Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

But this has nothing to do with the federal government meddling, that doesn't remotely come into it. What are you talking about?The question would be, can a sufficiently local government trample on the constitution? If you live in a small enough, white enough, Christian enough town, can the mayor suspend the First Amendment? The Fifth? The Fourth? The Thirteenth? Well no-one said that.If you passed a bill making murder legal, then I guess most people wouldn't murder most other people. So no "slippery slope" there. On the other hand, the murder rate might go up ... Well, there is a point beyond which they can't, just as "rural people in poor tiny communities" can't bring back slavery. They're part of the union, they should deal with that.

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

You mean no preachification without representation? Just shoot when you see the whites of our typing. Actually, we're thinking of giving the Queen to the people of Missouri. It seems pointless to have a Christian theocratic leadership in a non-Christian country when a place like MO would really appreciate the unification of church and state under a protestant monarch.Mind you, we want Ann Coulter in return, so we can torture her in the Tower.

If the wording of the bill were changed to provide examples of actual scientific controversies instead of citing the old creationist bugaboos of evolution and a natural origin of life, and to remove the dead giveaway of claiming not to be religiously motivated, then it might be able to pass constitutional muster. I don't know if I'd characterize creationist efforts against evolution as a "vast conspiracy", but it does have a long history. Government advancement of the cause of any religion at any governmental level is unconstitutional, so if the bill does somehow pass it will quickly be challenged. Defending such efforts in court is very expensive for the losing side, but this hasn't seemed to diminish Christian enthusiasm.--Percy

Why do you think that? Its so obvious to me that it is...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Rarely, and this probably isn’t the rare case. That is not necessary, I work with a good number of them, I can just ask them in person rather than read some website. And since we do science here at work, I guess I have IRL examples of creationists supporting and working in science.All too easy. There you go generalizing again.
::shrugs shoulders:: I answered how I felt about this bill and how it would apply in my response to percy in post#215; this bill will not have a state wide effect, and believe me nobody wants a teaching job in Maries County, that doesn’t already agree with this bill.

yeah yeah yeah. That is what the "they" said about Missouri's anti-gay marriage amendment, and here we are 8 years later and guess what that amendment is still there.I guess we will see who is correct if this passes.

it is not stated anywhere in the bill.

Why some non voter in Nevada gives a shit what people do in elementary schools in Missouri. If the whole community agrees, why not? Poor rural people in tiny communities never participated in slavery to begin with, WTF are you talking about? Only rich people could own other people.

Hi Bluejay, 1. Not all but most.
2. No
3. We should sequence everything eventually. I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the better studied, better trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find. I don’t give a shit what you do, but I won’t respond to you or your opinions on MY constitution.

Yeah, not explicitly. But it be really stupid to explicitly state in a bill that you're trying to push religion into the science classroom. The bill certainly implies that that's what there trying to do - there is no scientific controversy about evolution... what the fuck are they even talking about?I guess you'd have to know more about the DI and how they operate to be able to see this for what it is. You're not gonna get it explicitly from the text in the bill, itself.

Although I am a non-voter in Nevada, I am not the federal government. Because of the constitution. How low does your head have to be to have a point that obvious sail over it?I never said that "poor rural people in tiny communities" owned slaves. I said that their poorness, their rurality, and the size of their communities wouldn't protect them from the Constitution if they wanted to make slavery legal. And I am right.

I contend that creationist websites are anti-science and can provide some good examples. You seem to disagree somehow.This is not the proper thread for such a discussion--do you want to start a new one or shall I?

quote:

---

I am not your typical EvC poster who is a HUGE fan of argumentum ad verecundiam. That we should listen to the better studied, better trained amongst us. I am more into making up my own mind on a subject with the data that I can find.

---

This is the crux of the problem.What is it about people that they think that they can just 'pick up' enough information through the ether to challenge people who have devoted their lives to specialise in a field? It is exactly this type of delusion that sees engineers argue that biologists are wrong about biology.I can happily accept that any individual can be wrong about any individual point. What I can't accept is that some amateur is right when they attempt to shout louder than the entire scientific community and then whine when people don't agree.AE, making up your own mind is important. I agree fully. The delusion that you have the necessary background knowledge to fully understand all of the concepts without relevant education as well as the ability to magically find all of the relevant data on the internet is magnificent in its hubris. Especially if you have never contributed any relevant, original work yourself.

There's no doubt about what this bill is attempting to do.1. Get religion, ID and creationism into science classes
2. Avoid overtly breaching the Constitution by careful wording.Do they really think that they're fooling anyone? I suppose that the only reason they keep trying this is because they believe that their version of God is above the Constitution and/or the Constitution isn't worth jack.