Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 151 of 283 (649496)
01-23-2012 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Taq
01-23-2012 5:19 PM


Re: ID research papers and imaginary targets.
Taq writes:
Besides, everyone already knows that E. coli are the supreme beings. Just look at how the universe had to be fine tuned just for them. It required a universe with specific laws that could give rise to perfectly adapted host organisms like H. sapiens. Without the specific features of the H. sapiens gastrointestinal tract the E. coli species could not exist. I think this is very obvious evidence that H. sapiens were designed just for E. coli.
Of course, if both life itself and any complex features that have arrived in the course of its history require the intervention of the Designer, the physics of the universe must have been rather clumsily fine tuned initially to make it sterile.
Such metaphysical ramblings are off topic here, unfortunately. On Behe and his sharpshooting problems, I can remember trying to explain them at length to a creationist on this thread over two years ago.
Message 1
Adequate revived the thread the other day with this very good post on the consequences of and contradictions in some of Behe's ideas. Message 149
It occurred to me when I first heard Behe's ideas described many years ago that he would have as many theological problems as he would have scientific ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 01-23-2012 5:19 PM Taq has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 152 of 283 (649615)
01-24-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Coyote
01-23-2012 1:00 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Another Discovery Institute Bill Fails...
You don't think the Discovery Institute is actually promoting science, do you?
no.
though the academic freedom link did not sound that bad. the model bill definitely did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Coyote, posted 01-23-2012 1:00 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 153 of 283 (649617)
01-24-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Granny Magda
01-23-2012 1:25 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Hi GM,
The problem is that the wording of the bill lends itself to abuse by the creationist/ID lobby. Given the history of creationist attempts to get their nonsense taught in science class, it's hard to interpret this as an honest attempt to teach kids about the scientific method.
so.
For example, the bill mentions "scientific controversies". But what does it choose as an example of such a controversy? Evolution. In fact that is the only example, despite the fact that there is no appreciable scientific controversy over evolution, only a public and religious controversy. Amongst actual biologists, the ToE is simply the standard model. They could have chosen another example if they were genuinely interested in teaching kids about the scientific method.
It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours.
No mention of any other controversy. They are only interested in evolution. Clearly, this is a coded way of saying that teachers should be allowed to blast evolution in the classroom and teach creationist/ID material. They're only being cagey about the language because they know that they are on such thin legal ice.
maybe they don't have the time or the space to write down all the controversies, and just picked evolution due to its popularity, and how well known it is. Do you realize how you sound trying to convince me that this is some conspiracy theory?
This bill wouldn't be quite so suspicious if it weren't for the repeated attempts by US creationist to bypass the Establishment Clause and sneak religious dogma into schools.
I think you are being overtly suspicious, and a tad paranoid.
Mutate and Survive
Repent and be Saved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Granny Magda, posted 01-23-2012 1:25 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Omnivorous, posted 01-24-2012 4:04 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 01-24-2012 4:12 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 159 by Granny Magda, posted 01-24-2012 4:24 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2012 4:29 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 168 by Pressie, posted 01-25-2012 3:31 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 154 of 283 (649620)
01-24-2012 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 3:52 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Artemis Entreri writes:
I think you are being overtly suspicious, and a tad paranoid.
And you are being disingenuous.
Why bother with that? Why not debate straight up?
Proposed: Missouri has the right to keep their kids ignorant because Missouri folk mostly worship a long gone Jewish zombie--or for any other reason.
Abusing your kids' brains is an American right.
There. Everything is back on track.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:52 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 4:17 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 155 of 283 (649623)
01-24-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 3:52 PM


Re: SHOW ME
It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours.
Violation of an American's constitutional rights is my business as an American citizen.
maybe they don't have the time or the space to write down all the controversies, and just picked evolution due to its popularity, and how well known it is.
There is no controversy where it concerns evolution and science. The theory is accepted by >99.9% of biologists. The only place where any controversy exists is in religious circles.
I think you are being overtly suspicious, and a tad paranoid.
We are working from precedent, starting with the Scopes trial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:52 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 4:19 PM Taq has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 156 of 283 (649624)
01-24-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:20 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
no court case was needed there was this thing called evidence ALL OVER the place, that lead people from many different fields of study to similar and even the same conclusions.
if ID had any of that one stuff what did i call it...oh yeah evidence, then we would not have a debate here. ID does have some evidence, evidence that it is some BS made up by the same people who have 5 baptists churches in my town, yes the same people who can't even agree enough about God to have one church!!! and they want me to buy into this ID!?! no thanks, I'll take the strongly supported stuff instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:20 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 01-24-2012 4:27 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 157 of 283 (649625)
01-24-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Omnivorous
01-24-2012 4:04 PM


Re: SHOW ME
LOL
everything you just typed in response to me was disingenuous, and you want to call me names.
::Rolls Eyes::the joke that this place is...LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Omnivorous, posted 01-24-2012 4:04 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Omnivorous, posted 01-24-2012 4:32 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 158 of 283 (649626)
01-24-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Taq
01-24-2012 4:12 PM


Re: SHOW ME
Violation of an American's constitutional rights is my business as an American citizen.
SHOW ME
We are working from precedent, starting with the Scopes trial.
oh I wasn't aware that took place in Missouri?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Taq, posted 01-24-2012 4:12 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 01-24-2012 4:30 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 159 of 283 (649629)
01-24-2012 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 3:52 PM


Re: SHOW ME
so.
Is that a question or a statement?
If you meant to ask "So what?", then I think that it should be self-explanatory; I don't think that nonsense should be taught in science classes.
It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours.
I know you like to talk about state rights and such, but that is not the topic here. Please let's not get dragged off onto a side issue. Until such time as the US abandons its constitution, Missouri is still bound by the Establishment Clause.
maybe they don't have the time or the space to write down all the controversies, and just picked evolution due to its popularity, and how well known it is. Do you realize how you sound trying to convince me that this is some conspiracy theory?
It's not a conspiracy, just a simple lie. Are you seriously going to argue that creationists don't try to get shit in under the radar? Really? The whole history of "creation science" has been one attempt after another to relabel their dross and avoid the Establishment Clause.
Just read the link that Trixie provided at the start of the thread;
quote:
In the present legislative session, Brattin, Davis, Koenig, Allen, and Pollock are also among the sponsors of HB 1227, which if enacted would require "the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design" in both public elementary and secondary schools and introductory science courses in public institutions of higher education in Missouri.
The bill's originator and four of its cosponsors all took part in a completely separate bill that also took aim squarely at evolution. Do you think that is a co-incidence? That they just pulled it out of a hat? I find it hard to believe that you are that naive.
I particularly like the idea that they didn't have the space! What, is the Missouri legislature run on Twitter or something?
I think you are being overtly suspicious, and a tad paranoid.
No. If you genuinely believe that the idea of creationists trying to attack science education is far fetched, you haven't been paying attention. At least, if I am deluded, the judge at Kitzmiller vs Dover shared my delusion.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:52 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:13 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 160 of 283 (649631)
01-24-2012 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 4:15 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
no court case was needed there was this thing called evidence ALL OVER the place, that lead people from many different fields of study to similar and even the same conclusions.
This is why >99.9% of biologists accept the theory of evolution. It is not a controversial theory. It is the foundational theory of modern biological research.
if ID had any of that one stuff what did i call it...oh yeah evidence, then we would not have a debate here.
If ID supporters were arguing from evidence instead of religious dogma then there would be no debate since they would have no argument. If ID supporters had evidence they would be publishing ID research papers. They are not. If ID supporters had evidence they could show us the research they are doing based on ID. They are not.
The debate over ID is really about a larger debate, that between secular and religious influence on society. Some people see science as a secular tool for inserting secularism into society. They see it as a threat. It doesn't take long before an ID supporter starts using phrases like "scientific materialism" or the "evils of naturalistic this-or-that". This same language is littered throughout the Wedge Strategy, the internal memo from the Discovery Institute.
IOW, the real controversy is about society's movement away from religion and towards a more secular worldview.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 4:15 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 161 of 283 (649632)
01-24-2012 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 3:52 PM


Re: SHOW ME
maybe they don't have the time or the space to write down all the controversies, and just picked evolution due to its popularity, and how well known it is.
That's retarded.
Didn't you see the model bill this was written after? Don't you realize the DI wants to spread creationism? That they do that by opposing evolution?
This is obviously a pro-creationism-in-science class bill. Its shit.
It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours.
What does that have to do with this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 3:52 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 01-24-2012 7:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 173 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 3:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 162 of 283 (649633)
01-24-2012 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 4:19 PM


Re: SHOW ME
SHOW ME
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia
The more recent decision in the Dover case clearly indicated that teaching of ID in public science classrooms violates the Lemon test as spelled out in Lemon v. Kurtzman. It is a violation of the Establishment clause as found in the US Constitution. You can not use religious motivations to screw around with science education in public schools. It's a big no-no.
oh I wasn't aware that took place in Missouri?
You are aware that it took place in the United States.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 4:19 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(2)
Message 163 of 283 (649635)
01-24-2012 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Artemis Entreri
01-24-2012 4:17 PM


Re: SHOW ME
AE writes:
everything you just typed in response to me was disingenuous, and you want to call me names.
No, it was all perfectly ingenuous.
It just sounded that way to you because you're a __________.
P.S. A free tip from your Uncle Omni: posts that start and stop with "LOL" make you sound like a 15-year-old ____________..\
AbE: What names?
Edited by Omnivorous, : Just curious.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-24-2012 4:17 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 2:41 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 164 of 283 (649638)
01-24-2012 4:46 PM


Other cases that are important for this discussion:
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982): Arkansas passed a bill calling for the equal treatment of evolution creation science. It was found to be unconstitutional.
"The application and content of First Amendment principles are not determined by public opinion polls or by a majority vote. Whether the proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority or the minority is quite irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others."
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987): Louisianna law forbids the teaching of evolution unless it is accompanied by equal time for creation science. Again, this is found to be unconstitutional.
"The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."
Edwards v. Aguillard
I could keep going, Artemis. Just tell me when to stop.

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-31-2012 2:43 PM Taq has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 165 of 283 (649647)
01-24-2012 5:37 PM


Rick Brattin is Obsurd
Representative Rick Brattin (R, natch) is cosponsor of Bill 1276 and was the sponsor of House Bill #1227. Now it's pretty easy but to see the stealth creationism at work in bill 1276, but honestly, there is nothing stealthy about 1227. It's a real doozy.
quote:
2. As used in this section, the following terms mean:
...
(2) "Biological evolution", a theory of the origin of life and its ascent by naturalistic means.
Um, no it's not. No matter how many times creationists insist that the ToE is a theory about the origins of life, it's not going to make it true.
quote:
Theory philosophically demands only naturalistic causes and denies the operation of any intelligence, supernatural event, God or theistic figure in the initial or subsequent development of life;
Nope. No more or less so than any other scientific theory operating under methodological naturalism. If an alternative theory were to include the action of a supernatural entity, then it wouldn't be science.
I wonder what such a theory might look like...
quote:
3) "Biological intelligent design", a hypothesis that the complex form and function observed in biological structures are the result of intelligence and, by inference, that the origin of biological life and the diversity of all original species on earth are the result of intelligence.
Forget I asked.
My favourite bit of this bill;
quote:
(4) "Destiny", the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race and which may be founded upon faith-based philosophical beliefs;
You know that you're dealing with quality legislation when a bill feels the need to define destiny.
Does anyone still want to deny that Rick Brattin wants to teach ID in science classes?
quote:
If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught.
Ooh! I can think of one!
There's little doubt at this point that Brattin is a creationist vandal out to screw with the science curriculum.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that if you don't believe that Brattin and the other sponsors of these crazy bills are creationists, you're being obsurd.
Via Hemant Mehta AKA the Friendly Atheist
Mutate and Survive

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by NoNukes, posted 01-24-2012 6:27 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but 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