|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Missouri's ID and Anti-Science Bill | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Clearly, the bill is not identifying the designer(s), and so one cannot really say that the bill will introduce religion into the science class. But we all know who they mean by "designer". The proposed bill does not specify the designer. One can guess who the authors of the bill think is the designer, but no, we don't know who they mean by "designer." Furthermore, even if the authors of the bill personally think the designer is a deity, this would not affect the constitutionality of the proposed bill.
There is no secular purpose for including ID in the science curricula, only a religious one. This bill clearly fails the Lemon test for lacking a secular purpose and unnecessarily entangling government in religious issues... The bill is not religious in nature, if we read it at face value. Does the bill "clearly fail" the Lemon test? I think not. One could argue - incorrectly, of course - that the bill's secular purpose is in advancing science education. Of course, this argument could be refuted, but there's nothing unconstitutional about a bill that uses weak arguments to support its purpose. After all, a lot of bills propose poor ideas in terms of a secular purpose, but they're not unconstitutional. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Let's accept for the purpose of this discussion that 'biological intelligent design' does not introduce any deities or religion. There are still some problems with the bill. For example, where do those bogus definitions of science come from? Isn't it simply one group's religious views that empirical science is actually faith-based? The bill's definitions of, e.g., "theory" and "hypothesis," do not introduce religion. It's a skewed view of how science works, but it is not, in itself, religious in nature, and this is all that matters when discussing the constitutionality of the bill.
Really? No inferences allowed in making scientific measurements? So can it be taught that the sun produces heat by solar fusion given that nobody has ever seen hydrogen atoms fuse into helium in the sun? Is there a way to determine the temperature of the sun's surface or the likely composition of Mercury's chore without making any infereneces? Do you believe that there is a non-secular purpose for this nonsense requirement? As I said, the bill has many problems. However, being unconstitutional in nature is not one of them IMHO. The problem you reference above, for example, still does not introduce religion.
I would argue that the this requirement is intended solely to prevent evidence of evolution and cosmology to be presented, and that it serves no legitimate secular purpose. But the authors might argue that its secular purpose is in advancing science education. This argument is thoroughly unsound, of course, because that bill would significantly impair science education, but having a poor secular purpose is not unconstitutional.
Science denies the operation of God? Really? Is this a non-secular view point? It is not necessarily a religious viewpoint. One can be an uninformed agnostic or atheist and think that science denies the operation of God. That clause, then, is not unconstitutional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The bill's definitions of, e.g., "theory" and "hypothesis," do not introduce religion. It's a skewed view of how science works, but it is not, in itself, religious in nature, and this is all that matters when discussing the constitutionality of the bill. Not just a skewed view. An unambiguously erroneous view that happens to match religious dogma. The errors serve no legitimate secular purpose. Surely you are not suggesting that the errors are inadvertent.
But the authors might argue that its secular purpose is in advancing science education. This argument is thoroughly unsound, That's right. The argument is unsound. The bill does not have a secular purpose. Of course the authors are going to make the argument. But the argument is a loser.
NoNukes writes:
Science denies the operation of God? Really? Is this a non-secular view point?It is not necessarily a religious viewpoint. Okay, not necessarily. But let's include it in the context of the rest of the bill. How do you justify the requirement that the teacher 'not otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity'. Tell me the secular purpose of that.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But the authors might argue that its secular purpose is in advancing science education. This argument is thoroughly unsound, of course, because that bill would significantly impair science education, but having a poor secular purpose is not unconstitutional. But see Edwards v.Aguillard:
While the Court is normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere, and not a sham. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. at 64 (POWELL, J., concurring); id. at 75 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment); Stone v. Graham, supra, at 41; Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 223-224. The fact that creationists can lie about their motives, which they will, doesn't mean that the court has to take their lies at face value, which it won't if their previous failures are anything to go by.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Furthermore, even if the authors of the bill personally think the designer is a deity, this would not affect the constitutionality of the proposed bill. Yes it would affect the constitutionality. What the authors believe and/or intend would be evidence affecting at least two prongs the Lemon test. Not necessarily dispositive evidence. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
I have provided a link to the proposed legislation below: http://www.house.mo.gov/...bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0291I.htm I couldn't open the link.I was interested in how old this proposed legislation was. I also wondered whether Evolution is directly taught in that State, because the subject is by and large by-passed for the most part in High School Biology classrooms. The reason seems to be that discussing the subject separates the class into two groups, immediately, and the focus on the one topic can suddenly dominate, while parents may also visit the teacher in time consuming and wasted discussions. On the other hand, student attention and involvement does benefit, as classrooms will become highly charged with personal interest. What I would like to see is a part of the curriculum set aside to compromise the whole issue by enumeration the numerous correspondences between the facts of science and Genesis. The real boiling point of the present social debate is focused on denying what religious say about Genesis, not what Genesis actually says, so these corresponding statement are overlooked.The effect has become to oppose Religion or oppose Science. That is terrible.Compromise is a weak word when synthesize is better. The Big Bang was a beginning. The Earth was first an accretion ring without form and void of spherical shape. Visible light did not exist until the stars were formed. The atmosphere was firmly set above the Lithosphere below. Pangaea was a moment in time when "all the waters under heaven were collected into one place." The first life did appear in a Spontaneous Generation. The Plant Kingdom became established before the Animal Kingdom. Man was created by the dust of a chemistry that genetically fused two Ape Chromosomes. Etc etc etc.... The Institution of Education OUGHT come to the rescue of the Institution of Religion because these are both members of the seven foundational Social Institutions that worked together to form the Social Force which binds us together in our Social Contract.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The link in the OP worked when I clicked on it a few seconds ago. Your copy of the link does not work. Here is a link to Missouri's House of Representative page.
The resource cannot be found.
I was interested in how old this proposed legislation was. The bill was refered to a committe on 1/31/2013.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Do you have to trot this out on every thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Do you have to trot this out on every thread? I guess he does. It's called proselytizing, the Great Commission of religions everywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
My initial reaction was to ignore most of this message, but I did want to respond to this:
I also wondered whether Evolution is directly taught in that State, because the subject is by and large by-passed for the most part in High School Biology classrooms. I think kofh2u is right about this. Apparently many teachers are ill equiped to teach evolution. According to the survey described in the article linked to below, the bulk of teachers don't want to get involved in the controversy of teaching evolution. A smaller group of about 13% chose to teach creationism. http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/01/110127141657.htmUnder a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
The proposed bill does not specify the designer. One can guess who the authors of the bill think is the designer, but no, we don't know who they mean by "designer." Do we really have to guess? I think it is pretty obvious. The legislators proposing this bill are not Raelians. We are talking about the Bible Belt of the US of A.
Furthermore, even if the authors of the bill personally think the designer is a deity, this would not affect the constitutionality of the proposed bill. Yeah, it does. If the purpose of the bill is to proselytize then it is unconstitutional.
The bill is not religious in nature, if we read it at face value. Yes, it is. Intelligent Design is a religiously motivated political movement to get creationism taught in public schools.
Of course, this argument could be refuted, but there's nothing unconstitutional about a bill that uses weak arguments to support its purpose. I think you need to review the Dover case: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
The bill's definitions of, e.g., "theory" and "hypothesis," do not introduce religion. It's a skewed view of how science works, but it is not, in itself, religious in nature, and this is all that matters when discussing the constitutionality of the bill. Not just a skewed view. An unambiguously erroneous view that happens to match religious dogma. The errors serve no legitimate secular purpose. Surely you are not suggesting that the errors are inadvertent. Yes, the definitions might happen to match the views of a particular religious group, but there's nothing in those specific definitions that would introduce religion into the classroom IMHO.
But the authors might argue that its secular purpose is in advancing science education. This argument is thoroughly unsound... That's right. The argument is unsound. The bill does not have a secular purpose. Of course the authors are going to make the argument. But the argument is a loser. True, the bill serves no beneficial secular purpose. But the bill's authors could argue that it does, in which case the bill doesn't violate the Constitution. Here's why: it's not unconstitutional for a bill to serve a poor secular purpose. A lot of bills are proposed that would serve poor secular purposes, but they're not religious in nature.
How do you justify the requirement that the teacher 'not otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity'. Tell me the secular purpose of that. Well, one could argue that this allows the students in the classroom to think for themselves. Now, again, this argument is unsound, but serving an unsound secular purpose doesn't make something religious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But see Edwards v.Aguillard: While the Court is normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere, and not a sham. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. at 64 (POWELL, J., concurring); id. at 75 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment); Stone v. Graham, supra, at 41; Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 223-224. The fact that creationists can lie about their motives, which they will, doesn't mean that the court has to take their lies at face value, which it won't if their previous failures are anything to go by. Fair point, and here you've probably made the most compelling case for why this bill is unconstitutional in nature. Still, how do we know that this bill's secular purpose is really just a sham? After all, the author's probably sincerely believe that this bill will improve science education in their state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2107 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
After all, the author's probably sincerely believe that this bill will improve science education in their state. If you read the text of that bill, it is not designed to improve science education. The only conclusion one can reach is that it is designed to further the teaching of a specific religious belief at the expense of science education. What the author believes in, based on the bill he has sponsored, is clearly not the scientific method. What a joke!Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
What the author believes in, based on the bill he has sponsored, is clearly not the scientific method. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024