Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

Man I miss Missouri. (my favorite state so far)I do not really see what is so anti-evolution about the bill.I also don't see what the big deal is.I have also learned that MO does what MO wants, they pass all kinds of strange bills there.

no.though the academic freedom link did not sound that bad. the model bill definitely did.

Hi GM, so. It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours. maybe they don't have the time or the space to write down all the controversies, and just picked evolution due to its popularity, and how well known it is. Do you realize how you sound trying to convince me that this is some conspiracy theory? I think you are being overtly suspicious, and a tad paranoid. Repent and be Saved.

no court case was needed there was this thing called evidence ALL OVER the place, that lead people from many different fields of study to similar and even the same conclusions.if ID had any of that one stuff what did i call it...oh yeah evidence, then we would not have a debate here. ID does have some evidence, evidence that it is some BS made up by the same people who have 5 baptists churches in my town, yes the same people who can't even agree enough about God to have one church!!! and they want me to buy into this ID!?! no thanks, I'll take the strongly supported stuff instead.

LOLeverything you just typed in response to me was disingenuous, and you want to call me names.::Rolls Eyes::the joke that this place is...LOL

SHOW MEoh I wasn't aware that took place in Missouri?

Eat ____ and ____, you ____ sucking ______ ________.LOL talk about kiddy, you don’t even curse on here.

I asked you to show me how this bill was a violation, not bring a basket full of apples to this orange debate.

Statement.
You seem to be making a slippery slope case, I think you are reading to much into it. There is always a place for state’s rights.
I honestly have no idea why the British care about a bill in a hillbilly state like MO, unless you just like to point and laugh. No I am going to argue that this bill really doesn’t state anything and that y’all are exaggerating, and worrying about nothing. I stay by self determination because if Missourians want this type of stuff they can have it. I was instructed by the Jesuits, and never even heard about creationism until I went to public school at age 18. We live in an age of information. The truth is out there, and those that want to find it will. I am not anymore nave than you. I defend self determination, and somehow that makes me a defender of ID. I can’t even wrap my mind around that logical chasm.
We are talking about this bill. Not the last bill. Repent and be Saved.

I don't think I saw the model bill.spread it? don't you live "near St. Louis" as in near Missouri? that shit is already spread.honestly I am not sure what DI is? did you mean ID? opposing evolution is not illegal, they can if they want to. SHOW ME. (show me how, since somehow around here linking court cases that have nothing to do with this suffices in the strangeness that is EvC). we have had the state curriculum debate here before, this is nothing more than that thread regurgitated (Big Bird it to me!).some people like to make sure everyone else has their view and thinks like they think I call these people Authoritarians, they are EVERYWHERE on this site. There are other people here who favor Liberty and will allow people in other voting jurisdictions to determine what they want to teach in their schools, and what laws they want to have, they are also EVERYWHERE on this site. That is really what this comes down too IMHO.are you from "near St. Louis" in Illinois or Missouri? if you are from Missouri then this is your business, if you are from Illinois, then it is not.

Dr. A where have you been? Finally someone to discuss this with who doesn't get mad jump to conclusions and call me names! yeah so what? there are politicians who constantly go one way. I am sure there are creationist politicians who always have some weird thing in for evolution.I can pick a topic where politicians do that sort of thing bill after bill. 2nd amendment rights (as an example); there are politicians who bill after bill continue to try and legislate that gun ownership is NOT an individual right even after the SCOTUS said it was, or whom submit bills that only reduce the rights of law abiding citizens, under the "smoke and mirrors" of reducing crime.what I am getting at is that there are politicians out there that are very one sided and do this, but they are getting elected and are representing people who must desire this sort of legislation, it is not up to the voter or the legislator decide the legality of the bills as it is up to the judicial branch.so when I say so what, I am not trying to be rude as much as I am saying that you are stating the obvious.good link though (much appreciated) I doubt that. I think they are pushing a different agenda than protecting bad teachers. I think they are just being crafty to challenge evolution. I also think that it won't work. This has passed in other states, and it never works. My only difference here is that I think if the people of Missouri want to be retarded we should let them. lol tell me how you really feel.

Are you against an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses? Nope. I sure cannot. Which is why this debate is soMuch ado about nothing. It seems to be a worthless waste of time maybe, but if the legislators in Missouri want to waste their time with bill that don’t accomplish anything that is on them. Wellmind your own business. I will when the British stop telling us how to run our country. That includes you telling my kin in Missouri how to run their state.

it doesn't matter what their reasoning is.they could do it because they had a dream where a blue monkey on a rainbow cow told them to do so, the reason that the bill proponents made the bill has nothing to do with the legality of the bill.

you are right i did see it. I was thinking something else. dang protestants. discovery institute, would that have not been easier than trying an acronym? I think it is obviously a bill by creationists, but not really a bill to teach religion in science class. this is a self determination issue just based on what everyone is stating, which I perceive as "if you are a creationist you cannot propose bills".
I went to elementary school in P.R. Illinois. in that state they have a holiday that only exists in that state (maybe WI too I am not sure) it is called Pulaski day (after Casimir Pulaski).
It is a state public holiday that was formed when a bunch of Catholics got together and decided to have a state public holiday to honor this man.
Is that not an example of people with a religious motivation getting together to have a holiday and a day off for everyone regardless of their religious values?
You claim to be Catholic and from Illinois, what do you say about this?Do the proponents of Pulaski day (who will claim to be polish and honoring a revolutionary war fighter) have any difference in reasoning than the creationists of this bill who want to objectively critique the weaknesses and strengths of evolution? is it more or less wrong?

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.