Comments on: Unpatriotic Missouri Academic”Freedom”Bill Advances Through Committee

By: No One of Consequence

No One of Consequence — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:40:33 +0000

I guess it’s time to write yet another letter to my Missouri representative and senator. I think I will ask them what weaknesses they hope to have covered for K-12 students that haven’t been thoroughly addressed by the scientific community.Who is going to pay my legal bills as a parent in the state who will have to fight this crap.[grrrrrrr]

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:22:48 +0000

Link is de-flaked!

By: Cthulhu

Cthulhu — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:59:33 +0000

This is nothing but the ‘wedge’ strategy from the usual cast of characters at DI and ICS. My son is in the 6th grade and has a fantastic science teacher this year. He is learning the basics of speciation and evolutionary theory. And the IDiots (my term for thinly veiled creationist whack jobs) want to ruin his education. It makes me ill…

By: freelunch

freelunch — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:25:38 +0000

Greg, the .pdf link flaked out.Very simply, the legislation is misleading in implying that the science curriculum is addressing scientific controversies. It isn’t. The K-12 science curriculum is addressing fairly simple, well-settled science, including evolution. The implication that there is a scientific controversy is false, but necessary to allow the ‘teach the controversy’ lie to take hold.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:44:53 +0000

this section shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. states that this bill does not cross the establishment clause prohibition a priori.Therefore educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. would not be a violation of the establishment clause, according to the state law. So the question is not simply is the establishment clause being violated when the state sends out a sticker to put in the textbook disclaiming the validity of Darwinian Evolution. According to this state law it will not be.Bear in mind that I'm not arguing in favor of this, or for the logical potential of this wording. Just trying to explain it. One does not put a paragraph in a bill because it sounds nice. There is a reason. that has to do with the application of a bill in either regulatory instruments or in court challenges for every word we see there.

By: Jason F.

Jason F. — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:59:36 +0000

Greg,You stated

“The bill has a nice twist to it in that it prohibits the consideration of any boundary or difference between religion and non-religion in regards to what to teach or how to teach it.”

Can you explain this further? I’m not clear on how you get this from the bill itself. The closest I can see is…

this section shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine

And that to me just reads as an ID creationist Orwellian assertion “Oh, and this isn’t about religion, because we say it isn’t”. But I don’t see how it says “No one is allowed to decide the difference between religion and non-religion”.Am I missing something?

By: Mike Haubrich, FCD

Mike Haubrich, FCD — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:58:59 +0000

Oh, Steve, it’s not confined to the Midwest. Check Florida and Louisiana as well.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:42:51 +0000

Greg -LOL. Now you see why I (as a Missouri resident) sometimes wish my wife and I had stuck by our guns and home schooled our daughter! We’re going to have to let her hang out with the employees of the MIssouri schools for seven hours a day, then spend our evenings correcting their indoctrination. *sigh*.Makes me embarrassed to be Missourian, but thanks anyway for making people aware of this kind of Midwestern stupidity.Steve

By: freelunch

freelunch — Thu, 01 May 2008 11:06:20 +0000

The full text [see link to PDF above] of the bill tells us that this was introduced on April Fool’s Day. How appropriate.I’m not certain why the universities aren’t protesting. I would think that Washington University, in particular, would want to complain since they are working very hard to be considered one of the best in the country. They would hardly want to start losing their home state pool of top achievers. The state schools may have a more political problem.Of course, if you read the text very carefully and apply it tightly, the DI has written a bill that locks their nonsense out of schools, since they have no evidence and they have no real scientific controversy to introduce.

By: Tulse

Tulse — Thu, 01 May 2008 11:03:27 +0000

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine

So this only works if ID is actually considered science, while in Expelled and elsewhere the DI seems to be retreating from that position, and becoming more overtly religious. I don't understand the strategy here.