Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

[Miles]

.




A bill to allow Christian beliefs to be taught in Arkansas classrooms easily passed the state House Wednesday. House Bill 1701 now heads to the Senate side for a vote.

The bill will allow kindergarten through 12th grade teachers to teach students about the Christian theory of creationism, which claims that a divine being conjured the universe and all things in it in six days. The bill specifies that creationism can be taught not only in religion and philosophy classes, but “as a theory of how the Earth came to exist.”

As with so many pieces of legislation churning out of the Arkansas Capitol this session, if HB 1701 passes, a quick court challenge on this blatant mixing of church and state is all but inevitable. The United States Supreme Court already considered this issue in 1987 and ruled in no uncertain terms that teaching creationism in public school classrooms is unconstitutional. But blatant unconstitutionality hasn’t dissuaded Arkansas lawmakers so far this session. One Senate bill that passed recently, for example, declared all federal gun laws null and void within our state’s borders, in clear opposition to the Supremacy Clause that says federal laws take precedence over state laws.

Rep. Mary Bentley (R-Perryville), sponsor of House Bill 1701 “TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OPEN–ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS,” said she put forth the bill at the request of science teachers in her district.

“There are phenomena in our nature that evolution cannot explain,” Bentley said. She emphasized that science teachers may teach creationism under this bill, but they don’t have to.
source



Stupid beyond belief, but what's your opinion?

.

[JoeyKnothead]

Public school would mean what the public wants. So if the public is mostly Christian votes for this then those that are not Christian can go to some other type of schooling system like homeschooling.

Not unlike that whole business with the slaves. "Don't wanna be a slave? Go somewhere that doesn't enslave ya!"

Why should the majority have to bend to the demands of the minority if we are a democracy?

Cause facts don't rely on majority rule.

When theists' can show their god exists, and is involved in stuff - beyond expecting their majority to be the deciding factor - then perhaps their claims might be considered pertinent to the scientific understandings.

Until then, the liar lies, and the preacher preaches.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #109]

I didn't claim the scenario was true ... it was a simple example of how liquid water could develop on Earth's surface without an atmosphere there to begin with (to counter your claim that it could not). Replace comets with asteroids containing water, or other bodies containing H2O in the early solar system, and you can get the same result. If enough H2O in the vapor phase is created through such impacts you'll eventually create an atmosphere (of H2O), and continued impacts bringing more H2O would lead to liquid H2O on the surface (again, with no atmosphere there to begin with).

And I am simply pointing out a problem with the whole idea that water came from comets or meteorites.

Maybe check with Humphreys' on Mercury's weak magnetic field and why it doesn't shield the planet from the solar wind like Earth's magnetic field does. Ditto for Venus and Mars which both have very weak magnetic fields.

His theory does give a reason for these low magnetic fields because of differences in conductivity of the cores. Venus has a very low conductivity predicted by his theory to be 17000 moho/meter. Mars and Mercury have about the same size core. So why does Mercury have a magnetic field and Mars does not. The difference in the conductivity of the car of Mars and Mercury. Humphreys predicts Mars conductivity at about 41000 moho/ meter and Mercury's core conductivity to be 60000 moho/meter.




Earth happens to be in the goldilocks zone for liquid water to exist and stay here and not be boiled off, blown off by the solar wind, or stay frozen. As for the early solar system we don't really know how much water the inner planets had, but the third rock from the sun is in the best position to hold on to it for several reasons that don't apply to Mercury, Venus or Mars. Here is a little blurb on how Venus may have lost its water, and it does have the very high D/H ratio that Mars doesn't:

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/ ... venus.html

The article talked about why the D/H ratio on Mars is higher than on Earth, but not as high as would be expected if ALL of the original H2O was lost through H2O -->H + H + O and subsequent loss of the H to space. They surmise that a lot of the original water is still there tied up in clays or underground, and this has nothing to do with how the H2O got there in the first place, but how it was lost and how much of it was lost. The article says absolutely nothing about whether Mars' water got there via comet or asteroid bombardment, or some other mechanism.

They believe that it is tied up in the clays and underground not that it was observed. Because there is not enough deuterium in the atmosphere.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #112]

Not unlike that whole business with the slaves. "Don't wanna be a slave? Go somewhere that doesn't enslave ya!"

This is a rather random statement. What are you talking about?

Cause facts don't rely on majority rule.

What "facts" are you speaking of?

When theists' can show their god exists, and is involved in stuff - beyond expecting their majority to be the deciding factor - then perhaps their claims might be considered pertinent to the scientific understandings.

Can you tell me the mechanism that created the universe?

[Miles]

[Replying to Atheos68 in post #106]

I find this Disgusting that so called intelligent humans would allow the teaching of this in public schools. If you want your kids to learn about fairy tales then send them to church on sundays. I wouldn't want my kids to take part in the classroom where this BS is taught. Its just a wedge to get religion back into public schools. Pathetic. I think the school board in Arkansas needs to be fired for even bringing this up as a legitimate topic for discussion.

In 2019, Christians represent 65% of the total adult population, 43% identifying as Protestants, 20% as Catholics, and 2% as Mormons. People with no formal religious identity at 26% of the total population.

Public school would mean what the public wants.

Where, Dogpatch?

So if the public is mostly Christian votes for this then those that are not Christian can go to some other type of schooling system like homeschooling.

But that's not how our educational system operates: "what the public wants." Principally because the public isn't educated enough to know what children NEED to learn. And one thing they don't need to learn, actually, re-learn, are Bible stories, which is where creationism springs from. Science class are designed to teach science, not religious claptrap posing as science.

................................

Why should the majority have to bend to the demands of the minority if we are a democracy?

Because being a democracy doesn't mean the majority gets its way in every situation. Didn't they teach you anything in high school Civics class?



.

[Athetotheist]

Public school would mean what the public wants. So if the public is mostly Christian votes for this then those that are not Christian can go to some other type of schooling system like homeschooling. Why should the majority have to bend to the demands of the minority if we are a democracy?

Public schools are funded with taxpayer money and administered by the government, which means that if sectarianism (or anti-sectarianism, for that matter) is taught in public schools, that amounts to a governmental endorsement of one group's private position, which is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

So it's actually the opposite. If Christians want their kids taught Christianity in school, they can fund their own private Christian schools for that purpose, which many of them have.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 113:

Not unlike that whole business with the slaves. "Don't wanna be a slave? Go somewhere that doesn't enslave ya!"

This is a rather random statement. What are you talking about?

It's a response to where you'd written...

Public school would mean what the public wants. So if the public is mostly Christian votes for this then those that are not Christian can go to some other type of schooling system like homeschooling.

I even included that comment when I replied, only it seems you didn't see it before my reply got ya all confused.

My point is that there are modes of thought -slavery is good- that we shouldn't allow even a majority of folks to teach in publicly funded schools.

[quote =JoeyKnothead]
Cause facts don't rely on majority rule.

What "facts" are you speaking of?
[/quote]
Here ya go...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact

When theists' can show their god exists, and is involved in stuff - beyond expecting their majority to be the deciding factor - then perhaps their claims might be considered pertinent to the scientific understandings.

Can you tell me the mechanism that created the universe?

No.

Can you tell me / us the mechanism that created the universe?

[Purple Knight]

Public school would mean what the public wants.

Yes, it should. And I did read the posts after this that attempt to make democracy look better than majority-rules, but I don't agree with them. If the minority gets its way, that's called ruling - a small number of people whose judgment is considered elite in some way are allowed to make choices for the masses who just don't gosh darn know any better, leading the elite elected to think themselves better than us plebes. I feel this is borne out by the reality of corrupt representatives.

If it's really hogwash I shouldn't be afraid of my children being exposed to it, because if it truly is hogwash, they won't believe it.

If I've got to protect them from conflicting viewpoints I've lost already, because I've raised them to be religious - religious atheists. (I know some of these people... shudder.)

But if I've taught them critical thinking I have nothing to be frightened of.

[otseng]

Didn't they teach you anything in high school Civics class?

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #115]

But that's not how our educational system operates: "what the public wants." Principally because the public isn't educated enough to know what children NEED to learn. And one thing they don't need to learn, actually, re-learn, are Bible stories, which is where creationism springs from.

What happened to create this universe is an open question and it will not be answered by atheistic cosmology anytime soon. And unless the laws of physics change it will never be answered. So that means there are two theories that can describe the origin of the universe. So why should public opinion not dictate what is being taught in the schools? In fact, the only theory of the origin of the universe that breaks the laws of physics as we know them is atheistic cosmology.

Science classes are designed to teach science, not religious claptrap posing as science.

Science is nothing more than an ordered approach to solving problems. You are speaking as if science is a body of facts that needs to be learned. The closest thing to facts in science is scientific laws. Laws are observations that are always true. Like the law of gravity makes the observation that all objects on the Earth move towards the center of the Earth. Notice it does not describe why this happens only that it does happen. Or the law of Biogenesis which says, " The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material."

Hypothesises and theories describe why an observation happens. The theory of gravity says that gravity is an indention in the fabric of space and time. We cannot see these other dimensions that have to exist for this theory to be true but these other theories have to exist for this theory to be a true representation of reality.

The universe exists. As far as we know. There are some atheistic cosmologies out there that say we do not exist in fact most current atheistic cosmologies end in us not existing. So the only way that we can even get to a universe in which man and everything we see physically exists is for a Creator God that has eternally existed to have created it all.

So which theory describes the universe we observed?


Why should the majority have to bend to the demands of the minority if we are a democracy?

Because being a democracy doesn't mean the majority gets its way in every situation. Didn't they teach you anything in high school Civics class?

Yes, I did, that statement was to see how much you understand our government if you live in the United States. The United States is not a democracy it is a republic. In a republic, we elect representatives to vote in concordance with the will of the people. And for almost 200 years they voted to have the Bible taught in schools. In fact, it was not the people or the elected officials that denied the majority its parental rights it was the branch of government that was supposed to be the least powerful. Unless you are one of those who did not actually read the founding documents of the United States and believe that the three branches are supposed to co-equal.

There are three branches of government with different functions with the legislative having the most power, like, for example, the Engel v. Vitale in 1961. In this ruling, the Supreme court changed 200 years of court precedent on how the establishment clause was interpreted. Justice Justice Stewart gave the view the founding fathers wrote the clause for "that the Establishment Clause was originally written to abolish the idea of a state-sponsored church,[10] and not to stop a non-mandatory "brief non-denominational prayer".[9

As soon as the supreme court chose not to follow the original intent of the constitution, they were then able to make the constitution say whatever they wanted it to say.


The court made law again in Roe v. Wade.

In a vitriolic dissent, Justice Byron White lambasted the Court's decision as arbitrary at best, and "an exercise of raw judicial power." Finding Blackmun's framework contradictory, White wrote: "If the state had an interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus" -- which, he believed, the state did -- "that interest existed, and was equally strong, throughout the pregnancy." White -- and also, separately, William Rehnquist -- criticized the Court for extending constitutional protections to a right not found in the Constitution, and for overturning statutes he felt were no more restrictive than many in place at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the main amendments used by the majority to locate the right to privacy. "The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries," wrote White. "Regardless of whether I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States."https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremeco ... k_roe.html

In fact, the supreme court to this day has yet to answer the question of when life begins. How can you legalize abortion without defining it when life starts?

The whole idea of the constitution being a living document is nothing more than a way to circumnavigate the legislative branch of government.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #116]

Public schools are funded with taxpayer money and administered by the government, which means that if sectarianism (or anti-sectarianism, for that matter) is taught in public schools, that amounts to a governmental endorsement of one group's private position, which is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

The school is going to support one group's private position. Why should the atheist group's position be supported above someone else's position. The establishment clause states that the government should not endorse a particular religious group over another group. The founding fathers did not want to adopt a system like England where everyone had to be part of the Church of England, which is why most of them came to the "New World." Most of the founding fathers were deeply religious.

So it's actually the opposite. If Christians want their kids taught Christianity in school, they can fund their own private Christian schools for that purpose, which many of them have.

That is my point I am saying this is not the way it should be. Take Christianity out of it for a minute. If a district has more Muslims in it and wants to teach Islam the majority should rule. Which actually does happen. If a school district has more Hindu or Buddist they should be able to teach that. This is called parental rights. Giving the parents of that community the right to choose what their children are taught.