about the weaknesses of evolution". They are once again pushing a false dichotomy. For them, bringing down evolution is enough. Depends on the definition of evolution. Change over time? - no. Common descent/millions of years - maybe not "bring it down", just bring it into perspective.
I wonder what would happen if a science teacher did introduce ID/creationism and then proceeded to tear it apart. You don’t think that ever happens now? That there aren’t thousands of science teachers all across the U.S. who don’t feel as strongly about it as you and almost every other poster here? A teacher wouldn’t have to introduce it themselves, all they have to do is wait for a student to bring the subject up. I suspect it occurs frequently, and nothing happens.
If I were a high school science teacher I would be very, very tempted to do just that. I would making it glaringly obvious that the controversy only exists amongst the lay public, that amongst biologists there is no debate. I could go step by step and demonstrate to the students that ID is not science and that evolution is. I could spend several weeks just on this subject. People who introduce Bills like the one that inspired this thread probably can document how that is a common occurrence in schools today. If science/biology was clearly considered by everyone to be a far more important subject than other subjects like Math, history, government, languages etc., or if the U.S. constitution read differently, then the scientific community could make all the decisions about what is taught in science classes. But it’s not considered more important, the Constitution doesn’t give the scientific community special political rights, so therefore what is taught in science classes will continue to largely be a political matter. And new bills intended to challenge atheism in science classes will continue to be introduced. The scientific community needs to get used to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents, or by the powerful financial interests of the atheistic scientific community. Atheist scientific community? Please remember that the Christian scientific community also opposes the nonsense called Creationism and Intelligent Design.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
It continues to happen because a large percentage of the U.S. public believes the Dover decision was the wrong one, hiding a performance would have little or nothing to do with it. It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents, or by the powerful financial interests of the atheistic scientific community. Probably a combination of both.
I suspect the percentage is nowhere near as large as you imagine. And who to better represent ID than Behe? His "performance" made it clear that ID had no scientific basis, but was religion in disguise. This was supported by a lot of other testimony, and with no evidence to the contrary what else was the judge to decide? And if ID is science, as it is claimed, the public has no say in the matter. It is up to scientists to determine what is science and what is not.
Another question would be if the scientific community has made any advances concerning the origins of life which would render the Dover decision right. Science has some hypotheses concerning the origin of life. They fit within the body of known science, but at this point I don't believe that there is any single widely accepted theory explaining that origin. However, none of the hypotheses involve supernatural events, nor should they.
When children are just beginning their journey into science and its methods, they’re immediately told that the book of Genesis is wrong. If the subject of ID is brought up by a student, they can be told that ID is a thin veil over creationism, yet they’re NOT told that evolution is a thin veil over atheism. They may not have the critical thinking skills to realize that, and many of their parents feel that it’s important for that fact to be taught in schools. I don't believe that students can be told that genesis is wrong. What they can be told is what science has established, and then the chips fall where they may. If that goes against some religious belief somewhere, that's too bad. Can you image if science had to kowtow to each and every religious belief? You'd still be sitting in a cave. And your claim that "evolution is a thin veil over atheism" would come as a surprise to Catholics, who are the worlds largest religion. Catholics accept evolution. And it doesn't matter what parents want taught in public school science classes. Those classes have to teach established science, not the personal beliefs of one segment of a multi-cultural population. I think your problem is that you want your particular beliefs taught as science, truth, Truth, TRUTH, and even TRVTH. And you want to mandate that those beliefs be taught without the need to provide any empirical evidence that they are accurate (e.g., young earth, global flood, and created kinds). Sorry, not going to happen. We've had the Enlightenment and those days are gone.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
Only 20 posts before the inevitable happens. Religion is brought into the equation, falsifying claims that ID has nothing to do with religion.
marc9000 writes: When children are just beginning their journey into science and its methods, they’re immediately told that the book of Genesis is wrong. If the subject of ID is brought up by a student, they can be told that ID is a thin veil over creationism, yet they’re NOT told that evolution is a thin veil over atheism. I think you've just made my point. Religion doesn't belong in a science class so ID does't get in the door. I think you've also answered the question of why this is still going on after Dover - many proponents of ID just don't get what Dover was about. marc, the whole pint of the wording of the current bill is so tha doesnt gt laelled as religon. Your comment has rather spoiled their party. As an off-topic aside, if evolution is a thin veil over atheism, how do you explain those people who accept evolution and believe in God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It continues to happen because a large percentage of the U.S. public believes the Dover decision was the wrong one, hiding a performance would have little or nothing to do with it. It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents ... Well yes. But so long as they're handicapped by being cdesign proponentists, they're not going to turn in a good performance.
When children are just beginning their journey into science and its methods, they’re immediately told that the book of Genesis is wrong. If the subject of ID is brought up by a student, they can be told that ID is a thin veil over creationism, yet they’re NOT told that evolution is a thin veil over atheism. They may not have the critical thinking skills to realize that, and many of their parents feel that it’s important for that fact to be taught in schools. Since no teaching qualifications or scientific knowledge are required to lie to children, parents can do that themselves.
Another question would be if the scientific community has made any advances concerning the origins of life which would render the Dover decision right. If only there was a competition for "dumbest question of the year", you could enter that in their creationist section. What other purpose it could conceivably serve is unclear. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If science/biology was clearly considered by everyone to be a far more important subject than other subjects like Math, history, government, languages etc., or if the U.S. constitution read differently, then the scientific community could make all the decisions about what is taught in science classes. But it’s not considered more important, the Constitution doesn’t give the scientific community special political rights ... There's nothing "special" about it. Mathematicians do get to decide what's taught in math class. Maybe there are politicians involved somewhere, but they defer to the mathematicians, 'cos of the mathematicians knowing about math. Same with languages, no-one ever took a vote on the first person singular present tense of comer, they let the people who actually speak Spanish get on with it. What is "special" is that in certain areas of the curriculum people who know nothing about the subject still want their unfounded opinions to be taught. Well, I don't see why we should make a special case for them, and the First Amendment makes it quite clear that, since they are motivated by being a bunch of ignorant religious zealots, they should not be a special case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Trixie writes: As an off-topic aside, if evolution is a thin veil over atheism, how do you explain those people who accept evolution and believe in God? Demons."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I don't believe that students can be told that genesis is wrong. What they can be told is what science has established, and then the chips fall where they may. And this is the exact point where you become irrational, unobjective, dishonest and completely illogical You couldnt let the chips fall from any rational standpoint, because if you did, the design principle and the ToLO&P, would have already been established as science from any rational standpoint. Especially in the classroom What you and others like yourself are good at, is keeping the real facts about reason, reality and what science really is, out of the discussion You are also good at concealing these realities from simple minded people in the court process, then claiming victory The only thing youve done is demonstrate, as Marc9000 has pointed out, is to allow an innacurate explanation of ID, to be presented You are successful at deception, misdirection and half truths Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And this is the exact point where you become irrational, unobjective, dishonest and completely illogical You couldnt let the chips fall from any rational standpoint, because if you did, the design principle and the ToLO&P, would have already been established as science from any rational standpoint. Especially in the classroom What you and others like yourself are good at, is keeping the real facts about reason, reality and what science really is, out of the discussion You are also good at concealing these realities from simple minded people in the court process, then claiming victory The only thing youve done is demonstrate, as Marc9000 has pointed out, is to allow an innacurate explanation of ID, to be presented You are successful at deception and half truths If the ID crowd had wanted to get Bertotism taught in schools, they could have tried. Instead they went with the formulation of ID produced by the guy who introduced the term ID into the discussion. That isn't the fault of evolutionists, we don't control creationists with magic psychic powers. If you want them to try to get Bertotism taught in the classroom, try explaining it to them, see if they can make head or tail of it. As they didn't do that, we scored a victory over the version of ID that cdesign proponentists actually put forward. It would be staggeringly irrational to blame us for the inadequacy of their formulation of ID, which I suppose explains why you do so. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
marc9000 writes: That's one of the reasons. The star "cdesign proponentist", Dr Behe, had to admit that ID is as much of a "science" as astrology. It basically happened because, under oath, he couldn't get away with telling outright falsehoods the way he can when speaking to church groups. ....It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents,....marc9000 writes: Oh, I don't know about that. Do you consider, for example, Francis Collins, a devout Christian and a very prominent scientist, who rejects ID as pseudo-science, part of the "atheistic scientific community"? .... or by the powerful financial interests of the atheistic scientific community. marc9000 writes: I think the astrology thing did it. The truth shall set you free. Where did I get that? Probably a combination of both. Edited by Pressie, : Changed paragraph Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake Edited by Pressie, : Changed words
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024