|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Are you against an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses? That is done by scientists, not teachers. That is done prior to science standards being written. This bill is an end-around the science standards that have gone through this review in order to allow teachers to say things about evolution that would never pass any objective review of the theory.
Wellmind your own business. Human rights are everyone's business.
That includes you telling my kin in Missouri how to run their state. Is there some force field in Missouri that keeps the US Constitution out?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4256 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
it doesn't matter what their reasoning is.
they could do it because they had a dream where a blue monkey on a rainbow cow told them to do so, the reason that the bill proponents made the bill has nothing to do with the legality of the bill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Dr. A where have you been? Finally someone to discuss this with who doesn't get mad jump to conclusions and call me names! I could do that too ...
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 [...] it is not up to the voter or the legislator decide the legality of the bills as it is up to the judicial branch Well yes. Lemon Test, remember? If he's motivated by being a creationist zealot, then the judicial branch would strike his bill down on the grounds that he has no secular legislative purpose.
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. Well, it's the same thing. In order for creationist drivel to be taught, someone has to teach creationist drivel. They're trying to provide a legal screen for people who do so.
My only difference here is that I think if the people of Missouri want to be retarded we should let them. As so often, you're pulling out the "states' rights" card, and my answer is the same as the last zillion times you did it. No-one's stopping the Republicans in the state legislature of Missouri from being retarded, but we're all allowed to comment on the fact that this is what they're doing. Here I sit in the Battle-Born State, without U.S. citizenship, and without the right to vote anywhere, but I can still say that they're being stupid. "States' rights" doesn't stop me from saying what I damn well please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
it doesn't matter what their reasoning is. they could do it because they had a dream where a blue monkey on a rainbow cow told them to do so, the reason that the bill proponents made the bill has nothing to do with the legality of the bill. Yes it does. Again, I would direct your attention to Lemon v. Kurtzman. If the legislators do something in pursuit of a religious agenda, then according to the Supreme Court that fact alone renders it unconstitutional for them to do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Are you against an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses? Not at all, provided that there are legitimate controversies to be taught. Can you name any?
Nope. I sure cannot. Then it stands to reason that, in the absence of of any legitimate controversies, the only candidates left are the usual sorry litany of creationist falsehoods.
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. It's not just a waste of time. The schools that are tricked into teaching this crap are acting as unwitting stalking horses for the DI. It leads them into big problems, like ending up in an expensive court case, where they're inevitably going to lose a lot of money. The Dover school district had to pay out a cool million bucks for their mistake in teaching ID. The DI didn't pay it for them. That was money taken right out of the hands of the kids who needed it for their educations. That's the purpose of bills like this; to trick school districts into doing the ID lobby's dirty work for them. I think that that's dishonest and downright shameful. Also, in the meantime, a whole bunch of unsuspecting kids get to have their science education screwed with for the sake of the ideological windmill tilting of a bunch of creepy fundamentalists. I think that's a shame as well.
Wellmind your own business. No. Anyway, you live in Virginia apparently. That means that, by your own argument, you have no business discussing this either. It's a free forum and within the rules I'll discuss what I please.
I will when the British stop telling us how to run our country. Like I said, not everything I say is to do with my nationality. Try to grow up a little.
That includes you telling my kin in Missouri how to run their state. Actually, it's your country's constitution that tells them how to run their state, whether you like it or not. If you want to imagine a world where the constitution doesn't exist, go ahead. Meanwhile, this bill is being proposed in reality, where the constitution prevents the establishment of religion in public science classes. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
it doesn't matter what their reasoning is. Yes, it does. The Lemon test spells it out very clearly in the very first step: Legislation must have a secular purpose. There is no secular purpose for this bill. None. It is a religiously motivated bill that tries to hide behind academic freedom. They are trying to give teachers cover for telling lies about evolution. That is what it is. Again, I cite Judge Jones' decision from the Dover trial:
quote: Intent does matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4256 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
The link is still active where you can see the model bill this was based on. you are right i did see it. I was thinking something else.
DI is the Discovery Institute. They're a Front Orginization for creationism and combating scientific materialism - basically Liars for Jesus. dang protestants. discovery institute, would that have not been easier than trying an acronym?
Learn about the DI and that model bill and you'll see for yourself. I think it is obviously a bill by creationists, but not really a bill to teach religion in science class.
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 is a self determination issue just based on what everyone is stating, which I perceive as "if you are a creationist you cannot propose bills".I went to elementary school in P.R. Illinois. in that state they have a holiday that only exists in that state (maybe WI too I am not sure) it is called Pulaski day (after Casimir Pulaski). It is a state public holiday that was formed when a bunch of Catholics got together and decided to have a state public holiday to honor this man. Is that not an example of people with a religious motivation getting together to have a holiday and a day off for everyone regardless of their religious values? You claim to be Catholic and from Illinois, what do you say about this? Do the proponents of Pulaski day (who will claim to be polish and honoring a revolutionary war fighter) have any difference in reasoning than the creationists of this bill who want to objectively critique the weaknesses and strengths of evolution? is it more or less wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I think it is obviously a bill by creationists, but not really a bill to teach religion in science class. It is a bill that provides cover for teachers to introduce religiously motivated arguments against evolution. The phrasing is taken straight from the Discovery Institute's own political strategies. There is zero secular purpose. None. The only purpose is to allow for the injection of religion into science classes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4256 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Well yes. Lemon Test, remember? If he's motivated by being a creationist zealot, then the judicial branch would strike his bill down on the grounds that he has no secular legislative purpose.
Yeah I thought we were on the same page on this one. I’d leave this up to the Judiciary. There is no real way to prove that there is religious intent in this bill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4256 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Not at all, provided that there are legitimate controversies to be taught. Can you name any? Yeah sure, science in itself, has to be constantly questioned and observed. I see no problem with a bill that wants to objectively question.
I think that that's dishonest and downright shameful. That is how I feel about your brand of authoritarianism, something which you are disguising as protecting the education of children. You seem to be an equal of the discovery institute.
No.
And I will continue to call you and your double standard out. I am not telling the people of Missouri how to live or how to vote, or how to run their schools, but you are.
Anyway, you live in Virginia apparently. That means that, by your own argument, you have no business discussing this either. It's a free forum and within the rules I'll discuss what I please. Like I said, not everything I say is to do with my nationality. Try to grow up a little. You are funny.
Actually, it's your country's constitution that tells them how to run their state, whether you like it or not.
Actually education is something that is up to the states.
If you want to imagine a world where the constitution doesn't exist, go ahead.
LOL
Meanwhile, this bill is being proposed in reality, where the constitution prevents the establishment of religion in public science classes. Show Me. where in this bill is religion being proposed to be taught in public science class? oh yeah, it is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4256 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
I guess objectively reviewing scientific data is now a religion.
go figure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah I thought we were on the same page on this one. I’d leave this up to the Judiciary. There is no real way to prove that there is religious intent in this bill. Well, you can look at the track-record of the guy introducing it, and you can look at where and how the whole "teach the controversy" nonsense started. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I guess objectively reviewing scientific data is now a religion. Is that what elementary teachers are going to do, review data from scientific papers with their students? Really? Reviewing scientific data is done by scientists. If a theory passes this review then it becomes the scientific consensus. Once it becomes the consensus only then is it considered by education boards as part of the science curricula. The objective review for evolution has already been done. The purpose of this bill is to allow for the injection of subjective and religiously motivated arguments against evolution. The previous actions on the part of the legislators makes this very, very clear. It is the Dover case all over again. Need I cite that decision again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I guess objectively reviewing scientific data is now a religion. They don't want to objectively review evidence. Scientists have already done that. They want to talk crap that appeals to them subjectively based on their religious dogma. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Yeah sure, science in itself, has to be constantly questioned and observed. Questioned and observed in what manner? By teachers repeating lies and propoganda fed to them by the Discovery Institute? Or by scientists doing scientific research?
I am not telling the people of Missouri how to live or how to vote, or how to run their schools, but you are. The Constitution does tell them how to run their school, and the bill is designed to give cover to teachers when they violate the constitutional rights of their students. The bill is a religiously motivated attempt to reduce the teaching of evolution. That is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Actually education is something that is up to the states.
The Constitutional rights of the students is not. That is a federal matter.
where in this bill is religion being proposed to be taught in public science class? Religion is the motivation which causes it to fail the Lemon Test. Do we need to go over that again? What is the secular purpose of the bill again? Objective scrutiny of theories is a process that is already built into science, and evolution has passed that scrutiny. So what is the purpose of having teachers do what has already been done, other than to give cover to teachers who want to introduce religiously motivated objections to evolution?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024