Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

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.

I don't think that track record can be used in deciding upon allowing him to propose future bills. It may be used by the constituency if they want to vote for someone else, but I think that each bill has to be "looked" at in an objective light, and if it is determined that he is still being the same old toolbox well then you dismiss it.

If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck ...

it could still be a coot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN4d8KMIwJI

(which is in the Rallidae family and not the Anatidae family that ucks are)

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.

Are you pulling our leg? Haven't we gone into depth about the previous bills brought forward by these same people? Religious intent has already been proven.

I don't think that track record can be used in deciding upon allowing him to propose future bills. It may be used by the constituency if they want to vote for someone else, but I think that each bill has to be "looked" at in an objective light ...

That's objective. He is objectively a creationist jerk.

it could still be a coot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN4d8KMIwJI (which is in the Rallidae family and not the Anatidae family that ucks are)

Coots don't quack like ducks.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

taq writes: Is that what elementary teachers are going to do, review data from scientific papers with their students? Really?

No, of course not. That is why this whole thing is pointless, which leads me to think that it is authoritarians trying to control the people of Missouri, anyone with half a thought can see that elementary teachers won’t be doing any of that.

taq writes: Reviewing scientific data is done by scientists.

What is a scientist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

quote:

---

A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.

---

Is there some sort of degree or certification one needs, like a license or ID that qualifies them as a “scientist”.

It is the Dover case all over again. Need I cite that decision again?

No I read it last time, and it must be written in two different languages with the same script because I don’t read what you read, but posting it again will probably not change this.

Dr Adequate writes: 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.

The bill doesn’t state that, you are reading into it too much.

taq writes: By teachers repeating lies and propoganda fed to them by the Discovery Institute? Or by scientists doing scientific research?

Can a teacher be a scientist or are they mutually exclusive?
Can Catholic Scientist be catholic and a scientist?

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.

I don’t see it. I guess you didn’t show me.

taq writes: 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?

If the scientists are correct in their observations then having teachers “go over the evidence” another time would further prove the theory. That is of course if the observable data leads them to the same observation as the scientists. I would think that proponents of science would want their work to be reviewed.
I think that the majority if science is “doing what has already been done,” and it is not harmful, unconstitutional or religious in nature.

Yeah sure, science in itself, has to be constantly questioned and observed. I see no problem with a bill that wants to objectively question.

Well this patently isn't that. They aren't interested in teaching the niceties of the scientific method, nor would such material be useful in elementary schools. Or do you propose that six-year-olds are taught the Kuhnian paradigm model or some such?

For this bill to pass it needs a secular purpose. Without such an educational purpose, it can't be legal. This bill is aimed squarely at evolution, not the teaching of the scientific method.

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.

I am only suggesting that the US constitution be applied in US schools. And an hour ago you didn't know what the DI was, so I hardly think your opinion counts for much.

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.

No, again, the US constitution tells them how to run their schools.

You are funny.

Well at least that makes one of us.

Granny Magda writes: Meanwhile, this bill is being proposed in reality, where the constitution prevents the establishment of religion in public science classes.

Artemis Entreri writes: Show Me.

The Establishment Clause, as you're well aware. The bill exists solely for the purpose of providing an excuse for those who wish to teach ID creationism in public schools. if it has some other, legitimate purpose, tell us what it is.

where in this bill is religion being proposed to be taught in public science class? oh yeah, it is not.

In the pretence that there exist legitimate controversies in evolutionary science. There aren't, at least not at a level that would be comprehensible to elementary schoolers. Anyway, it's the religious intent that matters here, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Look, this is a waste of time unless you can find some genuine secular purpose for this legislation. If you can't think of a single legitimate scientific controversy that this bill might reasonably promote, you have no case.

Mutate and Survive

No, of course not. That is why this whole thing is pointless, which leads me to think that it is authoritarians trying to control the people of Missouri, anyone with half a thought can see that elementary teachers won’t be doing any of that.

However, what teachers can do, if they are incompetent, is recite halfwitted creationist lies. But "anyone with half a thought" can, as you admit, see that the creationist cover story is a load of bollocks. Did you forget what you were trying to argue for? Go back and try again.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

it could still be a coot

If you think a coot looks like a duck then you shouldn't be teaching science to kids.

Mutate and Survive

The bill doesn’t state that, you are reading into it too much.

The act of killing someone by hitting them in the head with a blunt instrument doesn't state whether it's murder, manslaughter, or a legitimate act of self-defense. This is why we try to find out what the actual motives were with reference to things other than the mere fact of the blow to the head.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I am only suggesting that the US constitution be applied in US schools. And an hour ago you didn't know what the DI was, so I hardly think your opinion counts for much.

I didn’t know what the acronym DI was. Man you sure like to straw man what I say.
Here is a google of DI: https://www.google.com/search?q=DI&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a (I listen to a lot of trance at di.fm, but knew that wasn’t it)
Here is a wiki of DI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DI

Personally All I could think of was DynCorp Interternational

Look, this is a waste of time unless you can find some genuine secular purpose for this legislation. If you can't think of a single legitimate scientific controversy that this bill might reasonably promote, you have no case.

I have called this a waste of time for a minute now. If you can’t show me where in this bill there is a motion to teach religion in science then guess what you have no case either, buddy.

I have called this a waste of time for a minute now. If you can’t show me where in this bill there is a motion to teach religion in science then guess what you have no case either, buddy.

See my previous posts.

Personally All I could think of was DynCorp Interternational

If you knew what you were talking about on this topic, it would have been obvious from the context.

I have called this a waste of time for a minute now.

And that appears to be the best defence that you can mount for it. Colour me unimpressed.

If you can’t show me where in this bill there is a motion to teach religion in science then guess what you have no case either, buddy.

I have already shown you. the lie that there exist legitimate controversies in biology that might be taught to six-year-olds. that is a standard lie from the Big Book of Creationist Porkies. The legislators in this case have repeatedly backed ID and ID has been found by US courts to be religiously inspired.

That's how things stand until the bill's backers can show a reasonable secular purpose for it. So far, the best you've done is to say that it's a waste of time.

Mutate and Survive

No, of course not. That is why this whole thing is pointless, which leads me to think that it is authoritarians trying to control the people of Missouri, anyone with half a thought can see that elementary teachers won’t be doing any of that.

Of course not. This all belies the true intent of the bill.

What is a scientist?

A person who does scientific research.

Is there some sort of degree or certification one needs, like a license or ID that qualifies them as a “scientist”.

Are elementary students doing scientific research on evolution? Or are they being taught the basics so that they have the foundational knowledge needed to do research later in their life?

No I read it last time, and it must be written in two different languages with the same script because I don’t read what you read, but posting it again will probably not change this.

It spells out why the intent of the Dover school board caused the school policy to fail the Lemon test, the same test that this bill is going to fail badly.

The bill doesn’t state that, you are reading into it too much.

You only need to read its antecessors to know this. The intent of this bill is to allow the teaching of creationist objections to evolution. That was always the intent. The intent was never to improve the students' understanding of evolution.

Can a teacher be a scientist or are they mutually exclusive?

How many elementary school teachers do you know that are actively doing biomedical research on an NIH grant?

I don’t see it. I guess you didn’t show me.

Lemon v. Kurtzman. It has been shown to you multiple times now.

If the scientists are correct in their observations then having teachers “go over the evidence” another time would further prove the theory.

Which is exactly what the current science standards call for. So why the need for this bill?

That is of course if the observable data leads them to the same observation as the scientists. I would think that proponents of science would want their work to be reviewed.

It has gone through review, 150 years of it. It has passed that review.

I think that the majority if science is “doing what has already been done,”

You would be very, very wrong. Only papers with original findings can be published in peer reviewed journals. The NIH and other grant funding organizations only fund grants that are looking for new discoveries.

I have called this a waste of time for a minute now.

It is obviously not a waste of time for those legislators. They see this as a chance to inject creationist objections to evolution into the public school science classroom. Everyone knows this. Their past attempts at similar bills proves it. There is no secular purpose in anywhere in the bill. This is so obvious that even you think it is a waste of time to even look for it.

Are you against an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?

And we're going to get that from creationists?

Creationists are anti-science. They have to be as science not only fails to confirm their beliefs, but flatly contradicts many of them.

Rather than change their beliefs, creationists are out to cripple those parts of science they disagree with and to "wedge" their beliefs back into the school systems by increasingly dishonest means.

And you think they are going to provide "an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?" What a laugh!

Artemis Entreri writes: If the scientists are correct in their observations then having teachers “go over the evidence” another time would further prove the theory. That is of course if the observable data leads them to the same observation as the scientists. I would think that proponents of science would want their work to be reviewed.

This reminded me of an absurd signature by one of our members here which made me laugh when I saw it.

Rhain writes: Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

And therein lies the problem. Kids will never learn critical thinking skills if they are presented with information way over their heads. Heck, if you look at the bastardised version of the ToE which ID supporters and YECs are busily refuting, you'll realise that many educated adults don't understand either what the ToE actually states or what information it is based on.

This bill proposes that kids be taught the strengths and weaknesses of biological and chemical evolution. Why just those two? Why not the strengths and weaknesses of atomic theory or thermodynamics?

I'm also very interested in hearing what the weaknesses of biological evolution actually are. The bill would allow a YEC teacher to state that one of the weaknesses in the ToE is that it would take much longer than the 6000 years that the earth had existed for (please bear in mind this isn't my position!). Is this truly a weakness or is this a weakness based on a religious view? I think it's obvious that it's based on a particular religious view.

As soon as religion comes into the equation, so does the US Constitution which prohibits its teaching in public schools, no matter what the state legislation says. Why should Missouri be exempt from sticking to the Constitution?

I'm not trying to tell Missouri what they can and can't teach, I'm pointing out that it's the US Constitution that tells them what they can and can't teach. If they don't want to be governed by the Constitution I suppose they could always make enquiries about leaving the Union, but if they want to be a part of the Union, they have to accept the rules of the Union. They don't get to pick and choose which bits they'll comply with and which bits they'll ignore.