Laws News science education

Missouri: Bill to give equal treatment to intelligent design, evolution?

Spread the love

A bill in Missouri’s House of Representatives reads, in small part, as follows:

HOUSE BILL NO. 1227, 96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(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;

To judge from its length and detail, the assembly could pass the bill as an alternative to reading it.

Here’s the St. Louis Beacon’s backgrounder (January 19, 2012).

We’d love to see Discovery Institute’s response to all this.

See also: Creationism to be taught in Indiana science classes?

14 Replies to “Missouri: Bill to give equal treatment to intelligent design, evolution?

  1. 1
    Blue_Savannah says:

    It’s about academic freedom and allowing other scientific theories to be heard and discussed.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Fair enough. Some have expressed concern about dumping a load on teachers in a publicly funded school system where attendance is compulsory. How do we deal with the ferment and disagreement, while recognizing the teacher’s issues?

  3. 3
    DrREC says:

    Part of me would love to see this pass.

    Why? It applies to higher ed. Where’s the ID textbook for “physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climatology” as the bill requires ? Are there enough” Biological intelligent design” publications to warrant equal time in a graduate classroom?

    I’d love to see university professors teach the standard curriculum for half of a class, and then wait for the state appointed material to occupy the equal time for ID.

    It would expose the complete vacuousness of ID.

    Or do you have syllabi and textbooks for all those courses ready to go?

  4. 4
    Robert Byers says:

    I understand 70% of the American pop welcome creationism in the schools. Although only 50% are of some species of creationist.

    Creationism is kept out by a establishment elite and so Americas democratic institutions are always threatening to elites getting their way.

    Surely the truth and the sincere seeking of truth on origins plus a aggressive populace with democratic institutions will in time overthrow the present wicked censorship of God and Genesis in the USA.
    Get interested, get involved, and get fighting.
    Time has come today to beat up the error and ignorance and incompetence of the past century on origin investigations.

  5. 5
    DrREC says:

    You know what always surprises me? There are no scientific New Testament proclamations by Christ.

    He has some pretty strong opinions on economics. Why no bills to teach the beatitudes in economics class? No camel through the eye of the needle?

    Interesting standards you folks have…..

  6. 6
    Maus says:

    … and then wait for the state appointed material to occupy the equal time for ID.

    That emphasized bit ought clue you into the first part of the problem. If you need help it’s called Lysenkoism when you support it and Jewish Science when you’re after it hammer and tongs (sickle?).

    If you can’t slap it on the lab-table and do it in person, then it needs to be absent from state mandated curricula. This bill is a terrible idea for mandating ID as well as for mandating Evo.

  7. 7
    Joe says:

    DrREC,

    Again you are confused as all the profs have to do is teach the evidence and keep their personal biases to themselves.

    Ya see there aren’t any blind watchmaker physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, etc. textbooks.

    So teach the evidence and discuss how it could have come about.

    That is all ID requires.

  8. 8
    DrREC says:

    Just the facts Joe?

    From the bill-

    “Destiny”, the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race and which may be founded upon faith-based philosophical beliefs;

    “FAITH-BASED Philosophical Beliefs”

    Those wouldn’t include “personal biases,” would they Joe?

    Whereas sciences classes were teaching the facts, this law institutionalizes “”FAITH-BASED Philosophical Beliefs.”

    Nice try though, Joe.

  9. 9
    Joe says:

    As I said, you are confused.

    I said teach the evidence- I don’t care about any legislation- science classes should be about the data.

    And if any science classes were teaching that the diversity of life arose from some unknown population(s) of prokaryotic-like organisms via stochastic processes, then it ain’t teaching the facts.

    IOW, DrREC, the “theory” of evolution is a “faith-based philosophical belief”.

    Deal with it.

  10. 10
    DrREC says:

    Joe, the confusion seems to be all yours.

    In regards to this piece of legislation, you said “you are confused all the profs have to do is teach the evidence and keep their personal biases to themselves.”

    I quoted from the bill: ““Destiny”, the events and processes …… which may be founded upon faith-based philosophical beliefs””

    Now you say: “I don’t care about any legislation”

    In that case, maybe you shouldn’t have commented on this thread.

    Hilariously, if we take your statement that “the “theory” of evolution is a “faith-based philosophical belief”” than this bill acts to juxtapose the evolution with evolution. Perhaps you and the authors of this bill aren’t defining your terms the same.

  11. 11
    Joe says:

    DrREC- you were asking for what books they would use- what would the curriculum be:

    Where’s the ID textbook for “physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climatology” as the bill requires ? Are there enough” Biological intelligent design” publications to warrant equal time in a graduate classroom?

    And I have said (just over a year ago):

    There isn’t any need to teach Intelligent Design-

    That’s right, I said there is no need to teach intelligent design. All that needs to happen is to stop telling students that our existence is an accident, ie living organisms spontaneously arose from non-living matter, and stop telling them that all genetic changes are errors/ mistakes/ accidents. IOW stop the lying bullshit.

    Tell them the truth- tell them we don’t know.

    When pressed provide valid options and tell them that one of the basic questions science asks is “how did it come to be this way?”

    Then you have a discussion using the evidence and data to try to determine which option is the best fit for that. Then you devise ways to test your inference.

    You can even discuss what options are valid and why they are valid. Even discuss why some alleged options are not valid, ie not an option.

    Get down to cause and effect relationships- (get down on it- get down on it)- given this effect can you determine the cause.

    Tell them why not every death is considered a homicide nor every rock considered an artifact.

    IOW stop with the indoctrination and teach science, not materialism.

    Got it?

    Teach the evidence- the design inference flows naturally from that.

  12. 12
    DrREC says:

    Joe, included in the bill is: “Destiny”, the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race and which may be founded upon faith-based philosophical beliefs.”

    Is “founded upon faith-based philosophical beliefs” in your mind consistant with “teaching the evidence”, yes or no?

    Bonus question: why do pro-ID bills never seem to separate creationism or ” faith-based philosophical beliefs” from it?

  13. 13
    Joe says:

    The “Show-Me” State- and the ToE can’t do that.

    I take it that bothers you.

    YOUR position is founded on faith-based philosphy, so why should you care that passage is in there?

    And what part of “MAY BE..” May be founded- why are evos so dense?

    YOURs is founded on faith-based philosphy and others may be founded, but don’t have to be. Creationism would be and ID would not be.

    Duh

  14. 14
    Joe says:

    If something is “founded on faith-based philosophy” it should be a good thing to put it under a scientific microscope to see if there is more to it or to just flat-out refute it so the students can then just move on.

    Either it stands up to scrutiny or it doesn’t- so you can demonstrate how science can either confirm or refute a faith-based philosophy.

    How is this not a good thing?

Leave a Reply