Missouri Bill: Textbooks Give = Time to Intelligent Design

[Curious]

Ok I looked back 5 pages and didn't see this one being talked about, but I still may have missed it.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02 ... -evolution

From the article:

"I'm a science enthusiast...I'm a huge science buff," Brattin tells The Riverfront Times. "This [bill] is about testable data in today's world." But Eric Meikle, education project director at the National Center for Science Education, disagrees. "This bill is very idiosyncratic and strange," he tells Mother Jones. "And there is simply not scientific evidence for intelligence design."

HB 291, the "Missouri Standard Science Act," redefines a few things you thought you already knew about science. For example, a "hypothesis" is redefined as something that reflects a "minority of scientific opinion and is "philosophically unpopular." A scientific theory is "an inferred explanation...whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy." And "destiny" is not something that $5 fortune tellers believe in; Instead, it's "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."

I'm not sure why politicians think they are qualified to define terms like this. That seems like a slippery slope to me. It seems like the people that use the terms (you know..scientists) should get to define them.

[shrewlu]

I'm so glad that I went to school in MO way before this type of crazy was on display. It was there, just not as obvious as it is now. And I'm even more glad that I'm not raising my kid there. What a mess. Science is science; religion is religion and religion has no place in a science classroom.

[BravaAmica]

Ok I looked back 5 pages and didn't see this one being talked about, but I still may have missed it.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02 ... -evolution

From the article:

I'm not sure why politicians think they are qualified to define terms like this. That seems like a slippery slope to me. It seems like the people that use the terms (you know..scientists) should get to define them.

Crossing off Missouri as a place to live. Thanks for the heads up, Curious.

[BravaAmica]

I'm so glad that I went to school in MO way before this type of crazy was on display. It was there, just not as obvious as it is now. And I'm even more glad that I'm not raising my kid there. What a mess. Science is science; religion is religion and religion has no place in a science classroom.

Exactly. They want to teach Intelligent Design? Go ahead...in social studies.

But if I were a science teacher, I'd do, you know, science experiments using Intelligent Design so the students would realize it falls apart when held to the standard of the scientific method. I'd have to make it memorable, though, because I'm sure I'd get fired later. :D

[twin2]

Well geez, I'm so happy the fine state of Missouri took it upon itself to re-define the scientific method.

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

I'm actually just fine with the "but evolution is only a theory" mantra, because I can always retort, "yes it is, but it is not mythology."

[bekkah]

Guess I am never moving to Missouri. Intelligent design will have no place in my science classroom ever.

[mg78]

That is just too sad, too bad, too everything... You do not wake up one day and start to change the definitions of words to suit your interest.

I just do not understand what is the fixation with intelligent design...

[Rowan]

I just do not understand what is the fixation with intelligent design...

Because without it the entire basis of their belief system and way of life collapses.

[Mama Mia]

Ok I looked back 5 pages and didn't see this one being talked about, but I still may have missed it.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02 ... -evolution

From the article:

I'm not sure why politicians think they are qualified to define terms like this. That seems like a slippery slope to me. It seems like the people that use the terms (you know..scientists) should get to define them.

:shock: Wow, I did horribly in science in school, and even I can see that defining the actual terminology that way is just WOW... I can't even fathom how they can justify that :shock:

What I don't understand about teaching intelligent design in schools - is well, how can they legally teach that and not any other religions creation theories ? Wouldn't they be compelled to include whatever the, for random example, Hindi, explanation ? Or any of a number of different explanations ?

That, to me, is the biggest reason why any religious person should , logically, be pushing to separate out religious terminology and theory from the school system.

Even the stupid fight over the pledge and removing "under God", these same people who are so freaked out about it's removal wouldn't want their children to say "under Allah" or "under Vishnu" or whatever.

Sorry for any horribly inappropriate/inaccurate religious examples - very early, no coffee yet, no energy to google examples :oops:

[Anxious Girl]

And people wonder why America, which is seen as a 1st world nation, falls terribly behind Asia, Australia, Canada and Europe when it comes to education.

[penguinagogo]

but - sometimes the argument is not equal!

[August]

but - sometimes the argument is not equal!

Are you implying that astrology is inferior to astronomy? Elitist!

[gardenvarietycitizen]

What I don't understand about teaching intelligent design in schools - is well, how can they legally teach that and not any other religions creation theories ? Wouldn't they be compelled to include whatever the, for random example, Hindi, explanation ? Or any of a number of different explanations ?

No, because "Intelligent Design" isn't QUITE Christian Creationism. It's the end run they try to do because they KNOW they can't actually get Christian creation theory taught in school for the various reasons you mention.

So "ID" tries to say, well, we posit "some intelligent force" that created everything, but we won't say just what that force IS - even though everyone knows that of course they're thinking of the God of the Abrahamic religions. They even lift entire passages out of religious textbooks, change God to Creator or some kinda thing, and pass it off sometimes. It's a wink wink nod nod game and it's of course just a steaming pile of BS. (I mean, yeah, you ask the obvious question up there!!! As do most people who hear of "ID", and yes, it's totally bogus. But they're trying to split hairs.)

If I had to give one book to a fundie, I think I'd make it Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker." He wrote that long before becoming famous for being an atheist and the book barely mentions religion at all, but what it does do is show that if you assume one bit of "life" (defined essentially as a pattern which replicates with errors and exists in an environment where some patterns are favored) it will evolve all life without the need for any "God" or "Intelligent Designer" or anything else to be involved, that YES, in fact randomness can lead to complexity (remember there's energy coming in). That's all evolution is. Fundies lack the understanding of math (probability and causality) and so they can't imagine "how an eye evolved" or "why the earth is set up so perfectly for human life" but that's just their lack.

It's threatening to creationists (of various kinds) because even a God of the "God made a terrarium on his desk and sat back and watched what happened" conflicts with the idea of the personal God that cares what each human being eats for lunch.

I do wonder though about other creationist stories in schools. Certainly not all of them conflict with only science, either. There are people in the US who believe that humans (fully formed) emerged from the ground in New Mexico, that certainly conflicts with what we KNOW about how people arrived in that area. But, it's a small enough group they don't affect the public schools.

Meanwhile I always love the shirts with designs like this:

Because yeah, there's not just ONE!!

[Caribou]

How does crap like this get traction and take hold in American schools.? Are there not enough sane, rational people to stand up and calmly say, "No, this isn't science and has no place in a science curriculum." And that would be that?

In Canada, at least in my part of the country, something like this wouldn't even be given consideration if someone proposed it. Do Americans, in general, not see how the rest of the first-world views them when shit like this occurs?

[Mama Mia]

How does crap like this get traction and take hold in American schools.? Are there not enough sane, rational people to stand up and calmly say, "No, this isn't science and has no place in a science curriculum." And that would be that?

In Canada, at least in my part of the country, something like this wouldn't even be given consideration if someone proposed it. Do Americans, in general, not see how the rest of the first-world views them when shit like this occurs?

My impression is that the parts of America where these sorts of things get considered, very adamantly not only doesn't care if the rest of the world thinks highly of them... but seems to prefer that the rest of the world fuck off. They actually seem kind of proud of it.

this is my view coming from a state where this kind of thing wouldn't fly at all.

[Curious]

Here is what I don't understand (well one among many things)

The article says this (bolding mine):

Late last month, Rick Brattin, a Republican state representative in Missouri, introduced a bill that would require that intelligent design and "destiny" get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution. Brattin insists that his bill has nothing to do with religion—it's all in the name of science.

The bill says this (bolding mine):

" A scientific theory is "an inferred explanation...whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy."

Now I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm pretty sure "faith-based" means religion.

To the people asking about other religions, that is covered:

The bill requires that Missouri elementary and secondary schools—and even introductory science classes in public universities—give equal textbook space to both evolution and intelligent design (any other "theories of origin" are allowed to be taught as well, so pick your favorite creation myth—I'm partial to the Russian raven spirit.) "I can't imagine any mainstream textbook publisher would comply with this," Meikle says. "The material doesn't exist."

:roll:

[m_mdon]

First time posting (long time lurker!!), but trust me this is a problem all over the USA. I am a high school history teacher in the heathen state of Massachusetts, in a large urban school, and in Massachusetts, evolution is the ONLY thing that is taught (unless you take an Ancient History class, in which case you get to learn about many different creation stories). Two weeks ago, while teaching the Scope's Trial to my students, I had two kids loudly declare that they think evolution was fake, and we were all created by God in 7 days. I honestly had no idea what to say to them, and my mouth was wide open.

[ILoveJellybeans]

Sooooo if I decided the world was pooped out by a magical giant unicorn, if I was a teacher I would be allowed to teach that alongside evolution in school?

[Curious]

First time posting (long time lurker!!), but trust me this is a problem all over the USA. I am a high school history teacher in the heathen state of Massachusetts, in a large urban school, and in Massachusetts, evolution is the ONLY thing that is taught (unless you take an Ancient History class, in which case you get to learn about many different creation stories). Two weeks ago, while teaching the Scope's Trial to my students, I had two kids loudly declare that they think evolution was fake, and we were all created by God in 7 days. I honestly had no idea what to say to them, and my mouth was wide open.

Welcome out of lurkdom. Now that you've started posting you must continue (it's a rule!) ;)

That's scary. I can't imagine being that bold when I was in high school, myself, either. I am surprised to hear that MA textbooks are like this. I thought they were a rather progressive state, though admittedly I have not followed that kind of thing until the last few years.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Here is what I don't understand (well one among many things)The bill says this (bolding mine):

Now I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm pretty sure "faith-based" means religion.

That's another wink wink nod nod, actually. It's a reference to their belief that evolution (and the rest of science) is also based on a blind leap of faith somewhere, which necessarily makes evolution (and atheism, which is their bigger target) a religion just like Christianity. Then they take that argument one step further and say that you can't forbid the teaching of Christianity if you're going to allow the teaching of science, because that's just another religion.

The entire idea of "this is what we think based on evidence, but if the evidence changes why yes of COURSE scientific consensus will also change, like duh" and how that is different from religion just utterly eludes them. Any arguments over the edges of the science (as there are various competing theories on the cutting edge all the time, including in evolutionary theory) are taken to be the equivalent of religious schisms and more proof that science is just another religion. It's just nuts.

Also of course plain Darwin is long outdated so crowing about this or that tiny detail in his theory, as they love to do, or pointing out how even scientists find him wrong about stuff is just a strawman at this point, but they love to haul it out and set fire to it on a regular basis. "Even scientists disagree!" yeah as if that's supposed to be a BAD thing.

[BravaAmica]

How does crap like this get traction and take hold in American schools.? Are there not enough sane, rational people to stand up and calmly say, "No, this isn't science and has no place in a science curriculum." And that would be that?

In Canada, at least in my part of the country, something like this wouldn't even be given consideration if someone proposed it. Do Americans, in general, not see how the rest of the first-world views them when shit like this occurs?

If you ask 100 people, 97 of them will tell you to your face, "Oh, I'm not like that, I believe in science*/ I believe in science and the Bible." Three will probably witness to you and tell you you're going to hell. And then between 48 and 52 of them will vote for a Teabagger/Republican because of their Biblical, family values. What I'm saying is that Americans, in my experience, are more conservative than they like to believe they are. Oh, and we're kind of lazy. And then liberals aren't nearly as organized as the conservatives are so it's hard to gain traction and mobilize. That's my opinion on why Americans let that shit happen.

(* Science has nothing to do with belief. It exists whether you believe in it or not. You will still fall on your ass even if you don't believe in gravity.)

[BravaAmica]

First time posting (long time lurker!!), but trust me this is a problem all over the USA. I am a high school history teacher in the heathen state of Massachusetts, in a large urban school, and in Massachusetts, evolution is the ONLY thing that is taught (unless you take an Ancient History class, in which case you get to learn about many different creation stories). Two weeks ago, while teaching the Scope's Trial to my students, I had two kids loudly declare that they think evolution was fake, and we were all created by God in 7 days. I honestly had no idea what to say to them, and my mouth was wide open.

Tell them evolution is on the damn test. Ugh, I would've been hard pressed not to laugh.

[m_mdon]

Welcome out of lurkdom. Now that you've started posting you must continue (it's a rule!) ;)

That's scary. I can't imagine being that bold when I was in high school, myself, either. I am surprised to hear that MA textbooks are like this. I thought they were a rather progressive state, though admittedly I have not followed that kind of thing until the last few years.

Haha, they are very progressive, the textbooks ONLY have evolution. My students are just not afraid to speak their minds (which I guess is better than the alternative of sitting silently staring at me!), and I thought I had heard it all at this point, but I guess not!

[B5SnowDog]

I'm actually just fine with the "but evolution is only a theory" mantra, because I can always retort, "yes it is, but it is not mythology."

I prefer "So is gravity!" :D

[Curious]

Haha, they are very progressive, the textbooks ONLY have evolution. My students are just not afraid to speak their minds (which I guess is better than the alternative of sitting silently staring at me!), and I thought I had heard it all at this point, but I guess not!

Ah ok. I misunderstood about the textbooks. That's good to know. It is good that your students are willing to speak up. I hope they do it more than just about their religious beliefs though. What were the reactions of the other kids in the class when they did that?