.
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?
.
Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21
Moderator: Moderators
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2335
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 775 times
Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21
Post #2[Replying to Miles in post #1]
My opinion is that this would be absolutely fine IF it is treated as a hypothesis and then the class must do research on any supporting evidence. In other words, present creationism as a claim (not observed fact) and see what observable evidence can be found to support it - if any. Likewise, present other hypotheses and do the same thing. In other words, do real science.
However, simply presenting religious propaganda as science should be strictly forbidden since it is not science. The science classroom should never be treated as a church.
My opinion is that this would be absolutely fine IF it is treated as a hypothesis and then the class must do research on any supporting evidence. In other words, present creationism as a claim (not observed fact) and see what observable evidence can be found to support it - if any. Likewise, present other hypotheses and do the same thing. In other words, do real science.
However, simply presenting religious propaganda as science should be strictly forbidden since it is not science. The science classroom should never be treated as a church.
- 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 #3While this might be any interesting exercise, my objection is, as you point out, in no way does creationism come close to having anything to do with science. Plus, it takes away valuable time that could be better spent on teaching actual science. Far too much science information and far too little time to present it.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:55 pm [Replying to Miles in post #1]
My opinion is that this would be absolutely fine IF it is treated as a hypothesis and then the class must do research on any supporting evidence. In other words, present creationism as a claim (not observed fact) and see what observable evidence can be found to support it - if any. Likewise, present other hypotheses and do the same thing. In other words, do real science.
However, simply presenting religious propaganda as science should be strictly forbidden since it is not science. The science classroom should never be treated as a church.
.
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #4Kitzmiller vs Dover 2.x
It shouldn't surprise anyone to know that folks who hold to a two thousand year old bunch of religious idolatry'd tried to drag you into a bunch of idolatry yourself.
It shouldn't surprise anyone to know that folks who hold to a two thousand year old bunch of religious idolatry'd tried to drag you into a bunch of idolatry yourself.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- 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 #5[Replying to Miles in post #3]
Can you explain the valley of stability?
Can you explain why many severe earthquakes produce lightning?
Can you explain the properties of a supercritical fluid?
Can you explain the tidal forces a comet experience when it goes from a long period comet to a short period comet?
These are but a few of the topics in creation science all of which have practical application.
Can you tell me what a z-pinch is and where a z-pinch actually happens in nature?While this might be any interesting exercise, my objection is, as you point out, in no way does creationism come close to having anything to do with science. Plus, it takes away valuable time that could be better spent on teaching actual science. Far too much science information and far too little time to present it.
Can you explain the valley of stability?
Can you explain why many severe earthquakes produce lightning?
Can you explain the properties of a supercritical fluid?
Can you explain the tidal forces a comet experience when it goes from a long period comet to a short period comet?
These are but a few of the topics in creation science all of which have practical application.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3274 times
- Been thanked: 2022 times
Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21
Post #6Are all the answers "Jesus?"EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:24 pmCan you tell me what a z-pinch is and where a z-pinch actually happens in nature?
Can you explain the valley of stability?
Can you explain why many severe earthquakes produce lightning?
Can you explain the properties of a supercritical fluid?
Can you explain the tidal forces a comet experience when it goes from a long period comet to a short period comet?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- 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 #7So in what way do these topics come to bear on creationism? That is, what is there necessary function in creationism?EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:24 pm [Replying to Miles in post #3]
Can you tell me what a z-pinch is and where a z-pinch actually happens in nature?While this might be any interesting exercise, my objection is, as you point out, in no way does creationism come close to having anything to do with science. Plus, it takes away valuable time that could be better spent on teaching actual science. Far too much science information and far too little time to present it.
Can you explain the valley of stability?
Can you explain why many severe earthquakes produce lightning?
Can you explain the properties of a supercritical fluid?
Can you explain the tidal forces a comet experience when it goes from a long period comet to a short period comet?
These are but a few of the topics in creation science all of which have practical application.
.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3043
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3274 times
- Been thanked: 2022 times
Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21
Post #8Or, to put it another way, how can we apply principles of creation science to one of these or any other problem and arrive at a testable solution where just plain science gets it wrong?Miles wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:45 pmSo in what way do these topics come to bear on creationism? That is, what is there necessary function in creationism?EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:24 pmThese are but a few of the topics in creation science all of which have practical application.
As an example, all birds have wings, but this makes little sense from a design perspective (even common design) for flightless birds like ostriches. An ostrich's wings are virtually useless as limbs, yet according to a creationist viewpoint, God decided that such wings were the way to go. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes sense, because one of the cardinal rules of evolution is "descent with modification." Once birds lost their limbs with usable digits in exchange for wings, it was much harder for birds to "modify" them back to something useful, so ostriches are stuck with what they inherited.
Can you think of an example where the converse is true? For example, an animal that has derived mammalian traits (mammary glands, alveolar lungs, placental gestation), but also has, say, derived arthropod traits (silk production, chelicerae, chitin exoskeletion)? I happen to know that that particular pattern has never been discovered, but do you know of any pattern where scientific expectations fail in favor of what one might reasonably expect from a designer?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2335
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 2005 times
- Been thanked: 775 times
Re: Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21
Post #9What exactly is "creation science"? It seems to be an oxymoron if we mean an unobservable entity (likely the Christian God in this case) has given rise to the observable phenomenon around us.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:24 pm [Replying to Miles in post #3]
Can you tell me what a z-pinch is and where a z-pinch actually happens in nature?While this might be any interesting exercise, my objection is, as you point out, in no way does creationism come close to having anything to do with science. Plus, it takes away valuable time that could be better spent on teaching actual science. Far too much science information and far too little time to present it.
Can you explain the valley of stability?
Can you explain why many severe earthquakes produce lightning?
Can you explain the properties of a supercritical fluid?
Can you explain the tidal forces a comet experience when it goes from a long period comet to a short period comet?
These are but a few of the topics in creation science all of which have practical application.
I think "squirrel science" would actually be a more testable and useful thing. At least we can observe squirrels and see what they are capable of doing. I doubt universe creation is one of their talents, but at least we can watch them in a controlled manner and make useful, testable claims to find out.
Trying to cram any given god concept and science together is doomed to failure until one of these gods is observable. Only then could we actually tell if they might be responsible for anything we observe.
- 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 #10[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #5]
https://www.creationscience.com/onlineb ... vity2.html
Earthquakes producing lighting is in the same category, and typical of these kinds of arguments where an effect that is observed to happen at some level is used in a hand waving analogy to support a creationist argument that falls apart completely upon quantitative analysis. When the numbers are crunched, every one of the items in the list above fails to support creation "science" in any way.
Most of these have been discussed here before and shown NOT to support creation "science" but fall into the category of "this can happen at some level, therefore it explains my creationist argument." For example, you argued in prior discussions that z-pinch could explain the distribution of radioactive elements on earth, when in fact it is a plasma confinement technique that some Ukraine scientists used to produce miniscule amounts of radiactive elements from a huge energy input into a tiny volume ... completely unfeasible for large scale production of the amount of radioactive elements on Earth. Piezoelectric effects in rocks is a similar ridiculous argument that falls apart quantitatively. If anyone wants to see an example of where this kind of nonsense comes from, here is an example (from, of course, creationscience.com):Can you tell me what a z-pinch is and where a z-pinch actually happens in nature?
Can you explain the valley of stability?
Can you explain why many severe earthquakes produce lightning?
Can you explain the properties of a supercritical fluid?
Can you explain the tidal forces a comet experience when it goes from a long period comet to a short period comet?
These are but a few of the topics in creation science all of which have practical application.
https://www.creationscience.com/onlineb ... vity2.html
Earthquakes producing lighting is in the same category, and typical of these kinds of arguments where an effect that is observed to happen at some level is used in a hand waving analogy to support a creationist argument that falls apart completely upon quantitative analysis. When the numbers are crunched, every one of the items in the list above fails to support creation "science" in any way.
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
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain