Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 166 of 283 (649656)
01-24-2012 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Granny Magda
01-24-2012 5:37 PM


Re: Rick Brattin is Obsurd
In my opinion, bills HB 1227 have little to no shot at being found constitutional by a federal appeals court. But there might well be a federal district court judges here and there who might give creationists a win at trial. There are also at least a couple of Supreme Court Justices who don't believe Thomas Jefferson meant what he wrote when he drafted the Establishment Clause despite the clear evidence that he did intend a strongly enforced separation of Church and State.
It is the stealth bills that must be vigilantly scrutinized and opposed, because on their face they can appear to state a reasonable position. As long the bills make no references to ID or a designer but instead are worded as academic freedom and encouraging critical thinking, they might appear to pass muster.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Granny Magda, posted 01-24-2012 5:37 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 167 of 283 (649657)
01-24-2012 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2012 4:29 PM


State rights, some of the time
AE writes:
It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours.
Catholic Scientist writes:
What does that have to do with this?
Some people find the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment an anathema and an inexcuable intrusion on states right. That is, up until the point when their own state wants to put limits on where or how they can tote their guns. Then it is Haleluiah 14th Amendment!!! Thank you activist judge!

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2012 4:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 168 of 283 (649682)
01-25-2012 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 3:52 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Artemis Entreri writes:
It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours.
Individual States in the US or countries or groups of random people don't determine what is science and what is not science. The scientific method does.
Just as individual States in the US or countries or random groups of people don't determine what 1 + 1 is equal to. Mathematics determine the answer.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:52 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 169 of 283 (650459)
01-31-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Omnivorous
01-24-2012 4:32 PM


uncle omni, never on topic, always _____ calling
No, it was all perfectly ingenuous.
It just sounded that way to you because you're a __________.
P.S. A free tip from your Uncle Omni: posts that start and stop with "LOL" make you sound like a 15-year-old ____________..\
AbE: What names?
Eat ____ and ____, you ____ sucking ______ ________.
LOL talk about kiddy, you don’t even curse on here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Omnivorous, posted 01-24-2012 4:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 170 of 283 (650460)
01-31-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Taq
01-24-2012 4:46 PM


slow down
I asked you to show me how this bill was a violation, not bring a basket full of apples to this orange debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Taq, posted 01-24-2012 4:46 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 3:38 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 171 of 283 (650461)
01-31-2012 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Granny Magda
01-24-2012 4:24 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Is that a question or a statement?
If you meant to ask "So what?", then I think that it should be self-explanatory; I don't think that nonsense should be taught in science classes.
Statement.
You seem to be making a slippery slope case, I think you are reading to much into it.
I know you like to talk about state rights and such, but that is not the topic here. Please let's not get dragged off onto a side issue. Until such time as the US abandons its constitution, Missouri is still bound by the Establishment Clause.
There is always a place for state’s rights.
I honestly have no idea why the British care about a bill in a hillbilly state like MO, unless you just like to point and laugh.
It's not a conspiracy, just a simple lie. Are you seriously going to argue that creationists don't try to get shit in under the radar? Really? The whole history of "creation science" has been one attempt after another to relabel their dross and avoid the Establishment Clause.
No I am going to argue that this bill really doesn’t state anything and that y’all are exaggerating, and worrying about nothing. I stay by self determination because if Missourians want this type of stuff they can have it. I was instructed by the Jesuits, and never even heard about creationism until I went to public school at age 18. We live in an age of information. The truth is out there, and those that want to find it will.
The bill's originator and four of its cosponsors all took part in a completely separate bill that also took aim squarely at evolution. Do you think that is a co-incidence? That they just pulled it out of a hat? I find it hard to believe that you are that naive.
I am not anymore nave than you. I defend self determination, and somehow that makes me a defender of ID. I can’t even wrap my mind around that logical chasm.
We are talking about this bill. Not the last bill.
Mutate and Survive
Repent and be Saved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Granny Magda, posted 01-24-2012 4:24 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 3:30 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 175 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2012 3:40 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 172 of 283 (650464)
01-31-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 3:13 PM


Re: SHOW ME
No I am going to argue that this bill really doesn’t state anything and that y’all are exaggerating, and worrying about nothing.
And you're wrong.
C'mon, this is straight out of the creationist playbook, and written by a guy whose last crack at evolution was to get equal time for ID. They're trying to get some sort of legal cover for teachers who shouldn't even have jobs to teach retarded creationist nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:13 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 173 of 283 (650465)
01-31-2012 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2012 4:29 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Didn't you see the model bill this was written after? Don't you realize the DI wants to spread creationism? That they do that by opposing evolution?
I don't think I saw the model bill.
spread it? don't you live "near St. Louis" as in near Missouri? that shit is already spread.
honestly I am not sure what DI is? did you mean ID? opposing evolution is not illegal, they can if they want to.
This is obviously a pro-creationism-in-science class bill. Its shit.
SHOW ME. (show me how, since somehow around here linking court cases that have nothing to do with this suffices in the strangeness that is EvC).
What does that have to do with this?
we have had the state curriculum debate here before, this is nothing more than that thread regurgitated (Big Bird it to me!).
some people like to make sure everyone else has their view and thinks like they think I call these people Authoritarians, they are EVERYWHERE on this site. There are other people here who favor Liberty and will allow people in other voting jurisdictions to determine what they want to teach in their schools, and what laws they want to have, they are also EVERYWHERE on this site. That is really what this comes down too IMHO.
are you from "near St. Louis" in Illinois or Missouri? if you are from Missouri then this is your business, if you are from Illinois, then it is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2012 4:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-31-2012 3:49 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 174 of 283 (650466)
01-31-2012 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 2:43 PM


Re: slow down
I asked you to show me how this bill was a violation, not bring a basket full of apples to this orange debate.
It is apples to apples.
"The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety."
Here is a section from the Missouri bill:
"Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent of schools, or school system administrator, nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught within the course curriculum schedule."
We already know what these critiques are. They are religiously motivated arguments that seek to throw evolution out of science for sectarian purposes.
ABE: We also have this wonderful excerpt from the decision in the Dover trial:
"Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District's science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants' asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous."
Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court
This is EXACTLY what is happening in Missouri.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 2:43 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 175 of 283 (650467)
01-31-2012 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 3:13 PM


Re: SHOW ME
You seem to be making a slippery slope case, I think you are reading to much into it.
It's no slippery slope, the bill clearly encourages creationist rhetoric in science class. After all, the bill calls for actions that make no sense under any other interpretation; for example, the bill states that elementary school teachers should be able to "review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution". Elementary school teachers. Can you think of a legitimate scientific controversy in the field of biological evolution that would be suitable for an elementary school class?
There is always a place for state’s rights.
In a thread on state rights perhaps. This isn't it.
I honestly have no idea why the British care about a bill in a hillbilly state like MO, unless you just like to point and laugh.
Did it ever occur to you that I might hold an opinion that is not related to my nationality? Not all of us make out judgements based upon xenophobia and national stereotypes.
You brought up the hillbilly thing. What I object to is the blatant attempt to get creationism into science classes. I object to that wherever it occurs.
No I am going to argue that this bill really doesn’t state anything and that y’all are exaggerating, and worrying about nothing.
That's not what the evidence suggests. This bill is sponsored by the same people who have promoted explicitly creationist legislation. It stands to reason that when an ID proponent sponsors a bill that mentions "scientific controversies" about evolution, he's talking about ID creationism. What else could they be talking about? Can you name any legitimate controversy that is suitable for an audience of elementary and secondary school kids?
I stay by self determination because if Missourians want this type of stuff they can have it.
Not as the law stands. Take the state rights stuff to another thread please.
I was instructed by the Jesuits, and never even heard about creationism until I went to public school at age 18.
This bill would undermine that, exposing public school kids as young as six to creationism, long before most of them have the rational capacity to critique it properly.
I am not anymore nave than you. I defend self determination, and somehow that makes me a defender of ID. I can’t even wrap my mind around that logical chasm.
Okay, add it to the list of things you're unable to wrap your mind around.
Self determination is not the topic. Wrap your mind around that please.
We are talking about this bill. Not the last bill.
Given that the bills share several sponsors, I think it's highly relevant. The older bill provides a window into exactly what the sponsors have in mind when they talk about "more effective ways" of teaching science; they mean ID. That's obvious given their past record and continuing ID-ist stance.
Can you really doubt that someone like Rep. Brattin (a sponsor of both bills in question) is anything other than an ID proponent? These are his words;
quote:
About HB 1227, It requires that intelligent design and biological evolution be taught and for both to have equal time in the classroom, and that the teaching of both remain objective. For those in the scientific community to say that evolution is all 100% fact is obsurd. {sic} And forcing those who believe in intelligent design ( Gallup nationwide polling is more than 90% of Americans) to only be taught only biological evolution is WRONG. And for those who are so certain of their beliefs in evolution, what do you have to worry about?
Call me crazy, but I'm going to say that the ID advocate is advocating ID. What other possible interpretation is there?
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:13 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 4:03 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 176 of 283 (650468)
01-31-2012 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Dr Adequate
01-31-2012 3:30 PM


Finally a voice of reason
Dr. A where have you been? Finally someone to discuss this with who doesn't get mad jump to conclusions and call me names!
C'mon, this is straight out of the creationist playbook, and written by a guy whose last crack at evolution was to get equal time for ID.
yeah so what? there are politicians who constantly go one way. I am sure there are creationist politicians who always have some weird thing in for evolution.
I can pick a topic where politicians do that sort of thing bill after bill. 2nd amendment rights (as an example); there are politicians who bill after bill continue to try and legislate that gun ownership is NOT an individual right even after the SCOTUS said it was, or whom submit bills that only reduce the rights of law abiding citizens, under the "smoke and mirrors" of reducing crime.
what I am getting at is that there are politicians out there that are very one sided and do this, but they are getting elected and are representing people who must desire this sort of legislation, it is not up to the voter or the legislator decide the legality of the bills as it is up to the judicial branch.
so when I say so what, I am not trying to be rude as much as I am saying that you are stating the obvious.
good link though (much appreciated)
They're trying to get some sort of legal cover for teachers who shouldn't even have jobs to teach retarded creationist nonsense.
I doubt that. I think they are pushing a different agenda than protecting bad teachers. I think they are just being crafty to challenge evolution. I also think that it won't work. This has passed in other states, and it never works. My only difference here is that I think if the people of Missouri want to be retarded we should let them.
And you're wrong.
lol tell me how you really feel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 3:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2012 3:57 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 179 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 4:00 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 183 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-31-2012 4:20 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 283 (650469)
01-31-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 3:31 PM


Re: SHOW ME
I don't think I saw the model bill.
From your Message 152:
quote:
Another Discovery Institute Bill Fails...
You don't think the Discovery Institute is actually promoting science, do you?
no.
though the academic freedom link did not sound that bad. the model bill definitely did.
The link is still active where you can see the model bill this was based on.
spread it? don't you live "near St. Louis" as in near Missouri? that shit is already spread.
Ah, the old Is-Ought problem again... Regardless, it can still spread more and that can be opposed.
honestly I am not sure what DI is? did you mean ID? opposing evolution is not illegal, they can if they want to.
DI is the Discovery Institute. They're a Front Orginization for creationism and combating scientific materialism - basically Liars for Jesus.
Nobody cares about the opposition of evolution. The problem is religion in public schools, which *is* illegal - constitutionally.
This is obviously a pro-creationism-in-science class bill. Its shit.
SHOW ME. (show me how, since somehow around here linking court cases that have nothing to do with this suffices in the strangeness that is EvC).
Learn about the DI and that model bill and you'll see for yourself.
are you from "near St. Louis" in Illinois or Missouri? if you are from Missouri then this is your business, if you are from Illinois, then it is not.
Illinois, but I don't have to live in a particular state to argue on the internet about a bill its proposing. And the seperation of church and state isn't a state-by-state issue anyways so states rights is neither here nor there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:31 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 4:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 178 of 283 (650471)
01-31-2012 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 3:46 PM


Re: Finally a voice of reason
I think they are just being crafty to challenge evolution.
You realise that's exactly what I've been saying right?
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:46 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 179 of 283 (650473)
01-31-2012 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Artemis Entreri
01-31-2012 3:46 PM


Re: Finally a voice of reason
I think they are just being crafty to challenge evolution.
Yes, and doing so for religious reasons. This is exactly what the Dover Board of Education was found guilty of in the Dover case where students' constitutional rights were violated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:46 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 4:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 180 of 283 (650474)
01-31-2012 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Granny Magda
01-31-2012 3:40 PM


Re: SHOW ME
After all, the bill calls for actions that make no sense under any other interpretation; for example, the bill states that elementary school teachers should be able to "review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution".
Are you against an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?
Can you think of a legitimate scientific controversy in the field of biological evolution that would be suitable for an elementary school class?
Nope. I sure cannot. Which is why this debate is soMuch ado about nothing. It seems to be a worthless waste of time maybe, but if the legislators in Missouri want to waste their time with bill that don’t accomplish anything that is on them.
Did it ever occur to you that I might hold an opinion that is not related to my nationality? Not all of us make out judgements based upon xenophobia and national stereotypes.
You brought up the hillbilly thing. What I object to is the blatant attempt to get creationism into science classes. I object to that wherever it occurs.
Wellmind your own business.
Not as the law stands. Take the state rights stuff to another thread please.
I will when the British stop telling us how to run our country. That includes you telling my kin in Missouri how to run their state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2012 3:40 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 01-31-2012 4:13 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 185 by Granny Magda, posted 01-31-2012 4:29 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 209 by Coyote, posted 01-31-2012 6:53 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024