EvC Forum: Missouri's ID and Anti-Science Bill

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Missouri's ID and Anti-Science Bill

Taq

Member

Posts: 10085

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 5.1

Normal Thread Display

(3)

Message 14 of 45 (690478)
02-13-2013 1:02 PM

Reply to: Message 13 by Genomicus
02-13-2013 11:15 AM

Clearly, the bill is not identifying the designer(s), and so one cannot really say that the bill will introduce religion into the science class.

But we all know who they mean by "designer". The only reason that ID is being included is religious belief. That's it. There is no secular purpose for including ID in the science curricula, only a religious one. This bill clearly fails the Lemon test for lacking a secular purpose and unnecessarily entangling government in religious issues:

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
	Message 13 by Genomicus, posted 02-13-2013 11:15 AM		Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 16 by Genomicus, posted 02-13-2013 7:29 PM		Taq has replied

Taq

Member

Posts: 10085

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 5.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 26 of 45 (690643)
02-14-2013 7:27 PM

Reply to: Message 16 by Genomicus
02-13-2013 7:29 PM

The proposed bill does not specify the designer. One can guess who the authors of the bill think is the designer, but no, we don't know who they mean by "designer."

Do we really have to guess? I think it is pretty obvious. The legislators proposing this bill are not Raelians. We are talking about the Bible Belt of the US of A.

Furthermore, even if the authors of the bill personally think the designer is a deity, this would not affect the constitutionality of the proposed bill.

Yeah, it does. If the purpose of the bill is to proselytize then it is unconstitutional.

The bill is not religious in nature, if we read it at face value.

Yes, it is. Intelligent Design is a religiously motivated political movement to get creationism taught in public schools.

Of course, this argument could be refuted, but there's nothing unconstitutional about a bill that uses weak arguments to support its purpose.

I think you need to review the Dover case:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
	Message 16 by Genomicus, posted 02-13-2013 7:29 PM		Genomicus has not replied

Taq

Member

Posts: 10085

Joined: 03-06-2009

Member Rating: 5.1

Normal Thread Display

Message 34 of 45 (691050)
02-19-2013 5:26 PM

Reply to: Message 28 by Genomicus
02-17-2013 5:47 PM

Re: Not constitutional

Still, how do we know that this bill's secular purpose is really just a sham?

Common sense.

Do you really think that these state legislators are tuned in to the scientific community and are constantly reading peer reviewed ID papers discussing new and exciting ID research? Or do you think that they have been told that ID is a way to combat evolution without overtly referring to christianity?

The obvious reason that ID is being proposed is religious objections to evolution.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 28 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2013 5:47 PM		Genomicus has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

3 online now:	dwise1, kjsimons, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0