Arkansas House passes unconstitutional bill putting creationism in schools (4/16/21)

[roguenuke]

LOL Haven't taken a lot of science courses?

I've taken plenty. We are talking about primary school, not college. You don't debate science in K-12 science classes.

 

[Rawley]

I've taken plenty. We are talking about primary school, not college. You don't debate science in K-12 science classes.

You had some shitty teachers then. SCience is all about questioning and exploration and debate. Why this, why that, what if ....

 

[Somerville]

To provide a theory where science has no answer and to provoke an intellectual debate among students.

roguenuke has brought up good points in this debate so I'll just add to it by asking for your definition of "theory".

In a small community, "intellectual debate" can have rather adverse consequences for kids who 'don't go along' with the majority of their classmates. When a teacher is a fundamentalist Christian, one may safely assume that their method of teaching the ToE will not provide students with a good experience.

 

[roguenuke]

You had some shitty teachers then. SCience is all about questioning and exploration and debate. Why this, why that, what if ....

No, I didn't. Science, in Elementary school or even high school should not debate the origins of the universe, in regards to whether or not there is a god or someone created vice "nature". That is not at all appropriate for even high school science classes.

Asking those questions are also not the same thing as a legitimate debate regarding scientific theories and religious beliefs. You could possibly debate one theory regarding how the dinosaurs died and another, but those would still be valid scientific theories, not religious debates unless someone came in with "God killed them to make room for humans".

 

[Somerville]

Do you believe your children are so fragile that they couldn't handle a discussion about the creation of the universe that mentions God as a possibility?

What if a student's God is not your God? What if the student's creation beliefs are contradicted by the teacher?

 

[roguenuke]

Do you believe your children are so fragile that they couldn't handle a discussion about the creation of the universe that mentions God as a possibility?

I think that other students who, as a majority in most US areas, particularly those like Arkansas, believe in god would not be able to handle such a discussion because they would be having their religious beliefs called out, questioned by other students who they would claim are "persecuting" them, are making fun or light of their beliefs, are denouncing their beliefs, using science. That is part of the huge problem with trying to mix religious beliefs with actual science and scientific theories.

When I was in high school, there was a girl who got angry, started ranting about how the science teacher didn't know what they were talking about, how Evolution wasn't true because the Bible said otherwise. I was pissed when "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" as an argument was given the same grade as I got for a debate regarding same sex marriage (1990s). That isn't fair at all. And my own son has been told by his classmates that he is "crazy" for not believing in Jesus, not being Christian.

There is a scene in an episode of Psych that sort of goes into what I'm saying above. He is in church, his father having been called in to discuss his defiance to church lessons. He points out flaws in the story of Noah's Ark, using science. Now, being in church, they can believe whatever they want so I don't even fault the Priest for asking them if they may like the Methodist Church down the street better. However, debating that in science class, pointing out the flaws there could easily be seen by both Christian students and parents as an "attack" on their beliefs. Why take that chance?

 

[Rawley]

roguenuke has brought up good points in this debate so I'll just add to it by asking for your definition of "theory".

In a small community, "intellectual debate" can have rather adverse consequences for kids who 'don't go along' with the majority of their classmates. When a teacher is a fundamentalist Christian, one may safely assume that their method of teaching the ToE will not provide students with a good experience.

And what method would that be? Beat them? Humiliate them? Mock them? The school has some issues bigger than creationism if that is how their teachers educate.

 

[Moderate Right]

Arkansas House passes unconstitutional bill putting creationism in schools

Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the bill moves on to the Senate.

arstechnica.com

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted before but I searched & found nothing recent, so here is the news:

Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the bill moves on to the Senate.​

ast week, the Arkansas state House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend state education law to allow teachers in public schools to teach creationism as "a theory of how the earth came to exist." As it stands, the act promotes blatantly unconstitutional behavior as made clear by a precedent set in a 1982 case involving the Arkansas Board of Education. Despite that, the bill passed 72-21, and it already has a sponsor in the state Senate.
The body of the bill is mercifully short, consisting of two sentence-long amendments to the existing Arkansas code:
Enter your email to get the Ars Technica newsletter

But those two sentences are enough to land teachers and their local school system in a world of trouble, in that the permission given runs afoul of a lot of legal precedent. In a key case that involved Arkansas itself, McLean V. Arkansas Board of Education, a group of plaintiffs banded together to challenge a state law that mandated the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. The judge in that case correctly recognized that creation science was actually religious in nature, and it therefore violated the constitution's prohibition against the establishment of state religion.
Advertisement

That ruling wasn't appealed, meaning the legal precedent only applied to Arkansas. But later in that same decade, a similar case from Louisiana made it to the Supreme Court, and it reached the same conclusion. The prohibition against creation science has applied nationally since.

​

I don't see why people get their panties in a wad over something that isn't even a law. Lots of shit passes in one place but never makes it the distance.

 

[roguenuke]

And what method would that be? Beat them? Humiliate them? Mock them? The school has some issues bigger than creationism if that is how their teachers educate.

So it should be okay to beat or mock, humiliate those who don't believe in the religious doctrine? Because that is what teaching nonscience religious beliefs, such as creationism, as if it is science tends to lead to because the religious kids of the bunch (who are normally a majority) will feel emboldened to claim they are correct despite real science. And why not? They have just been told that their religious beliefs are on par with science (despite that not being true).

 

[911Sparky]

The federal courts and SCOTUS itself has ruled time and time again that the government cannot be used as a vehicle to promote, endorse, or compel religious beliefs or practices. If a public school teaches creationism as an alternative to evolution in science class, then they are by definition, promoting religious beliefs.

I suspect one purpose of the new law is to get the case before the new conservative supreme court, hoping for a different outcome.

 

[Carleen]

Teaching creationism in schools is something you'd expect to see in Iran, not in a developed country like the US.

Especially since more and more people are moving away from religion.

 

[Lisa]

Do some homework and get back to us.

Later

What homework are you referring to? Is that a euphemism for scouring YouTube for videos that support your religious belief that creationism/ID is an idea that has objective facts to support it?

 

[GDViking]

Right wing extremists all...

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I suspect one purpose of the new law is to get the case before the new conservative supreme court, hoping for a different outcome.

I am sure, but I can't see SCOTUS taking it up. The state will just have to blow a lot of money trying defend what is an obvious violation of the First Amendment in the lower courts.

Unfortunately, the typical rural and small town state legislator are not the best and brightest in America.

 

[GDViking]

Especially since more and more people are moving away from religion.

George Carlin refered to that as reaching the age of reason...

 

[Lisa]

I am sure, but I can't see SCOTUS taking it up. The state will just have to blow a lot of money trying defend what is an obvious violation of the First Amendment in the lower courts.

Unfortunately, the typical rural and small town state legislator are not the best and brightest in America.

There is absolutely nothing to support this myth, but it is being introduced to try to create the appearance of controversy about evolution and the origin of the universe, where there is none. The SCOTUS must admit that it is religious-based, which doesn't belong in public school science class.

 

[Rawley]

I think that other students who, as a majority in most US areas, particularly those like Arkansas, believe in god would not be able to handle such a discussion because they would be having their religious beliefs called out, questioned by other students who they would claim are "persecuting" them, are making fun or light of their beliefs, are denouncing their beliefs, using science. That is part of the huge problem with trying to mix religious beliefs with actual science and scientific theories.

When I was in high school, there was a girl who got angry, started ranting about how the science teacher didn't know what they were talking about, how Evolution wasn't true because the Bible said otherwise. I was pissed when "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" as an argument was given the same grade as I got for a debate regarding same sex marriage (1990s). That isn't fair at all. And my own son has been told by his classmates that he is "crazy" for not believing in Jesus, not being Christian.

There is a scene in an episode of Psych that sort of goes into what I'm saying above. He is in church, his father having been called in to discuss his defiance to church lessons. He points out flaws in the story of Noah's Ark, using science. Now, being in church, they can believe whatever they want so I don't even fault the Priest for asking them if they may like the Methodist Church down the street better. However, debating that in science class, pointing out the flaws there could easily be seen by both Christian students and parents as an "attack" on their beliefs. Why take that chance?

Well, I don't share your belief that children are so fragile that they couldn't handle an hour discussion of the origins of the universe.

 

[Rawley]

So it should be okay to beat or mock, humiliate those who don't believe in the religious doctrine? Because that is what teaching nonscience religious beliefs, such as creationism, as if it is science tends to lead to because the religious kids of the bunch (who are normally a majority) will feel emboldened to claim they are correct despite real science. And why not? They have just been told that their religious beliefs are on par with science (despite that not being true).

Wooosh

 

[Lisa]

Well, I don't share your belief that children are so fragile that they couldn't handle an hour discussion of the origins of the universe.

You can discuss the origins of the universe but you cannot introduce a wholly unsupported religious idea into mandated secular public schools and claim that it is equal in fact to evolution to the Big Bang. The fact that you might agree with it doesn't mean that there is any objective fact to support it being true.

Keep creationism and ID in your home or in church schools where it belongs.

 

[Rawley]

What homework are you referring to?

What existed prior to the Big Bang (singularity is part of the big bang theory).

 

[Lursa]

Oh dear me, no no no.

Spoiler

Creationism is a preposterous hypothesis, not a theory equal to evolution or the big bang.

That's the kind of stupid post that reflects this:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."​

Isaac Asimov​

 

[Rawley]

You can discuss the origins of the universe but you cannot introduce a wholly unsupported religious idea into mandated secular public schools and claim that it is equal in fact to evolution to the Big Bang. The fact that you might agree with it doesn't mean that there is any objective fact to support it being true.

Keep creationism and ID in your home or in church schools where it belongs.

400th time, it's a theory, not a fact. Second, it is not mandated. Third, your obvious aversion to religion is clouding any rational thought,

 

[Lisa]

What existed prior to the Big Bang (singularity is part of the big bang theory).

We only have a hypothesis because we don't currently have the technology to determine that, but that doesn't mean that you can claim that religious belief is the answer. You must be able to prove it in an objective manner that doesn't rely on faith and religious belief to be true.


The universe may be infinite,

In the beginning, there was an infinitely dense, tiny ball of matter. Then, it all went bang, giving rise to the atoms, molecules, stars and galaxies we see today.


Or at least, that's what we've been told by physicists for the past several decades.

But new theoretical physics research has recently revealed a possible window into the very early universe, showing that it may not be "very early" after all. Instead it may be just the latest iteration of a bang-bounce cycle that has been going on for … well, at least once, and possibly forever.

Of course, before physicists decide to toss out the Big Bang in favor of a bang-bounce cycle, these theoretical predictions will need to survive an onslaught of observation tests.

What happened before the Big Bang?

Has our universe cycled through numerous "big crunches" and "big bounces?"

www.space.com

 

[roguenuke]

Well, I don't share your belief that children are so fragile that they couldn't handle an hour discussion of the origins of the universe.

It wouldn't be just about the origins of the universe, nor can you show any evidence that the teacher would even allow discussion rather than simply teaching "this is how it happened".

And you are minimizing the ramifications of this sort of teaching. Religious discussions have no place in science class, as being considered an "alternative" to actual scientific Theories.

 

[Rawley]

You can discuss the origins of the universe but you cannot introduce a wholly unsupported religious idea into mandated secular public schools and claim that it is equal in fact to evolution to the Big Bang. The fact that you might agree with it doesn't mean that there is any objective fact to support it being true.

Keep creationism and ID in your home or in church schools where it belongs.

How about your Congress opening every session with a prayer by a clergyman?