Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missouri's ID and Anti-Science Bill
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 31 of 45 (690935)
02-18-2013 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Genomicus
02-17-2013 5:47 PM


Re: Not constitutional
Fair point, and here you've probably made the most compelling case for why this bill is unconstitutional in nature. Still, how do we know that this bill's secular purpose is really just a sham?
'Cos they always are. And if this one gets as far as a court, it shouldn't be hard to prove it.
After all, the author's probably sincerely believe that this bill will improve science education in their state.
Well, what is a secular purpose?
Suppose that a state legislator in a drought-stricken state believes on religious grounds that a sacrifice of goats to God will make it rain, and tries to pass a law providing for the provision of sacrificial goats out of the state budget. Now, does he have a secular purpose just because he sincerely believes that the goat sacrifice will achieve the laudable secular goal of making it rain?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2013 5:47 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 32 of 45 (690950)
02-18-2013 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Genomicus
02-17-2013 5:44 PM


Re: Not constitutional
Yes, the definitions might happen to match the views of a particular religious group, but there's nothing in those specific definitions that would introduce religion into the classroom IMHO.
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.
True, the bill serves no beneficial secular purpose. But the bill's authors could argue that it does, in which case the bill doesn't violate the Constitution.
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.
Well, one could argue that this allows the students in the classroom to think for themselves. Now, again, this argument is unsound, but serving an unsound secular purpose doesn't make something religious.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2013 5:44 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 45 (690952)
02-18-2013 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Genomicus
02-17-2013 5:47 PM


Re: Not constitutional
After all, the author's probably sincerely believe that this bill will improve science education in their state.
I am sure that the author believes that lying to children and introducing religion is for the best.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2013 5:47 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 34 of 45 (691050)
02-19-2013 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Genomicus
02-17-2013 5:47 PM


Re: Not constitutional
Still, how do we know that this bill's secular purpose is really just a sham?
Common sense.
Do you really think that these state legislators are tuned in to the scientific community and are constantly reading peer reviewed ID papers discussing new and exciting ID research? Or do you think that they have been told that ID is a way to combat evolution without overtly referring to christianity?
The obvious reason that ID is being proposed is religious objections to evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Genomicus, posted 02-17-2013 5:47 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(2)
Message 35 of 45 (692315)
03-01-2013 7:28 PM


This is one of those situations where my arguments have been fairly effectively taken apart. I think Dr Adequate's message 17 offered the most compelling argument as to why this bill is not constitutional, and I am unable to come up with an effective response.
Now that the unconstitutional nature of this bill has been demonstrated, let me ask this: the motivation of the authors aside (since their motivations clearly cannot be changed), what in the bill would have to be changed to make it constitutional?

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2013 9:12 PM Genomicus has not replied
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 03-01-2013 9:27 PM Genomicus has not replied
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 03-02-2013 12:21 AM Genomicus has not replied
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 03-06-2013 12:19 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 36 of 45 (692333)
03-01-2013 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Genomicus
03-01-2013 7:28 PM


Now that the unconstitutional nature of this bill has been demonstrated, let me ask this: the motivation of the authors aside (since their motivations clearly cannot be changed), what in the bill would have to be changed to make it constitutional?
Well ... being a completely different bill about something else altogether?
I don't see that there's any constitutional way to smuggle creationism into the classroom. But you shouldn't be asking us, you should ask any right-wing think-tank, I'm sure they'll have a great idea which will turn out not to work.
I don't think any version of it will work. Judges will be alert to this. They know that creationists have spent the last umpteen ideas trying to fool a judge and slip one past him and the First Amendment. Who wants to be the first judge to say: "And I am that fool!" Especially since it would then go to appeal. The line has been drawn.
If creationists want their opinions taught in classrooms, they should try to set creationism on a sound scientific footing. But they seem to spend more money on lawsuits than they do on that. A cynic might suggest that this is because they know that they have more chance of winning a lawsuit than of producing scientific evidence in favor of their case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Genomicus, posted 03-01-2013 7:28 PM Genomicus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2013 11:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

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


Message 37 of 45 (692338)
03-01-2013 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Genomicus
03-01-2013 7:28 PM


Genomicus writes:
Now that the unconstitutional nature of this bill has been demonstrated, let me ask this: the motivation of the authors aside (since their motivations clearly cannot be changed), what in the bill would have to be changed to make it constitutional?
Rather than attempt to force-feed creationism into science curricula, believers might mandate its coverage as part of history, or comparative religious studies or civics instruction.
The history of the controversy should be taught (because it's history); there is no greater civics lesson than that of why creationism--while socially and politically potent--has no place in the science classroom.
A huge number of Americans embrace creationism to one degree or another. Nothing that prevalent should be outright banned from high school studies--nor do I think it is.
We teach the Pythagorean Theorem in geometry; Pythagorean mysticism, not so much.
That seems about right.

"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 35 by Genomicus, posted 03-01-2013 7:28 PM Genomicus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 03-01-2013 9:53 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 03-01-2013 11:19 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 38 of 45 (692345)
03-01-2013 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Omnivorous
03-01-2013 9:27 PM


Comparative religion?
Rather than attempt to force-feed creationism into science curricula, believers might mandate its coverage as part of history, or comparative religious studies or civics instruction.
I've taken a comparative religion class (as Anthropology).
There is no place in such such a class for advocating one particular religious belief over all others. That is apologetics, and totally inappropriate in that setting.
Folks want to push their beliefs, let them push them where they are welcome and/or appropriate and stop trying for force them on the rest of us.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 03-01-2013 9:27 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 39 of 45 (692353)
03-01-2013 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Omnivorous
03-01-2013 9:27 PM


We're talking high school here. Public High School. No Comparative Religions. No Anthropology. At least not in the vast majority of high schools.
Where else would a religious-based class appear?
Language Arts? No.
Math? no.
Social Studies? Usually World history, US History, Civics. Probably not.
Electives? Art Appreciation, Band, Shop, Life Skills. Maybe?
A limited time and lots to cover. The core subjects are pretty much set, except for Electives, but then too many kids will escape if "Religion" were placed there. I can imagine what the ACLU would do with a "Religion" course as a mandatory Elective in a Public School.
So,
The only place the religionists can put their proselytizing is in one of the sciences, specifically Biology. And constitutionally, they cannot do that.
I can see no way for them to get their horns into the Public School, legally, no matter what changes they try to make to this god awful bill. I think they are screwed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Omnivorous, posted 03-01-2013 9:27 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 45 (692356)
03-01-2013 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate
03-01-2013 9:12 PM


. Who wants to be the first judge to say: "And I am that fool!" Especially since it would then go to appeal. The line has been drawn.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2013 9:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-02-2013 3:51 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 45 (692358)
03-02-2013 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Genomicus
03-01-2013 7:28 PM


Now that the unconstitutional nature of this bill has been demonstrated, let me ask this: the motivation of the authors aside (since their motivations clearly cannot be changed), what in the bill would have to be changed to make it constitutional?
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Genomicus, posted 03-01-2013 7:28 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 42 of 45 (692365)
03-02-2013 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by NoNukes
03-01-2013 11:58 PM


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.
I've certainly heard of him. Also today I've heard of a woman who drowned her nine-year-old son on the grounds that his penis was too small, and she killed him to spare him the pain of growing up with an undersized penis.
I don't deny the existence of mad people, even of mad judges. I just have a confidence, not absolutely certain, but statistical, that given the hierarchy of judicial decisions, one insane person in a position to which he is absolutely unsuited will not win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NoNukes, posted 03-01-2013 11:58 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 45 (692674)
03-06-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Genomicus
03-01-2013 7:28 PM


Possibly constitutional approaches.
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.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Genomicus, posted 03-01-2013 7:28 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 45 (715728)
01-08-2014 6:00 PM


here we go again ...
Antiscience bill introduced in Virginia | National Center for Science Education
quote:
House Bill 207, prefiled in the Virginia House of Delegates on December 27, 2013, and referred to the Committee on Education, is the first antiscience bill of 2014. The sponsor (or "chief patron") of the bill is Richard P. "Dickie" Bell (R-District 20).
The bill calls upon the state board of education and local school boards to "create an environment in public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific controversies in science classes" and to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present scientific controversies in science classes"; they are forbidden to "prohibit any public elementary or secondary school teacher from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in science classes." Presumably attempting to immunize the bill against the accusation that it is religiously motivated, the bill also provides, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to promote or discriminate against any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote or discriminate against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote or discriminate against religion or nonreligion."
Perhaps the NSCE should prepare courses on how to think critically about fabricated "controversies" ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 45 of 45 (715738)
01-08-2014 6:42 PM


A good blog
Virginia Creationism: Dickie Bell’s Bill, by the Sensuous Curmudgeon
The proud state of Virgina, home of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and numerous other Founders, which in 1786 passed The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, has the honor of leading the nation again in Dark Ages legislative activity.
More...
Virginia Creationism: Dickie Bell’s Bill | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024