Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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:   Creationism Bill Passes Oklahoma House
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 20 (88693)
02-25-2004 9:01 PM


A bill requiring the Alabama anti-evolution dislaimer be inserted in Oklahoma textbook has passed the Oklahoma House 96-0 and now is headed to the Senate. It also has a measure similiar to a bill defeated earlier this year which would allow local districts to buy textbooks not on the state approved list. Both these measure where inserted into a bill for Braille instruction by rabid creationist/fundamentalist Rep. Bill Graves.
Newspaper article on it
Text of the bill
List of OK senators
Find OK representives and senators (Federal and State) by address
Moderated mailing lists for all 50 states for creationism news
Folks, it might be a good time to join the National Center for Science Education
Edited for typo and bad grammar caused by rush job.
[This message has been edited by Harlequin, 02-25-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Cthulhu, posted 02-25-2004 9:37 PM Harlequin has not replied
 Message 4 by Prozacman, posted 02-27-2004 10:43 AM Harlequin has not replied
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 02-28-2004 5:34 PM Harlequin has replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 2 of 20 (88698)
02-25-2004 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Harlequin
02-25-2004 9:01 PM


Inserting it into a Braille proposal. What bastards.

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Harlequin, posted 02-25-2004 9:01 PM Harlequin has not replied

  
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 20 (88867)
02-26-2004 3:18 PM


The National Center for Science Education has a story on this. It can be found here. It includes a links to a number of resource including rebuttals by Miller and Dawkins.

  
Prozacman
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 20 (89036)
02-27-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Harlequin
02-25-2004 9:01 PM


Thankyou very much. My wife and I were thinking of moving to Alabama, and your post and links helped us to change our minds!
[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 02-27-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Harlequin, posted 02-25-2004 9:01 PM Harlequin has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 20 (89293)
02-28-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Harlequin
02-25-2004 9:01 PM


Can't this disclaimer be considered slander or libel? It makes clear statements of falsehood which reflect on the honesty of the writers of textbooks (or any teachers teaching from it).
I can't believe they actually got the fake term "microevolution" put into a legal document. Don't they have to square what they say about what science actually says, with actual scientists?
Perhaps it is time for a new branch of the government... a branch of information and science... which can act as a check on the legislature, executive, and judicial branches whenever they deviate from reality or logic in their decisions.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Harlequin, posted 02-25-2004 9:01 PM Harlequin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Harlequin, posted 02-28-2004 8:18 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 03-02-2004 12:34 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 20 (89316)
02-28-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
02-28-2004 5:34 PM


You can't sue the state legislature for libel.
1) The state legislature makes the libel laws and the legislative process is generally excempt from that for good reason. Besides if passed it would be a law.
2) Who is being libeled? Evolution can't sue. I don't see any statement which would libel the textbook writers. As the disclaimer is aimed at the textbooks, the teachers are not the target.
3) Libel generally requires three things: 1) The statement being false. (Clearly the case here.) 2) The person making the actionable statement knowing its false. (Very arguably false.) 3) The statement actually harmed the reputation, finances, etc. of the person defamed. (Unlikely.)
"Microevolution" is not really a fake term since real scientist really do use the term though real scientist use it differently from how the creationists do.
I will assume the Branch of Information is a joke...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 02-28-2004 5:34 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 02-28-2004 11:51 PM Harlequin has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 20 (89344)
02-28-2004 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Harlequin
02-28-2004 8:18 PM


I was kind of joking around, mainly trying to generate an idea/feeling that maybe there were ways to stop this through processes other than running to an organization that is already up against the wall... kind of go on an offensive like creationists are, rather than defensive action.
That said...
quote:
I will assume the Branch of Information is a joke...
Well yeah, but with a grain of truth. I think bad information and intentionally misleading statements have been used to distort the evidence congress and the executive branch use to shape policy. And unfortunately the legislature and executive branches get to pick and choose their "information officers" in order to get the exact evidence they want.
A great example is what just happened this week. Bush removed two highly respected members of his Bioethics panel because they were not telling him that science agreed with his position. And clearly Congress had already done the same thing with evolution when a year or so back they had ID theorists come in and speak as experts on the state of evolutionary theory.
I think maybe there should be an independent organization free of partisan policy demands (meaning they can't be dismissed for not toeing party lines), who prepare an objective collection of information on whatever subject congress or the president needs to look at. Then the politicians must deal with the facts and not wander into fantasyland.
quote:
The statement actually harmed the reputation, finances, etc. of the person defamed. (Unlikely.)
I would think that if I published a book and a state then had it stickered saying that what I have in it is not accurate, and they are not right, it does defame my product.
And as far as losing finances, wait until this stickering starts acting more as a scarlet letter and those in charge of choosing books are instructed not to waste state money by buying books that will need stickering. Thus creationist friendly science books, published by groups like the Discovery Institute, will become the preferred texts. Those publishing real science texts, will lose orders.
Paranoid? Maybe. But anyone telling me OK would be stickering textbooks with lies about evolution 5 years ago and I would have said they were paranoid

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Harlequin, posted 02-28-2004 8:18 PM Harlequin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Harlequin, posted 03-01-2004 12:09 AM Silent H has replied

  
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 20 (89489)
03-01-2004 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Silent H
02-28-2004 11:51 PM


quote:
I think maybe there should be an independent organization free of partisan policy demands (meaning they can't be dismissed for not toeing party lines), who prepare an objective collection of information on whatever subject congress or the president needs to look at.
That is really wishful thinking. How are you going to pick them? And who are they going to answer to? If they don't answer to government and are given real power then it is likely that they will start playing politics themselves and even if they don't then it would be of very questionable constitionality. Though the General Accounting Office has some similiarity to what you looking for except it has no real power and thus is easily ignored.
quote:
And as far as losing finances, wait until this stickering starts acting more as a scarlet letter and those in charge of choosing books are instructed not to waste state money by buying books that will need stickering.
That will usually be done by the publisher itself and it is a trivial cost. And if they don't do it; it is fairly trivial for the teacher, who is not paid by the hour, to do it. At worst the teacher will have a 120 books to do. I don't see any legal case for damages even if one could get damages for losses due to idiotic laws.
quote:
Paranoid? Maybe. But anyone telling me OK would be stickering textbooks with lies about evolution 5 years ago and I would have said they were paranoid
Well it is not law yet. Though frankly I as surprised it did not make it to law years ago. There is no state in the Union with a higher rate of fundamentalism: Oklahoma is the undisputed buckle of the Bible Belt. The Oklahoman and the Gaylords strong opposition to evolution education does not help. There has been a long history of trying to get it into Oklahoma. In 1999 during the Kansas fiasco, the Oklahoma Textbook Committee ordered the disclaimer. The Attorney General struck it down on grounds that the Committee lacked the authority and had also violated the state's Open Meetings Act. There was shortly aftwords a failed attempt to give the Committee the needed authority. Since then there has been multiple attempts to get the disclaimer into law directly. Last year it was proposed as a bill by Rep. Graves but died in committee largely because the Chair of the education committee opposed it.
And recall that with a few minor word changes that the disclaimer has existed as an accomplished reality in Alabama for far longer than five years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 02-28-2004 11:51 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2004 1:42 AM Harlequin has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 20 (89498)
03-01-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Harlequin
03-01-2004 12:09 AM


quote:
That is really wishful thinking.
Yeah, I know. I just thought it would be a good idea. If you want to discuss details of this theoretical organization, open a thread and I'll discuss it. Otherwise we can let it die as a subject.
quote:
even if they don't then it would be of very questionable constitionality.
Would that be unlike the Office of FaithBased programs? Although I should add if it was to be a new BRANCH of government it would take a constitutional amendment, and so not be unconstitutional.
I am curious though what you feel would be so problematic in making sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked... like say religious theorists do not get to tell congress what scientists think, say, and have discovered.
quote:
Though the General Accounting Office has some similiarity to what you looking for except it has no real power and thus is easily ignored.
The FCC has that kind of power and is not easily ignored. So does the FBI and CIA... not easily ignored.
quote:
That will usually be done by the publisher itself and it is a trivial cost... I don't see any legal case for damages even if one could get damages for losses due to idiotic laws.
Any printing cost addition to a publisher is a cost. Any forced disclaimer (especially a false one) reduces its credibility. Any loss of sales is a loss. Maybe it ends up not being much? I have no idea. But if it does, then why not?
quote:
And recall that with a few minor word changes that the disclaimer has existed as an accomplished reality in Alabama for far longer than five years.
And this means what? If you feel it has had no effect in AL, then what are you complaining about if it goes to OK?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Harlequin, posted 03-01-2004 12:09 AM Harlequin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Harlequin, posted 03-01-2004 11:13 PM Silent H has replied

  
Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 20 (89689)
03-01-2004 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
03-01-2004 1:42 AM


quote:
I am curious though what you feel would be so problematic in making sure the information used in policy formulation has been accurately fact-checked...
I suggest you reread what I actually wrote. There is no way you can get anything remotely like that from anything that I wrote.
quote:
like say religious theorists do not get to tell congress what scientists think, say, and have discovered.
That would require an outright repeal of the First Amendment.
Religous theorists have every right to tell Congress what they think scientists think. Scientists also have the right to tell Congress what they think. It does not take a genius to figure out which is mroe credible.
quote:
The FCC has that kind of power and is not easily ignored. So does the FBI and CIA... not easily ignored.
Not really. The FBI and the CIA are not independent and have no power not granted by the President and the Congress.
quote:
Any printing cost addition to a publisher is a cost. Any forced disclaimer (especially a false one) reduces its credibility. Any loss of sales is a loss. Maybe it ends up not being much? I have no idea. But if it does, then why not?
Any printing cost is a cost. But that cost is very small compared to the profit being made for the sale of the book. The cost of the disclaimer is a complete non-issue. And how is the disclaimer supposed to cause a loss of sales? Every single biology textbook approved by the Textbook Committee will have to carry this disclaimer. No creationist books are approved. And students don't get a choice; the government is buying and choosing the books and
they are the ones that would require the disclaimer. Indeed the
Textbook Committee, the organization that approves textbooks in Oklahoma, officially wanted the disclaimer but was stopped by the Attorney General.
(Now what would cost the publishers money is the seperate provision allowing local districts to use state money to buy unapproved books. Clearly is to allow them buy quack books. If local politicians want to buy creationists books I don't see how whether or not a book has a disclaimer will affect it either way. Of course no one gets to sue for financial damgages over how the state chooses to spend its money for a competitor's product.)
quote:
quote:
And recall that with a few minor word changes that the disclaimer has existed as an accomplished reality in Alabama for far longer than five years.
And this means what? If you feel it has had no effect in AL, then what are you complaining about if it goes to OK?
Reread what I actually wrote and keep in mind the context.
You stated that five years ago that you would not though such a disclaimer likely. I am arguing that five years ago you should not have thought that. To point out that disclaimer was already under official use for several years at that time in another state would make the idea of thinking such a disclaimer unlikely rather silly.
When the Kansas flared up almost five years ago; the surpring part was that it was Kansas and not Oklahoma. The moment I heard about Kansas, I knew that Oklahoma would soon join the firestorm. And it did.
If you think that I in any way approve of the Alabama disclaimer whether it be in Alabama or Oklahoma than you better do some serious rereading.
To point out that something does not even remotely meet the criteria for the legal concept of "libel" does not in any way mean approval or validity. That disclaimer makes many claims which are outright false. It also uses scientific terminology incorrectly. Thus it is clear it has no legit educational function. The legislature failed to do any fact finding (the ammendment was added with stealth almost the very day the bill was voted on by the House) that one would expect for such a measure. That it is clearly motivated for purely religious reasons without any secular justification makes it clearly unconstitutional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 03-01-2004 1:42 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2004 12:27 PM Harlequin has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 20 (89779)
03-02-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Harlequin
03-01-2004 11:13 PM


I'm uncertain why you have been so emotional with regard to my posts, especially after I said the points in my first post were not that serious (suggestive, rather than literal calls to action).
But since you want to get serious, you appear to be acting contradictory just to be contradictory.
quote:
I suggest you reread what I actually wrote. There is no way you can get anything remotely like that from anything that I wrote.
You called it unconstitutional, I'm sorry if that suggests to me that you're saying it is "problematic." What's strange is after saying the above, you turn 180 degrees and say the following:
quote:
That would require an outright repeal of the First Amendment... Religous theorists have every right to tell Congress what they think scientists think. Scientists also have the right to tell Congress what they think. It does not take a genius to figure out which is mroe credible.
This sounds problematic to me. Of course I am unsure why what I said came across as suggesting theorists can't say what they want, or require repealing the First Amendment.
According to you the concept of "perjury" is against the First Amendment? Or that the library of congress not registering my book The Hobbit, which I showed I wrote because my name is written in the front cover, is against the First Amendment?
In reality we already have governmental regulations that restrict "freedom of speech" within venues where correct information is considered vital. There are sanctions for those who deliver false statements, and factcheckers that stop false information from being delivered.
Hmmmmm. Actually I should have thought about myself. Part of my job when I worked for the government was just that. In my case I was factchecking procedures and data and getting back on the asses of scientists that were being fuzzy with either.
I am uncertain why you feel using what we have in other government institutions to make sure data is accurate, is also done for congressional and executive commitees.
People are free to say whatever they want, but the government has a vested interest in removing those who frequently fabricate, or correct the fabrications.
quote:
And how is the disclaimer supposed to cause a loss of sales?
I already explained this, which interestingly enough ties into what you say next.
quote:
Now what would cost the publishers money is the seperate provision allowing local districts to use state money to buy unapproved books. Clearly is to allow them buy quack books. If local politicians want to buy creationists books I don't see how whether or not a book has a disclaimer will affect it either way.
They can decide to go with books without the need for disclaimers. Like I said, the disclaimer (or need for a disclaimer) becomes a red letter. I am unsure if anyone can sue a legislature and WIN, but they certainly can sue to get a case heard and get attention focused on the fact that science books are being "co-opted" by religious hoo ha, and therefore undercutting legitimate science publishers to put gov't money into religious presses.
The far right files lame cases like this to get their message out and it works. My original point was to suggest maybe scientists should be playing more offensively. This could be a method.
Call it libel and make it stick in people's heads that perhaps nonscientists are saying false things about scientists.
quote:
That disclaimer makes many claims which are outright false. It also uses scientific terminology incorrectly. Thus it is clear it has no legit educational function. The legislature failed to do any fact finding (the ammendment was added with stealth almost the very day the bill was voted on by the House) that one would expect for such a measure. That it is clearly motivated for purely religious reasons without any secular justification makes it clearly unconstitutional.
This stands in contradiction to your earlier criticism of my suggestion of a fact-checking body of government. I completely agree with your statement above and that is what helped me formulate an idea regarding such an institution.
And by the way... when I said "if someone told me 5 years ago" I was just using a figure of speech. The point was all of this anti-evo movement, especially its ability to succeed in legislatures, has surprised me such that anything seems possible.
Have you read the testimony ID theorists gave before the US Congress? And all the Congressmen did was pitch softballs for them to sock into the stands... there was no factfinding, in the US CONGRESS??? Ugh.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Harlequin, posted 03-01-2004 11:13 PM Harlequin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-02-2004 12:37 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 16 by Sylas, posted 03-02-2004 2:28 PM Silent H has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 20 (89782)
03-02-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
02-28-2004 5:34 PM


It's not happening any time soon. I have testify in court this week about TRYING to give info to gov officials which they refused at first but found out later by computer search. Also my parents on account of this legal state will go to the grave believing I was ill and got "better" even if I emerge from evc into experiential world while the mother of my two "bastard" children still wants to use the forigen govenment against common sense and reasonable drug treatments. Some things ARE involutary but this is not one of them.
I wouldnt talk this way if there was some legal way for me to avoid it. I'm done with the "ill"legal ones. If Uridine(a differnt than ATCG) indeed indicates that there are "vectors" in DNA forced into RNA kinetics all of this is down the drain and in the wash.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 02-28-2004 5:34 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-02-2004 2:26 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 20 (89783)
03-02-2004 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
03-02-2004 12:27 PM


quote:
Have you read the testimony ID theorists gave before the US Congress? And all the Congressmen did was pitch softballs for them to sock into the stands... there was no factfinding, in the US CONGRESS??? Ugh.
Do you, by chance, have any links to this testimony? I assume it would be on a govt. website (and I'm being rather lazy, sorry).
It really startled me just how successful Phillip Johnson's persuasion was 6 yrs. ago on the Kansas state BOE. To see similar measures being seen not just in their state BOE, but in their CONGRESS for cryin' out loud, is really frustrating. It was somewhat "easy" to get rid of the fundies here in Kansas on the BOE. I doubt this issue in OK would stir up a similar uprise. Here's to hoping.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2004 12:27 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2004 2:10 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2004 3:12 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 20 (89796)
03-02-2004 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by MisterOpus1
03-02-2004 12:37 PM


quote:
Do you, by chance, have any links to this testimony?
I did at one time. I don't think I do anymore, but I believe I may have posted it here in a thread long ago. I'll see if I can dig it up online again.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by MisterOpus1, posted 03-02-2004 12:37 PM MisterOpus1 has not replied

  
MisterOpus1
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 20 (89800)
03-02-2004 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brad McFall
03-02-2004 12:34 PM


Brad,
WHAT THE F$CK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
You are truly freaking me out!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 03-02-2004 12:34 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 03-02-2004 2:52 PM MisterOpus1 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