|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I think they are just being crafty to challenge evolution. Yes, and doing so for religious reasons. This is exactly what the Dover Board of Education was found guilty of in the Dover case where students' constitutional rights were violated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Are you against an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses? That is done by scientists, not teachers. That is done prior to science standards being written. This bill is an end-around the science standards that have gone through this review in order to allow teachers to say things about evolution that would never pass any objective review of the theory.
Wellmind your own business. Human rights are everyone's business.
That includes you telling my kin in Missouri how to run their state. Is there some force field in Missouri that keeps the US Constitution out?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
it doesn't matter what their reasoning is. Yes, it does. The Lemon test spells it out very clearly in the very first step: Legislation must have a secular purpose. There is no secular purpose for this bill. None. It is a religiously motivated bill that tries to hide behind academic freedom. They are trying to give teachers cover for telling lies about evolution. That is what it is. Again, I cite Judge Jones' decision from the Dover trial:
quote: Intent does matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I think it is obviously a bill by creationists, but not really a bill to teach religion in science class. It is a bill that provides cover for teachers to introduce religiously motivated arguments against evolution. The phrasing is taken straight from the Discovery Institute's own political strategies. There is zero secular purpose. None. The only purpose is to allow for the injection of religion into science classes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I guess objectively reviewing scientific data is now a religion. Is that what elementary teachers are going to do, review data from scientific papers with their students? Really? Reviewing scientific data is done by scientists. If a theory passes this review then it becomes the scientific consensus. Once it becomes the consensus only then is it considered by education boards as part of the science curricula. The objective review for evolution has already been done. The purpose of this bill is to allow for the injection of subjective and religiously motivated arguments against evolution. The previous actions on the part of the legislators makes this very, very clear. It is the Dover case all over again. Need I cite that decision again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Yeah sure, science in itself, has to be constantly questioned and observed. Questioned and observed in what manner? By teachers repeating lies and propoganda fed to them by the Discovery Institute? Or by scientists doing scientific research?
I am not telling the people of Missouri how to live or how to vote, or how to run their schools, but you are. 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.
Actually education is something that is up to the states.
The Constitutional rights of the students is not. That is a federal matter.
where in this bill is religion being proposed to be taught in public science class? Religion is the motivation which causes it to fail the Lemon Test. Do we need to go over that again? What is the secular purpose of the bill again? Objective scrutiny of theories is a process that is already built into science, and evolution has passed that scrutiny. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
ORLY? Here is one: Gene expression analysis of the ovary of hybrid females of Xenopus laevis and X. muelleri - PMC Takes previous work and builds on it. The "builds on it" is the original work. From the abstract: "We find a similar pattern of asymmetry in expression compared to males in that there were more genes differentially expressed between hybrids and X. muelleri compared to hybrids and X. laevis. We also found a dramatic increase in the number of misexpressed genes with hybrid females having about 20 times more genes misexpressed in ovaries compared to testes of hybrid males and therefore the match between phenotype and expression pattern is not supported." Those are original findings. That is new knowledge. It was not done by 3rd graders or a 3rd grade teacher. It was done by scientists. This work was also done within the frame work of the theory of evolution: "We discuss these intriguing findings in the context of reproductive isolation and suggest that divergence in female expression may be involved in sterility of hybrid males due to the inherent sensitivity of spermatogenesis as defined by the faster male evolution hypothesis for Haldane's rule." Students need to understand the theory of evolution in order to do research like this. They do NOT need to understand religious objections to the theory in order to do this research. Evolution is NOT a controversial theory in science being that it has already passed 150 years worth of objective scrutiny. So again, what is the secular purpose of this bill? Do we really need to rely on 3rd graders to test the theory of evolution for us? What work could 3rd graders possibly do that hasn't already been done? Why not teach them the truth, that the theory of evolution is one of the most well supported and useful theories in science?
Go figure, but hey I’m very very wrong according to your genius on this subject. The original work is in the abstract. It's not that hard to find. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out. ABE: Here is an excerpt from the methods section of the paper:
quote: Do you really think that 3rd graders are going to be doing gene expression assays like the one described above? Really? Just to make the other molecular biologist readers cringe, can you imagine the RNase contamination in a 3rd grade science class? Are 3rd graders going to run the sequence analysis to look for DNA divergence? How, exactly, is 3rd grade an appropriate place to decide whether a theory is supported or not, especially one that has already passed 150 years of testing by hundreds of thousands of qualified scientists? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
I agree with you, but this bill doesn’t say anything about that. That is the intent of the law, to allow teachers to teach their students about religious objections to evolution. It is the Dover case all over again. Did the Missouri legislators consult the top scientific coucils and foundations (e.g. NIH, NSF) and ask them if evolution was a controversial theory? Are the top scientific organizations calling for teachers to teach that evolution is false? What exactly is the reason for acting as if evolution is controversial? We all know the answer to that, and it has nothing to do with science. The same senators have pulled propoganda from the Discovery Institutes own pamphlets and tried to insert them into previous bills. The intent is clear, and there is nothing secular about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
If the public votes to let creationism be taught, it should be taught. This is America. That would require an ammendment to the Constitution. The public can vote to revoke the separate of church and state through the ammendment process. However, local state legislatures can not pass a bill that calls for the teaching of creationism since this violates the constitutional rights of the students. Federal law trumps state law on this one. But why would we want to do this? Why should students be taught about magical poofing in science class? Why should the government be in the evangelizing business?
Science has evidence for creationism too. I urge you to start a thread listing this evidence.
I know that if I got to decide what theories I was taught when I was a kid, I would have had no idea where to even start. Scientists do know where to start, and we should listen to them. What we should teach are the theories that scientists are USING, and who better to tell us what those theories are than the scientists themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Scientists do know where to start, and we should listen to them. What we should teach are the theories that scientists are USING, and who better to tell us what those theories are than the scientists themselves. =================== That remains your own philisophy. True enough. It is also a very good philosophy to follow for educating future scientists. Why teach future scientists theories that they will never use? Why not teach them the theories that they will need to use in order to do original research?
Unlike a religion, science should be questioned all the times as science is to confrim a truth while a religion is adocate a possible truth which inviting for a faith to believe. How can you question a theory if you don't know what it states? I fully agree that all theories should be challenged by real scientific research. Sadly, this is not what ID/creationists are doing. They are not doing any scientific research. All they are doing is spreading anti-science propoganda that has no basis in the scientific method.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024