Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

To me this bill simply gives more power to the local policy makers, the local school boards and educators, instead of a large central government meddling with every facet of everyone lives down to elementary school education, and as a small government conservative, I really do not see the issue.

But this has nothing to do with the federal government meddling, that doesn't remotely come into it. What are you talking about?

The question would be, can a sufficiently local government trample on the constitution? If you live in a small enough, white enough, Christian enough town, can the mayor suspend the First Amendment? The Fifth? The Fourth? The Thirteenth?

It could mean that people in Vienna, MO may, but then Vienna is 99% white, and 80% baptist (normal, Southern, and landmark), and if they want to be ignorant they are going to be ignorant, but trying to control them is not the way to go about it. the slippery slope mindset that schools all across Missouri are going to teach creationism is what is silly to me ...

Well no-one said that.

If you passed a bill making murder legal, then I guess most people wouldn't murder most other people. So no "slippery slope" there. On the other hand, the murder rate might go up ...

this is a bill for rural people in poor tiny communities, who want to govern themselves, and set their own curriculum.

Well, there is a point beyond which they can't, just as "rural people in poor tiny communities" can't bring back slavery. They're part of the union, they should deal with that.

AE writes: Creationists may be against evolution but that doesn’t make them anti-science, I am surprised you do not understand the difference.

Not true. Evolution is good science. There is no valid objection to it or the methodology that informs us of it. It also has the virtue of being true. Opposing the truth is innately anti-science. Even if this were not the case, creationists would not be the people to challenge, given their unbreakable addiction to being wrong.

GM writes: If you think a coot looks like a duck...

AE writes: I don’t,

Which is why you said it did. Uh-huh.

though you shouldn’t preach the US constitution if you aint one of us, and aint here

So once again, when you have thoroughly lost the argument, you resort to whining that the nasty foreigners are sticking our noses in. Tough. And as far as the constitution is concerned, I guess I'll stop having to explain it to you when you stop pretending that it doesn't exist.

This is a free forum and I'll share whatever opinions I please.

In the mean time, you're still unable to name any secular purpose for this bill aren't you? You can't think of a single reason for the bill to exist. You're doing a pretty shitty job of defending this swill.

Mutate and Survive

Artemis Entreri writes: I don’t, though you shouldn’t preach the US constitution if you aint one of us, and aint here

You mean no preachification without representation? Just shoot when you see the whites of our typing.

Paul Revere writes: Just like I don’t tell you how to be a subject of your Queen, I won’t hear anything from you people about our constitution. Mind your own business.

Actually, we're thinking of giving the Queen to the people of Missouri. It seems pointless to have a Christian theocratic leadership in a non-Christian country when a place like MO would really appreciate the unification of church and state under a protestant monarch.

Mind you, we want Ann Coulter in return, so we can torture her in the Tower.

Artemis Entreri writes: I agree with you. This bill will probably have to be revised with some of the wordage changed a bit, really it doesn't accomplish anything, nor do I think it would affect much of anything.

If the wording of the bill were changed to provide examples of actual scientific controversies instead of citing the old creationist bugaboos of evolution and a natural origin of life, and to remove the dead giveaway of claiming not to be religiously motivated, then it might be able to pass constitutional muster.

the slippery slope mindset that schools all across Missouri are going to teach creationism is what is silly to me, that the application of this bill is some vast conspiracy to deny people their constitutional rights is even sillier.

I don't know if I'd characterize creationist efforts against evolution as a "vast conspiracy", but it does have a long history. Government advancement of the cause of any religion at any governmental level is unconstitutional, so if the bill does somehow pass it will quickly be challenged. Defending such efforts in court is very expensive for the losing side, but this hasn't seemed to diminish Christian enthusiasm.

--Percy

I think it is obviously a bill by creationists, but not really a bill to teach religion in science class.

Why do you think that? Its so obvious to me that it is...

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

coyote writes: Sometimes generalizations are accurate.

Rarely, and this probably isn’t the rare case.

Just look at the absolute nonsense on the creationist websites and try to tell me they support science.

That is not necessary, I work with a good number of them, I can just ask them in person rather than read some website. And since we do science here at work, I guess I have IRL examples of creationists supporting and working in science.

All too easy.

Look at the Wedge document from the Dishonesty Institute. One of it's statements is, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." I can only interpret that as forcing the removal of the scientific and naturalistic approach used by science and replacing it with a theistic approach. ("You vill do science our way and you vill like it! Das is alles! Hallelujah!")

There you go generalizing again.
::shrugs shoulders::

And they figure they can get away with it through peer pressure from the community on teachers. I suspect that any teacher who teaches science as opposed to belief wouldn't last long. And I suspect that is the main intent of this bill.

I answered how I felt about this bill and how it would apply in my response to percy in post#215; this bill will not have a state wide effect, and believe me nobody wants a teaching job in Maries County, that doesn’t already agree with this bill.

I don't know if I'd characterize creationist efforts against evolution as a "vast conspiracy", but it does have a long history. Government advancement of the cause of any religion at any governmental level is unconstitutional, so if the bill does somehow pass it will quickly be challenged. Defending such efforts in court is very expensive for the losing side, but this hasn't seemed to diminish Christian enthusiasm. --Percy

yeah yeah yeah. That is what the "they" said about Missouri's anti-gay marriage amendment, and here we are 8 years later and guess what that amendment is still there.

I guess we will see who is correct if this passes.

it is not stated anywhere in the bill.

Dr Adequate writes: What are you talking about?

Why some non voter in Nevada gives a shit what people do in elementary schools in Missouri.

If you live in a small enough, white enough, Christian enough town, can the mayor suspend the First Amendment? The Fifth? The Fourth? The Thirteenth?

If the whole community agrees, why not?

Well, there is a point beyond which they can't, just as "rural people in poor tiny communities" can't bring back slavery. They're part of the union, they should deal with that.

Poor rural people in tiny communities never participated in slavery to begin with, WTF are you talking about? Only rich people could own other people.

Hi Bluejay,

Is it your position that all discoveries that build on previous discoveries count as "doing what has already been done"? So, for example, once we've sequenced the genome of one species, sequencing the genomes of other species would just be redundant? After all, who needs a wasp genome when we've already got a fly genome?

1. Not all but most.
2. No
3. We should sequence everything eventually.

Is this really comparable, in your mind, to giving relatively untrained school teachers the prerogative to scrutinize what has already been scrutinized by multiple generations of better-trained scientists?

I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the “better” studied, “better” trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.

Trixie writes: There isn't really an appropriate response to this boorishness. However I will not be butting out of this thread, since as a scientist I have every right to comment on attacks on science wherever they occur.

I don’t give a shit what you do, but I won’t respond to you or your opinions on MY constitution.

it is not stated anywhere in the bill.

Yeah, not explicitly. But it be really stupid to explicitly state in a bill that you're trying to push religion into the science classroom. The bill certainly implies that that's what there trying to do - there is no scientific controversy about evolution... what the fuck are they even talking about?

I guess you'd have to know more about the DI and how they operate to be able to see this for what it is. You're not gonna get it explicitly from the text in the bill, itself.

Why some non voter in Nevada gives a shit what people do in elementary schools in Missouri.

Although I am a non-voter in Nevada, I am not the federal government.

If the whole community agrees, why not?

Because of the constitution.

Poor rural people in tiny communities never participated in slavery to begin with, WTF are you talking about? Only rich people could own other people.

How low does your head have to be to have a point that obvious sail over it?

I never said that "poor rural people in tiny communities" owned slaves. I said that their poorness, their rurality, and the size of their communities wouldn't protect them from the Constitution if they wanted to make slavery legal. And I am right.

Just look at the absolute nonsense on the creationist websites and try to tell me they support science. That is not necessary, I work with a good number of them, I can just ask them in person rather than read some website. And since we do science here at work, I guess I have IRL examples of creationists supporting and working in science.

I contend that creationist websites are anti-science and can provide some good examples. You seem to disagree somehow.

This is not the proper thread for such a discussion--do you want to start a new one or shall I?

quote:

---

I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the “better” studied, “better” trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.

---

This is the crux of the problem.

What is it about people that they think that they can just 'pick up' enough information through the ether to challenge people who have devoted their lives to specialise in a field? It is exactly this type of delusion that sees engineers argue that biologists are wrong about biology.

I can happily accept that any individual can be wrong about any individual point. What I can't accept is that some amateur is right when they attempt to shout louder than the entire scientific community and then whine when people don't agree.

AE, making up your own mind is important. I agree fully. The delusion that you have the necessary background knowledge to fully understand all of the concepts without relevant education as well as the ability to magically find all of the relevant data on the internet is magnificent in its hubris. Especially if you have never contributed any relevant, original work yourself.

There's no doubt about what this bill is attempting to do.

1. Get religion, ID and creationism into science classes
2. Avoid overtly breaching the Constitution by careful wording.

Do they really think that they're fooling anyone? I suppose that the only reason they keep trying this is because they believe that their version of God is above the Constitution and/or the Constitution isn't worth jack.