Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

Yet again an attempt is being made to legislate for the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. This Bill is the fifth bill of 2012, yep the fifth, to challenge teaching of evolutution.

http://ncse.com/...second-antievolution-bill-missouri-007097

Having read the Bill (it's not long) it's just a rehash of Dover with the usual confusion over law, theory and hypothesis in science.

http://www.house.mo.gov/...bills121/biltxt/intro/HB1276I.htm

At this rate of around one Bill every 2 days, the legislature is going to be snowed under with this nonsense.

While it's relatively easy to pick this Bill apart, it's more difficult to understand why this continues to happen after the Dover trial, after all you'd think the ID crowd would want to hide their performance in court under a bushel.

I'd like this thread to discuss why the Dover trial hasn't put a stop to this nonsense and why anyone would think that children, just beginning their journey into science and it's methods, would possess the knowledge and critical thinking skills required to assess ID and evolution when supposedly educated adults are unable to, as is demonstrated in all it's awful clarity in the text of the Bill itself. It would also be of interest to determine if the ID crowd have made any advances which would render the Dover judgement outdated and wrong.

Education forum if promoted please.

Thread copied here from the Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012 thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Thing is this bill could be read as folows:

Student says evolution is bullshit inteligent design FTW. Teachers shows how wrong the student is , student turns Atheist.

HOUSE BILL NO. 1276 writes: ...endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum...

Is it possible to make a more vague statement??

It is as intentionally vague and meaningless as "Helps fight the appearance of wrinkles".

{abe}
One question I would have when considering passing this amendment: Why only teach the controversy of evolution?
If us flat-earthers don't get our fair share of the curriculum, then there will be trouble...

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Trixie writes: I'd like this thread to discuss why the Dover trial hasn't put a stop to this nonsense

The Dover trial was not about proving right or wrong - it was about winning or losing.
And just because IDists lost the battle doesn't mean that they think that they have lost the war.

Remember: they are knowingly trying to get christianity forced in to schools.
The judgement simply showed them that they need to try harder at hiding their true intent (and throw christian honesty to the wind.)

Did you really think that a single court judgement would dissuade the religious?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

One question I would have when considering passing this amendment: Why only teach the controversy of evolution? If us flat-earthers don't get our fair share of the curriculum, then there will be trouble

Really? You would have to consider that question?

Yes, that question, and many others, should be asked by legislators who oppose the bill in an attempt to get evidence on record for invalidating the bill in court.

There is a real possibility that this bill will be enacted, and that Missouri school boards will mandate the use of a textbook not markedly different in content from Of People and Pandas (with "cdesign" edits) as a supplementary text in all of its 9th grade biology classes.

Alternatively, the teacher might well be able to make off the cuff remarks like, "I ain't a child of no monkey" to introduce an ID discussion in rebuttal to the normal text book material on the theory of evolution.

And perhaps we should not count on the Supreme Court to put a stop to this. Among the more conservative Justices, only J. Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy have any kind of track record in establishment cases. Kennedy's track record on this clause is nunaced, Scalia's position on similar issues is reliably anti-scientific and Thomas (the anti-Marshall) has reliably agreed with Scalia in such cases. Alito and Brown are completely untested. I believe that only Ginsburg and Breyer among the less conservative Justices have a track record. Sotomayor and Kagan's positions are also untested.

These bills keep showing up because legislators keep pandering to ignorant and fundamentalist voters. Well, and to (mis?)quote Molly Ivins, "If the legislature weren't half idiots, they wouldn't be a representative body."

NN writes: Really? You would have to consider that question?

It was meant to point out the inconsistency and obvious religious bent of the changes being requested.

But I expect that since you live in America, these things are a far more immediate and visceral threat to you - so perhaps my humour was misplaced.

tbh: America (and the people in power) seem to be getting more religious and not less.
If I were you, I would have moved to Canada by now. (Not a joke.)

I'd like this thread to discuss why the Dover trial hasn't put a stop to this nonsense

I've got some ideas.

1. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a district court decision. It was not appealed. Accordingly, the binding legal scope of the decision is limited to the parties involved. If the case were to come before a different judge in the same district, the new judge would NOT be bound by the decision. In fact the same judge could decide differently the second time around. I believe that the ID folks made a strategic decision not to appeal a case where the facts were not on their side.

2. The Dover trial was fought and lost on two fronts. The first front dealt with the purpose of the legislation, and the principles created a pretty impressive trail of evidence that the purpose was religious. Secondly, ID itself was found to be a religious teaching.

In this case, the legislation makes no mention of ID, and the legislation contains words purporting to establish that the law is non-religious. Time for another spin.

3. Creationists cannot give up. Being a creationist means that you have a God given responsibility to evangelize and proselytize.

I think we could sight far better legal precedent than the Dover case. If adding warning labels to biology text books regarding evolution is unconstitutional, then having a teacher serve that function is probably not kosher either. But there are some problems with using Selman v. Cobb County School District as precedent as well.

But I expect that since you live in America, these things are a far more immediate and visceral threat to you - so perhaps my humour was misplaced.

Not misplaced. I completely missed the joke. And now that I don't have any children who have yet to complete the ninth grade, it really isn't of any immediate threat to me.

From the text of the bill:

endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution

endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies.

Toward this end teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

Given this text, it is up to the teacher. A fundie science teacher (a contradiction in terms) could create all sorts of mischief.

A real science teacher could demolish creationism even more effectively.

Looks like they are counting on the former, not the latter.

While it's relatively easy to pick this Bill apart, it's more difficult to understand why this continues to happen after the Dover trial, after all you'd think the ID crowd would want to hide their performance in court under a bushel.

After the Dover trial the ID movement has changed their language. They want teachers to "teach the controversy" and/or "teach students about the weaknesses of evolution". They are once again pushing a false dichotomy. For them, bringing down evolution is enough.

I wonder what would happen if a science teacher did introduce ID/creationism and then proceeded to tear it apart. If I were a high school science teacher I would be very, very tempted to do just that. I would making it glaringly obvious that the controversy only exists amongst the lay public, that amongst biologists there is no debate. I could go step by step and demonstrate to the students that ID is not science and that evolution is. I could spend several weeks just on this subject.

I wonder how long I would keep my job?

I wonder how long I would keep my job?

In some school systems, an organized group of a few parents can put enormous pressure on a school principal. I've seen my wife organize parents to do that very thing (not related to this subject area).

If your teaching did aggressively target creationism, such that it at least arguably infringed the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment, you might well lose your job.

If your teaching did aggressively target creationism, such that it at least arguably infringed the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment, you might well lose your job.

Then I would only attack ID which is stated to be non-religious. It would be pretty funny if a pro-ID group sued on the grounds that attacking ID infringed on free exersize.

Then I would only attack ID which is stated to be non-religious. It would be pretty funny if a pro-ID group sued on the grounds that attacking ID infringed on free exersize

It would be an inconsistent position, but there might be some room to do so if you weren't pretty careful about your attack. The truth of the matter is that ID is a thin veil over creationism.

Another thing to consider is that IDers wouldn't have to sue you to get rid of you. You might be in the position of suing the district in order to get your job back.

The real obstacle to passing these kinds of bills is that implementing them has the potential to expose the school systems to very expensive legislation. Even if a biology teacher loses a lawsuit, the teacher is not going to have to pay damages or the school district's legal fees, while the school system faces the risk of having to do both.