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.
It is Missouri, and it is their business not ours.
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.
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?
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.
I think you are being overtly suspicious, and a tad paranoid.
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.
No, it was all perfectly ingenuous. It just sounded that way to you because you're a __________. P.S. A free tip from your Uncle Omni: posts that start and stop with "LOL" make you sound like a 15-year-old ____________..\ AbE: What names?
Eat ____ and ____, you ____ sucking ______ ________.
LOL talk about kiddy, you don’t even curse on here.
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.
Statement. You seem to be making a slippery slope case, I think you are reading to much into it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Didn't you see the model bill this was written after? Don't you realize the DI wants to spread creationism? That they do that by opposing evolution?
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.
This is obviously a pro-creationism-in-science class bill. Its shit.
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).
What does that have to do with this?
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!
C'mon, this is straight out of the creationist playbook, and written by a guy whose last crack at evolution was to get equal time for ID.
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)
They're trying to get some sort of legal cover for teachers who shouldn't even have jobs to teach retarded creationist nonsense.
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.
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".
Are you against an objective review of scientific strengths and weaknesses?
Can you think of a legitimate scientific controversy in the field of biological evolution that would be suitable for an elementary school class?
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.
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.
Wellmind your own business.
Not as the law stands. Take the state rights stuff to another thread please.
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.
The link is still active where you can see the model bill this was based on.
you are right i did see it. I was thinking something else.
DI is the Discovery Institute. They're a Front Orginization for creationism and combating scientific materialism - basically Liars for Jesus.
dang protestants. discovery institute, would that have not been easier than trying an acronym?
Learn about the DI and that model bill and you'll see for yourself.
I think it is obviously a bill by creationists, but not really a bill to teach religion in science class.
Illinois, but I don't have to live in a particular state to argue on the internet about a bill its proposing. And the seperation of church and state isn't a state-by-state issue anyways so states rights is neither here nor there.
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?