Missouri Anti-Evolution Bill

Missouri's HB 35 the new bill by the evolution deniers.The NCSE has a story on the bill.This message has been edited by Harlequin, 12-10-2004 10:35 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Check your link. It points to a bill that names a new state gemstone. but it is certainly as funny as Creationism. I love Section 2. ROTFLMAO.I feel safer already.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The story has the link.But it is a simple paragraph that, on the face of it is hard to object to. It is the unwritten intentions that might be a problem.

quote:

---

170.032. All biology textbooks sold to the public schools of the state of Missouri shall have one or more chapters containing a critical analysis of origins. The chapters shall convey the distinction between data and testable theories of science and philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.

---

Of course a good advanced text should have critical material. The details of how evolutionary biology should be tested and checked should be supplied. The full range of scientific views should be taught.I'm not sure that it is a good idea to get into why such things may generate controversy because it may end up stepping on religious toes. It would be nice to have the time to discuss possible affects on society of course.However, what I might do to implement that section of the law might be very different from what the authors intended. They might not like any discussion of why there is an apparent controversy. It would be a shame to risk law suits for the school board when apparent lies were discussed.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-10-2004 01:21 AM

I saw that. But the Section 2 of the existing link was simply too good not to comment on.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry about the wrong link. I edited my original message.

No problem.I just found it amazing that a bill defining the State Gem could be put through as a matter of National Safety and Homeland Defense.That is a frightning example of the quality of folk we have making decisions that effect us all. Very sad.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is it possible, perhaps, that that's what you have to do in Oklahoma to get a law to take effect right away? Maybe that's a common feature of state proceedings in that state.

Underneath the NCSE title, one reads the following: "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools"And on this Missouri Bill the NCSE used the heading: "Antievolution legislation stirring"(1) No creationist (person or organization) that I'm aware of is looking to keep evolution from being taught in public schools - not a single one. IOW, teaching evolution has no need for a defense. There's the first deception by the NCSE.(2) The second deception is in the headline "Antievolution legislation stirring". What is being proposed is NOT, I repeat, NOT, "antievolution" --- it is PRO-truth. Read the Bill for yourself - nowhere does it say "Stop teaching evolution" ... it's objective is to promote a greater truth with other facts brought into evidence (something that the NCSE for some odd reason objects to).Again, I know of not a single creationist that would say, "Teaching evolution should be banned from our schools." There is undoubtedly some science in the ToE and this should be taught. It's when Naturalism is tossed into the mix and passed off as "science" that we creationists object to.What people such as these are trying to do is make 'bogeymen' out of us ... to make it appear like we're anti-science, anti-progress, anti-knowledge. To the uninformed we are thereby vilified as "religious fanatics".Folks, this is deception of a very wicked kind. Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to seek the TRUTH about these things. People such as the NCSE are deceiving many. These people -- materialistic Naturalists -- have a religious agenda while hiding behind the guise of science.Have a great New Year, in Christ, Jesus,Jorge Fernandez

No, that is not correct. How can it be "PRO-truth" to advocate the teaching of biased religious ideas in a public classroom that are clearly false and merely dressed up enough to convince a lazy minded and scientifically illiterate layman? Why should science teachers be forced be legislative fiat to teach lies? They shouldn't.Creationists don't want the "greater truth" you mentioned, unless it is their "greater truth". That is the whole problem. I do. Lots of them. Don't kid yourself about the totalitarian nature of some of the people you have philosophically allied yourself with. Creationism is inherently anti-science. It is the act of taking belief in a given mythology and accepting it rather then the findings of science. I think that's a pretty good definition of "anti-science". Further, since the the vast majority of real progress in the history of man has been by people using the principles of science, I think "anti-science" and "anti-progress" go pretty much hand in hand. Finally, if one defines "knowledge" as "the state or act of knowing", as the American Heritage Dictionary does, and considering that science is the only way humanity has found to get real information about the world, then those who deliberately turn their backs on that information may rightly be called "anti-knowledge". So, yes, creationists are anti-science, anti- progress, and anti-knowledge. Creationists who want their views taught in the public schools in any way are also pretty much anti-The United States Constitution. This just laughable. Naturalism is part and parcel of science, one of the pillars on which it stands, and all the advances that it has provided are reliant upon it. Yet, now, when a disgruntled minority of believers in one mythology find they do not like it's findings, we are supposed to start doing science differently, in a way that suits them and their worldview.

I'd say the sponsor of this bill, Rep. Cynthia Davis, does that all on her own. Here's a fun list of bills she's co-sponsored in her time.HB907: Prohibits locating sexually explicit billboards within one mile of any state highway.HB911: Requires the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design.HB1000: Prohibits the use of public funds for health and social services programs to subsidize abortion services.HB1091: Requires a countywide election after a favorable municipal election to approve gambling boats in cities located within a county.HB1151: Prohibits individuals from engaging or participating in human cloning.HB1194: Prohibits locating billboards for adult cabarets or sexually oriented businesses within one mile of any state highway and prohibits persons under 21 years of age from installing them.HB1677: Prohibits a state agency or child-placing agency from placing a child with a person who is in a sexual relationship with someone other than a spouse.HB1722: Requires the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design.HJR38: Proposes a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as only between a man and a woman.HJR39: Proposes a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as only between a man and a woman.HJR47: Proposes a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as only between a man and a woman.

As expected, davis is a fundie loon. Not unlike the person on the Dover, PA school board who was pushing for ID to be taught along with evolution and managed to bully the school board into going along with the plan (Now they are backpedalling of fear for the lawsuits that they didn't consider in their religious fervor).

I'd say the sponsor of this bill, Rep. Cynthia Davis, does that all on her own. Here's a fun list of bills she's co-sponsored in her time.HB907: Prohibits locating sexually explicit billboards within one mile of any state highway.HB911: Requires the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design.HB1000: Prohibits the use of public funds for health and social services programs to subsidize abortion services.HB1091: Requires a countywide election after a favorable municipal election to approve gambling boats in cities located within a county.HB1151: Prohibits individuals from engaging or participating in human cloning.HB1194: Prohibits locating billboards for adult cabarets or sexually oriented businesses within one mile of any state highway and prohibits persons under 21 years of age from installing them.HB1677: Prohibits a state agency or child-placing agency from placing a child with a person who is in a sexual relationship with someone other than a spouse.HB1722: Requires the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design.HJR38: Proposes a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as only between a man and a woman.HJR39: Proposes a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as only between a man and a woman.HJR47: Proposes a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as only between a man and a woman.**********************************************************************Heck ... she can count on MY vote - even if she's running to be the first female President!Joralex

quote:

---

No, that is not correct. How can it be "PRO-truth" to advocate the teaching of biased religious ideas in a public classroom that are clearly false and merely dressed up enough to convince a lazy minded and scientifically illiterate layman?

---

And Naturalism isn't a "biased religious idea"? Just who do you think you're kidding?

quote:

---

Why should science teachers be forced be legislative fiat to teach lies? They shouldn't.

---

Yet I don't hear any complaints about the falsehoods being fed to our kids to promote Naturalism/evolution. Why is that?

quote:

---

Creationists don't want the "greater truth" you mentioned, unless it is their "greater truth". That is the whole problem.

---

Uh, huh ... and materialistic Naturalists don't want any "greater truth" unless it's their "greater truth" -- that the material universe is
"All there ever was and is and ever shall be (amen)." Quote from the late Carl Sagan (my 'amen').

quote:

---

I do. Lots of them. Don't kid yourself about the totalitarian nature of some of the people you have philosophically allied yourself with.

---

I'm willing to bet that I know far more creationists (I'm a YEC myself) and I know not a single one that says this and yet you know "lots of them". I find that particularly interesting.

quote:

---

Creationism is inherently anti-science. It is the act of taking belief in a given mythology and accepting it rather then the findings of science. I think that's a pretty good definition of "anti-science".

---

You are so far out in left field you think you're playing right field.

quote:

---

Further, since the the vast majority of real progress in the history of man has been by people using the principles of science, I think "anti-science" and "anti-progress" go pretty much hand in hand.

---

FYI, the "vast majority" of the foundations of modern science was laid down by people believing in God. To name just two, Isaac Newton and J. C. Maxwell (Maxwell's Equations). Newton's writings in Christian theology far exceed his work in math and physics combined.

quote:

---

Finally, if one defines "knowledge" as "the state or act of knowing", as the American Heritage Dictionary does, and considering that science is the only way humanity has found to get real information about the world, then those who deliberately turn their backs on that information may rightly be called "anti-knowledge". So, yes, creationists are anti-science, anti- progress, and anti-knowledge. Creationists who want their views taught in the public schools in any way are also pretty much anti-The United States Constitution.

---

You're simply lost.

quote:

---

This just laughable. Naturalism is part and parcel of science, one of the pillars on which it stands, and all the advances that it has provided are reliant upon it. Yet, now, when a disgruntled minority of believers in one mythology find they do not like it's findings, we are supposed to start doing science differently, in a way that suits them and their worldview.

---

'Clueless' is the only word that comes to mind.Joralex

I'm afraid that your post doesn't do anything to further the discussion. I will try to help by pointing out what you should try. The topic here is the bill. There are threads (several I think) for arguing that methodological naturalism is a "religion" you supportfor this assertion should go there. There are a whole big bunch of threads where you could post these "falsehoods" and show why they are false. You could, if needed, start your own thread on some of them. You have neglected to give any examples. The individual philosophies of individuals and the concepts of methodological naturalism seem to be muddled in your mind. I suggest that you google the term within this stie and take this issue there. This is also not on topic here. This I think is directly on topic. I think you should make it even a bit clearer that you are asking for support for the assertion thatthere are creationists trying this. This is hardly a useful comment. It of a type that people of both sides make. I point it out in this case because it seems very nearly the only kind of thing you have to say. This is, perhaps, on topic. It is however not an answer to the statment you seem to think you are rebutting. The use of the principles of science was what you were replying too. The "evos" have made it clear many times that then and today there are believers in God who use those principles to further our knowledge. You didn't touch the real issue but just dragged a smelly red-herring across the discussion. Without any content or value at all.As is: Where you should have pointed out exactly what you think is wrong with the statment and show another way of knowing about the natural world.