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

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

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

Post #1

Post by 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?

.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

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

Post #161

Post by Athetotheist »

Difflugia wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 11:30 am
Athetotheist wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 10:02 pmA straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of a proposition. How does pointing out Kenisaw's equivocation on the word "nothing" misrepresent anything?
It misrepresents the argument that was made.

You seem hung up on what we call your mistake and whether it was intentional, but It doesn't matter. The fact remains that you didn't address the argument that was actually made. If you don't want to rebut that argument or perhaps even agree with it (that happens), that's fine, but ultimately you responded to a different argument than the one presented.
Kenisaw wrote:Mathematically speaking, the universe adds up to zero.

....

Technically the universe is nothing, from nothing
I've been arguing that Kenisaw's "net-zero" doesn't equate to the universe being "nothing from nothing" and I've stuck to that argument ever since.

I've known about the "zero-energy universe theory" for years; it's employed as an attempt to avoid having to explain the existence of the universe's energy by pretending that there's no energy to explain. If that wasn't the argument being made here, then what was the point in bringing it up?

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

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

Post #162

Post by Difflugia »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 12:09 pm:blink: :dizzy: :-k
Basically, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is that certain pairs of values cannot be known exactly at the same time. This is a fundamental property of the Universe and not merely a limitation on measurement technique that can be overcome somehow. Time (or duration) and energy are such a pair. I wrote the inequality backwards earlier, but basically what it means is that if we know one of the values exactly, in this case time, then there is an uncertainty in the energy in a point in space that can't be reduced below a particular value. If that point is "empty," then the uncertainty means that it can be and sometime is non-empty and a particle appears.

There are mathematical models that work out if we treat the Universe as the product of such an uncertainty and a number of physicists think they reflect reality.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

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

Post #163

Post by Bust Nak »

Please excuse me for picking points across multiple post to respond to:
EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 9:51 am But this does raise the more complex issue of parental rights. If the majority of parents in a district desire to teach creation to their children in public school why can't they.
They cannot because it is illegal/unconstitutional, re: the establishment clause.
Why do the rights of the minority have to step on the rights of the majority to raise their children as they wish?
Because it's better for society as a whole in this instance.
Why should the majority have to bend to the demands of the minority if we are a democracy?
Because the super majority have voted to make this the law. In this sense, the majority aren't bending to the demands of the minority as such, they are just facing the consequences of what they have themselves voted for.
Most of the founding fathers were deeply religious.
I think it says a lot that even these deeply religious people saw the importance in secularism.
NO God created the universe... And is that not what modern cosmology trying to prove.
Absolutely not. This is why we keep telling you, there is no such thing as "atheist cosmology."
The courts can rule differently in the future. So just because they ruled once we are to accept that as something that will endure. It is a living document remember.
We'll deal with that if and when that happens. Right now, and has been for a while, you cannot teach creationism in public schools.
So the court precedent is that parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit.
So home school their children, if they want to teach them creationism.
In this age of moral relativism who has the right to decide what is moral?
Everyone, every single individual.
Why are the courts deciding what is moral?
They are not - instead they are deciding what is and isn't legal.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

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

Post #164

Post by The Barbarian »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:24 pm
Can you tell me what a z-pinch is and where a z-pinch actually happens in nature?
It's merely the Lorenz force, working on ionized gases. It was predicted by Maxwell's equations in the 1860s. Show us what creationism had to say about it, before then. It happens in many ways in nature, but a group of people who deny gravity and want replace it with electricity, have a number of weird ideas about where it might apply. What do you have?
Can you explain the valley of stability?
Learn about it here:


Not exactly news. Show us what creationism had to say about it, before science discovered it.
Can you explain why many severe earthquakes produce lightning?
That's kind of interesting. Show us what creationists found out about it, before science came up with a theory that explains it.
Can you explain the properties of a supercritical fluid?
Because it's no a liquid, it has no surface tension,but because it's not a gas, it has a definite volume. Any fluid past the critical point of temperature and pressure can be a supercritical fluid. Such fluids as water and carbon dioxide are frequently used in manufacturing processes. Adjusting temperature and pressure can fine-tune the fluid to be more gas-like or more liquid-like. Show us what creationism learned about supercritical fluids before science. What do you have?
Can you explain the tidal forces a comet experience when it goes from a long period comet to a short period comet?
Yep. Newton's laws do that nicely. Would you like to see how? Tell us what creationism found about this before Newton. What do you have.
These are but a few of the topics in creation science all of which have practical application.
Well, let's see how that goes. Show us.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

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

Post #165

Post by Miles »

.
Haven't visited my thread here in some time so I thought to see how Arkansas House Bill 1701 was doing. It isn't.


"Arkansas 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.

Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment.

10/15/2021 12:52:32 PM"
source

................................... Image



.

User avatar
Bradskii
Student
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2021 8:07 am
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 58 times

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

Post #166

Post by Bradskii »

Miles wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:56 pm .
Haven't visited my thread here in some time so I thought to see how Arkansas House Bill 1701 was doing. It isn't.


"Arkansas 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.

Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment.

10/15/2021 12:52:32 PM"
source

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



.
Well, much ado about nothing then.

In passing, there's no such animal as 'atheist cosmology' as our good friend described it. I think he was confusing atheistic with secular. Christians are often confused in that regard

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

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

Post #167

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Bradskii in post #166]
In passing, there's no such animal as 'atheist cosmology' as our good friend described it. I think he was confusing atheistic with secular. Christians are often confused in that regard
Not confused at all. I stated exactly what I meant.

Can you prove there is not a God in heaven that created the universe?

If you cannot then starting with the premise that there is no God that created the universe means you have an atheistic (disbelieving or
lacking belief
in the existence of God.) cosmology.

There are only two options so either God created the universe or nature created the universe and there is no God. The atheist cosmology is to signify the belief in initial conditions that a theory is putting forward.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

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

Post #168

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #168]
Can you prove there is not a God in heaven that created the universe?
Can you prove that there is a god (in "heaven" or anywhere else)? Since you can't, the basis for your origin of universe ideas are not on any more solid footing than any other ideas. Here are some definitions from Wikipedia:

Cosmology is a branch of astronomy concerned with the study of the chronology of the universe.

Physical cosmology is the study of the universe's origin, its large-scale structures and dynamics, and the ultimate fate of the universe, including the laws of science that govern these areas.

Religious or mythological cosmology is a body of beliefs based on mythological, religious, and esoteric literature and traditions of creation myths and eschatology.


Which is more likely to be correct, given the track record of science in describing nature over the last centuries vs. religious stories? Until you can prove that a god exists that could do the creating, all you have is a hypothesis with (so far) no evidence to support it beyond 2000+ year old holy books. At least the scientific ideas have some supporting evidence which led to their postulation.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

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

Post #169

Post by JoeyKnothead »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:27 pm Can you prove there is not a God in heaven that created the universe?
No more'n you can prove God ain't him a gay unicorn.
If you cannot then starting with the premise that there is no God that created the universe means you have an atheistic (disbelieving or
lacking belief
in the existence of God.) cosmology.
Fair nuff. I note that there's no reliable, confirmable data to suggest a god's involvement in anything.
There are only two options so either God created the universe or nature created the universe and there is no God. The atheist cosmology is to signify the belief in initial conditions that a theory is putting forward.
There's a third option - the universe has always existed in one form or another.

Your position here relies on data that can't be confirmed, namely, that the universe was created. And of course, the special pleading then is that proposed god/s weren't.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

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

Post #170

Post by Miles »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:27 pm [Replying to Bradskii in post #166]
In passing, there's no such animal as 'atheist cosmology' as our good friend described it. I think he was confusing atheistic with secular. Christians are often confused in that regard
Not confused at all. I stated exactly what I meant.

Can you prove there is not a God in heaven that created the universe?
But that's not where the Burden of Proof lies. The Burden of Proof lies with whoever is making the claim.

"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, [in this case, that there is a god in heaven] and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning."
source

Simply consider the following. I claim "There are fairies and dragons running around my neighborhood at night." Now where does the responsibility of proof Lie? Should the world expect you, EarthScienceguy, to prove fairies and dragons don't run around my neighborhood at night, or me, to prove they do?

Logic 101.



,

Post Reply