Missouri's ID and Anti-Science Bill

I have provided a link to the proposed legislation below:http://www.house.mo.gov/...bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0291I.htmAmong other things, this bill requires that if biological evolution is taught, equal time and equal textbook pages be provided for intelligent design.From the bill.

quote:

---

(c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught;

---

Here are a few paragraphs that caught my eye. I am sure I haven't identified everything of note:From the definition section, a redefinition of the term scientific theory:

quote:

---

Scientific theory", an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy. The inferred explanation may be proven, mostly proven, partially proven, unproven or false and may be based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate. The inferred explanation may be described as a scientific theoretical model;

---

Hypothesis is redefined to something unrecognizable and cheesy:

quote:

---

(7) "Hypothesis", a scientific theory reflecting a minority of scientific opinion which may lack acceptance because it is a new idea, contains faulty logic, lacks supporting data, has significant amounts of conflicting data, or is philosophically unpopular. One person may develop and propose a hypothesis;

---

And apparently textbooks can no longer refer to Newton's law of gravitation after this re-definition of scientific law. This bill is not simply pro-nonsense. The provisions identified above are actively anti-science.

Can you imagine the shock that children educated under this law will experience, if they pursue an education in science when they get to college?And what would even be written in the "biological intelligent design" section of a textboook?

Suddenly the Constitution is not so important.

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

---

Here is an exercise to try. Point to a paragraph in the bill that on its face requires a teacher to violate the Establishment Clause. I don't believe that the exercise is easily done.

I would expect the law to discourage children from attempting such an endeavor. I'm sure the Discovery Institute can come up with something.

I think I didn't make my point clearly.Although my reply was to you, I was referring to the gun advocates that loudly decry anyone introducing gun laws because they affect the 2nd amendment - while supporting laws that affect the 1st.

What a crock.The religious zealots just keep trying, don't they?They think they can get away with legislating their beliefs using the power of the state.Sorry guys--the Enlightenment means we don't have to kowtow to your religious beliefs or anyone else's.(Except maybe the Muslims--they'll cut your head off if you don't watch out!)

Equal time? That's so 1980s. McLean v. Arkansas, anyone?But I guess if creationists learned from their failures, they'd stop being creationists.

Of course, this immediately puts you in the right state of mind to appreciate their logic.

I do not find one that "requires" the teaching, however, I do not think one is necessary.

quote:

---

(c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught;

---

In Kitzmiller Judge Jones ruled that intelligent design is not science.

quote:

---

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents ... As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

---

This was a district court, not SCOTUS, but the precedent has been set in a federal court. Though it is not mandatory to the other district courts an argument can be strongly made that the precedent exists and should be followed. Most courts will following precedent even from another district unless they have compelling reason to not do so.I think a challenge in the 8th District using a precedent from the 3rd would succeed.But, then, maybe not.

That's true. However, that conclusion won't carry on to every new litigation. Also, the most important conclusion was not that ID isn't science, but the closely related conclusion that the sole reason for including the non-science was religious.The intelligent design in this particular case is not quite the same as that presented in the Dover case. Also, the judge in the Dover case relied in part on material outside of the legislation itself, like the text changes in "People and Pandas", goofy statements from local parties that gave the game away, testimony from Behe, and catching the defense side in lie after lie about substantial, relevant issues. I wouldn't rely heavily on that. Of course the decision is precedent, but only persuasive precedent.A district court decision is only truly binding on the parties in front of the judge in a particular case. The opinion is not binding on other judges in the same district, let alone other districts. In fact, the opinion is not binding on the same judge in a new case.By comparison, district courts are bound to follow decisions of panels of the courts of appeals for their districts. The defendants in Dover bailed on the case before they got an appellate spanking.I would expect that many district court judges in, say the Fourth, or Fifth circuits would have no problem disagreeing with the Dover judge. They could easily distinguish the cases if they felt a need to bother, or they could simply have a view of the Establishment clause that matches Justice Scalia's.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, surely we should expect that they will keep trying, and I would say that they are learning from their losses.McLean v. Arkansas was about equal time for evolution and creationism. This bill is something a bit different.Quite frankly, even if this bill were equal time for another scientifically accepted alternative to the theory of evolution, it's denigration of science would still make the legislation completely unacceptable. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't think this bill is unconstitutional precisely because it is not introducing religion into the classroom. Let's take a look at how they define "biological intelligent design": Clearly, the bill is not identifying the designer(s), and so one cannot really say that the bill will introduce religion into the science class.My objection to the bill is not on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. The problems with the bill, as I see it, are as follows:1) Intelligent design has not been established as a rigorous biological hypothesis. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is well established by current observations. There is no particular reason why we should devote "equal time" to an idea in its infancy and a well-validated scientific theory. Until intelligent design as a scientific hypothesis has been developed to a high degree, and only then, should we consider introducing it into the science curriculum of public education.2) As has been pointed out, they make several redefinition of terms (e.g., redefining hypothesis and theory). Pointless and nonsensical.3) The bill makes quite a number of spurious arguments (e.g., they argue that there is a lack of transitional fossils). The bill proposes that species were designed directly by an intelligence. This clearly flies in the face of current scientific evidence.Incidentally, yesterday (Feb. 12) was Charles Darwin's birthday. Unfortunately, no one made a thread about this, but anyways, a belated happy birthday to Charles Darwin, who forever changed our understanding of the world we live in. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

But we all know who they mean by "designer". The only reason that ID is being included is religious belief. That's it. There is no secular purpose for including ID in the science curricula, only a religious one. This bill clearly fails the Lemon test for lacking a secular purpose and unnecessarily entangling government in religious issues:Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

Let's accept for the purpose of this discussion that 'biological intelligent design' does not introduce any deities or religion. There are still some problems with the bill. For example, where do those bogus definitions of science come from? Isn't it simply one group's religious views that empirical science is actually faith-based?What about this statement:

quote:

---

Empirical data is not speculative, theoretical, hypothetical, inferred, or extrapolated and of which conjecture;

---

Really? No inferences allowed in making scientific measurements? So can it be taught that the sun produces heat by solar fusion given that nobody has ever seen hydrogen atoms fuse into helium in the sun? Is there a way to determine the temperature of the sun's surface or the likely composition of Mercury's chore without making any infereneces? Do you believe that there is a non-secular purpose for this nonsense requirement?I would argue that the this requirement is intended solely to prevent evidence of evolution and cosmology to be presented, and that it serves no legitimate secular purpose.Or this:

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

---

Science denies the operation of God? Really? Is this a non-secular view point?

quote:

---

and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course

---

Not otherwise influence student belief? Would presenting science correctly and accurately not have the result of influencing student beliefs? This paragraph has no non-secular purpose and it goes far beyond what the Free Exercise Clause requires.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.