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.

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.

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.

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.

Not just a skewed view. An unambiguously erroneous view that happens to match religious dogma. The errors serve no legitimate secular purpose. Surely you are not suggesting that the errors are inadvertent. That's right. The argument is unsound. The bill does not have a secular purpose. Of course the authors are going to make the argument. But the argument is a loser. Okay, not necessarily. But let's include it in the context of the rest of the bill.How do you justify the requirement that the teacher 'not otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity'. Tell me the secular purpose of that.

Yes it would affect the constitutionality. What the authors believe and/or intend would be evidence affecting at least two prongs the Lemon test. Not necessarily dispositive evidence. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The link in the OP worked when I clicked on it a few seconds ago. Your copy of the link does not work. Here is a link to Missouri's House of Representative page.The resource cannot be found. The bill was refered to a committe on 1/31/2013.

My initial reaction was to ignore most of this message, but I did want to respond to this: I think kofh2u is right about this. Apparently many teachers are ill equiped to teach evolution. According to the survey described in the article linked to below, the bulk of teachers don't want to get involved in the controversy of teaching evolution. A smaller group of about 13% chose to teach creationism.http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/01/110127141657.htm

The introduction of the definitions are an introduction of religion. It is not necessary to mention God to introduce religion. And the fact that the definitions are wrong means that they have no secular purpose that is not a sham. I don't care what the bill's author argues. A court doesn't have to accept those arguments just because they are put forth. Your claim is essentially that the definitions are secular but are researched so poorly that they match religious dogma. My point is that only a motivated reader would believe that. The argument would be a sham, and quite easy to see through. Further, it could only be achieved by limiting the teaching of science.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am sure that the author believes that lying to children and introducing religion is for the best. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Lot's of judges. Maybe some of those federal judges in the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi)How about Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore? Justice Moore was removed from office 10 years ago for disobeying a federal order to remove a Ten Commandments display from the state judicial building. He was recently re-elected to his old position.Of the five current conservative Supreme Justices, two Justices have no SC track record on the Establishment Clause, while two others have sharply criticized current jurisprudence as being unconstitutionally hostile to religion.Fortunately this bill is just a couple of creationists legislators playing to their districts. It's going nowhere.

IMO, the new definitions for hypothesis and theory have no purpose absent an attempt to label science as misplaced faith. So remove those or correct them. Let's not lie to high school students.And now the Intelligent design junk as outlined in the bill is no longer a hypothesis or a theory. So what's it doing in a science curriculum? Why can't we tell students that scientists think ID, like alchemy, is a bunch of hooey?I think the provision not survey or poll students on their religious beliefs is fine, but the 'not otherwise influence' does not pass muster. Simply teaching cosmology or biology will influence some students beliefs. Drop the requirement to not influence.Okay? What's left that anyone without a religious motive would want to include?I'm sure that I've failed to answer the question, which as I interpret it is "what is the most anti-science, creationist-friendly bill that would pass constitutional muster." That's a fair question. Maybe I'll take a stab at it.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think the most effective pro creationist legislative strategy so far are the academic freedom bills. A couple of states these have enacted this legislation. The legislatin is ostensibly directed at allowing teachers to present critical views of conventional science. One strategy for avoiding confrontation is to not mention science at all in the legislation. Singling out evolution for particular disdain is a no-no. Probably unnecessary for legislation at the state level too.I think the legislation of the type described above would not be facially unconstitutional. It would probably be necessary to wait for specific school systems to write unconstitutional laws based on the legislation or for specific teachers to violate the constitution.