Missouri's ID and Anti-Science Bill

I don't think this bill is unconstitutional precisely because it is not introducing religion into the classroom. Let's take a look at how they define "biological intelligent design": 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.My objection to the bill is not on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. The problems with the bill, as I see it, are as follows:1) Intelligent design has not been established as a rigorous biological hypothesis. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is well established by current observations. There is no particular reason why we should devote "equal time" to an idea in its infancy and a well-validated scientific theory. Until intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis has been developed to a high degree, and only then, should we consider introducing it into the science curriculum of public education.2) As has been pointed out, they make several redefinition of terms (e.g., redefining hypothesis and theory). Pointless and nonsensical.3) The bill makes quite a number of spurious arguments (e.g., they argue that there is a lack of transitional fossils). The bill proposes that species were designed directly by an intelligence. This clearly flies in the face of current scientific evidence.Incidentally, yesterday (Feb. 12) was Charles Darwin's birthday. Unfortunately, no one made a thread about this, but anyways, a belated happy birthday to Charles Darwin, who forever changed our understanding of the world we live in. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

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." 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. The bill is not religious in nature, if we read it at face value. Does the bill "clearly fail" the Lemon test? I think not. One could argue - incorrectly, of course - that the bill's secular purpose is in advancing science education. Of course, this argument could be refuted, but there's nothing unconstitutional about a bill that uses weak arguments to support its purpose. After all, a lot of bills propose poor ideas in terms of a secular purpose, but they're not unconstitutional. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

The bill's definitions of, e.g., "theory" and "hypothesis," do not introduce religion. It's a skewed view of how science works, but it is not, in itself, religious in nature, and this is all that matters when discussing the constitutionality of the bill. As I said, the bill has many problems. However, being unconstitutional in nature is not one of them IMHO. The problem you reference above, for example, still does not introduce religion. But the authors might argue that its secular purpose is in advancing science education. This argument is thoroughly unsound, of course, because that bill would significantly impair science education, but having a poor secular purpose is not unconstitutional. It is not necessarily a religious viewpoint. One can be an uninformed agnostic or atheist and think that science denies the operation of God. That clause, then, is not unconstitutional.

Yes, the definitions might happen to match the views of a particular religious group, but there's nothing in those specific definitions that would introduce religion into the classroom IMHO. True, the bill serves no beneficial secular purpose. But the bill's authors could argue that it does, in which case the bill doesn't violate the Constitution. Here's why: it's not unconstitutional for a bill to serve a poor secular purpose. A lot of bills are proposed that would serve poor secular purposes, but they're not religious in nature. Well, one could argue that this allows the students in the classroom to think for themselves. Now, again, this argument is unsound, but serving an unsound secular purpose doesn't make something religious.

Fair point, and here you've probably made the most compelling case for why this bill is unconstitutional in nature. Still, how do we know that this bill's secular purpose is really just a sham? After all, the author's probably sincerely believe that this bill will improve science education in their state.

This is one of those situations where my arguments have been fairly effectively taken apart. I think Dr Adequate's message 17 offered the most compelling argument as to why this bill is not constitutional, and I am unable to come up with an effective response.Now that the unconstitutional nature of this bill has been demonstrated, let me ask this: the motivation of the authors aside (since their motivations clearly cannot be changed), what in the bill would have to be changed to make it constitutional?