Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

Hi AE,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.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.Take a look at the second clause;

quote:

---

Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent of schools, or school system administrator, nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught within the course curriculum schedule.

---

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.Especially telling is that they want to aim this rubbish at elementary school kids. That's just crazy! They're too young to understand the actual controversies that really do exist within biology. They need a firm grounding in the very basics at that age. They can move on to learn about genuine controversies - like neutral drift for example - at a later, more appropriate age.Even the language about "discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion", designed to sound as innocuous as possible, is in reality, a way for creationists to label genuine science as "nonreligious doctrine"thus banning any sensible approach to the subject.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.Mutate and Survive

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. 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. 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? 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

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 AtheistMutate and Survive

It's no slippery slope, the bill clearly encourages creationist rhetoric in science class. After all, the bill calls for actions that make no sense under any other interpretation; for example, the bill states that elementary school teachers should be able to "review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution". Elementary school teachers. Can you think of a legitimate scientific controversy in the field of biological evolution that would be suitable for an elementary school class? In a thread on state rights perhaps. This isn't it. Did it ever occur to you that I might hold an opinion that is not related to my nationality? Not all of us make out judgements based upon xenophobia and national stereotypes.You brought up the hillbilly thing. What I object to is the blatant attempt to get creationism into science classes. I object to that wherever it occurs. That's not what the evidence suggests. This bill is sponsored by the same people who have promoted explicitly creationist legislation. It stands to reason that when an ID proponent sponsors a bill that mentions "scientific controversies" about evolution, he's talking about ID creationism. What else could they be talking about? Can you name any legitimate controversy that is suitable for an audience of elementary and secondary school kids? Not as the law stands. Take the state rights stuff to another thread please. This bill would undermine that, exposing public school kids as young as six to creationism, long before most of them have the rational capacity to critique it properly. Okay, add it to the list of things you're unable to wrap your mind around.Self determination is not the topic. Wrap your mind around that please. Given that the bills share several sponsors, I think it's highly relevant. The older bill provides a window into exactly what the sponsors have in mind when they talk about "more effective ways" of teaching science; they mean ID. That's obvious given their past record and continuing ID-ist stance.Can you really doubt that someone like Rep. Brattin (a sponsor of both bills in question) is anything other than an ID proponent? These are his words;

quote:

---

About HB 1227, It requires that intelligent design and biological evolution be taught and for both to have equal time in the classroom, and that the teaching of both remain objective. For those in the scientific community to say that evolution is all 100% fact is obsurd. {sic} And forcing those who believe in intelligent design ( Gallup nationwide polling is more than 90% of Americans) to only be taught only biological evolution is WRONG. And for those who are so certain of their beliefs in evolution, what do you have to worry about?

---

Call me crazy, but I'm going to say that the ID advocate is advocating ID. What other possible interpretation is there?Mutate and Survive

You realise that's exactly what I've been saying right?Mutate and Survive

Not at all, provided that there are legitimate controversies to be taught. Can you name any? Then it stands to reason that, in the absence of of any legitimate controversies, the only candidates left are the usual sorry litany of creationist falsehoods. It's not just a waste of time. The schools that are tricked into teaching this crap are acting as unwitting stalking horses for the DI. It leads them into big problems, like ending up in an expensive court case, where they're inevitably going to lose a lot of money. The Dover school district had to pay out a cool million bucks for their mistake in teaching ID. The DI didn't pay it for them. That was money taken right out of the hands of the kids who needed it for their educations.That's the purpose of bills like this; to trick school districts into doing the ID lobby's dirty work for them. I think that that's dishonest and downright shameful.Also, in the meantime, a whole bunch of unsuspecting kids get to have their science education screwed with for the sake of the ideological windmill tilting of a bunch of creepy fundamentalists. I think that's a shame as well. No.Anyway, you live in Virginia apparently. That means that, by your own argument, you have no business discussing this either.It's a free forum and within the rules I'll discuss what I please. Like I said, not everything I say is to do with my nationality. Try to grow up a little. Actually, it's your country's constitution that tells them how to run their state, whether you like it or not. If you want to imagine a world where the constitution doesn't exist, go ahead. Meanwhile, this bill is being proposed in reality, where the constitution prevents the establishment of religion in public science classes.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Well this patently isn't that. They aren't interested in teaching the niceties of the scientific method, nor would such material be useful in elementary schools. Or do you propose that six-year-olds are taught the Kuhnian paradigm model or some such?For this bill to pass it needs a secular purpose. Without such an educational purpose, it can't be legal. This bill is aimed squarely at evolution, not the teaching of the scientific method. I am only suggesting that the US constitution be applied in US schools. And an hour ago you didn't know what the DI was, so I hardly think your opinion counts for much. No, again, the US constitution tells them how to run their schools. Well at least that makes one of us. The Establishment Clause, as you're well aware. The bill exists solely for the purpose of providing an excuse for those who wish to teach ID creationism in public schools. if it has some other, legitimate purpose, tell us what it is. In the pretence that there exist legitimate controversies in evolutionary science. There aren't, at least not at a level that would be comprehensible to elementary schoolers. Anyway, it's the religious intent that matters here, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.Look, this is a waste of time unless you can find some genuine secular purpose for this legislation. If you can't think of a single legitimate scientific controversy that this bill might reasonably promote, you have no case.Mutate and Survive

If you think a coot looks like a duck then you shouldn't be teaching science to kids.Mutate and Survive

If you knew what you were talking about on this topic, it would have been obvious from the context. And that appears to be the best defence that you can mount for it. Colour me unimpressed. I have already shown you. the lie that there exist legitimate controversies in biology that might be taught to six-year-olds. that is a standard lie from the Big Book of Creationist Porkies. The legislators in this case have repeatedly backed ID and ID has been found by US courts to be religiously inspired.That's how things stand until the bill's backers can show a reasonable secular purpose for it. So far, the best you've done is to say that it's a waste of time.Mutate and Survive

Not true. Evolution is good science. There is no valid objection to it or the methodology that informs us of it. It also has the virtue of being true. Opposing the truth is innately anti-science. Even if this were not the case, creationists would not be the people to challenge, given their unbreakable addiction to being wrong. Which is why you said it did. Uh-huh. So once again, when you have thoroughly lost the argument, you resort to whining that the nasty foreigners are sticking our noses in. Tough. And as far as the constitution is concerned, I guess I'll stop having to explain it to you when you stop pretending that it doesn't exist.This is a free forum and I'll share whatever opinions I please.In the mean time, you're still unable to name any secular purpose for this bill aren't you? You can't think of a single reason for the bill to exist. You're doing a pretty shitty job of defending this swill.Mutate and Survive