Missouri's ID and Anti-Science Bill

I do not find one that "requires" the teaching, however, I do not think one is necessary.

quote:

---

(c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught;

---

In Kitzmiller Judge Jones ruled that intelligent design is not science.

quote:

---

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents ... As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

---

This was a district court, not SCOTUS, but the precedent has been set in a federal court. Though it is not mandatory to the other district courts an argument can be strongly made that the precedent exists and should be followed. Most courts will following precedent even from another district unless they have compelling reason to not do so.I think a challenge in the 8th District using a precedent from the 3rd would succeed.But, then, maybe not.

I guess he does. It's called proselytizing, the Great Commission of religions everywhere.

What? Are you suggesting that Rep. Rick Brattin being a fine upstanding right-wing conservative republican christian would not be an adherent of the scientific method?A member of a deeply evangelical church charged "to seek constantly to win the lost to Christ by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods in harmony with the gospel of Christ," certainly gives one some idea of the "designer" he had in mind when he wrote the bill in question.Now if he is to live his mission as his beliefs direct then he most certainly must believe in the science of Intelligent Design if he is to have it evangelized into the science classroom. You can't believe in a "science" without believing in the very "method" upon which all science rests.From his site, "He stands firm on conservative values and faith and will never waiver on these principles."Certainly a man so committed, so motivated, to improving the state's science curriculum (while at the same time performing his ultimate evangelical mission for his faith by witnessing ID to students of science) must be deeply devoted to all science and the scientific method.Finally, I would appreciate you not biting me.

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.