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?

.

dad1
Under Suspension
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 3:40 am
Been thanked: 12 times

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

Post #151

Post by dad1 »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #147]

The beliefs that are taught in school that are taught as if they were science and part of science are religious. They just don't want competition. All origin science is religion and belief based and not knowledge or fact based. The beliefs that should be taught ought to be those beliefs reflecting the majority who pay for the teaching. If, as you say, the area was Christian, then there is no question what should be taught about where we came from.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

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

Post #152

Post by Kenisaw »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:28 pm
Kenisaw wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 5:40 pmWho said light and gravity and air doesn't exist? They obviously do exist, and they exist inside a closed system (the universe). When everything in that universe is added up together, it equals nothing.

A closed, net-zero universe doesn't mean light can't exist. What it does mean is that nothing in the universe can get out, and nothing outside the universe can get in, and that everything in a universe that came from nothing will be nothing again when it is brought back together.
Nothing which exists can be "nothing"; existing makes everything which exists something. If nothing can be destroyed, then something can never become nothing.
Virtual particles appear all the time. Casimir Effect if you'd like to look it up. They pop into existence is pairs, completely opposite of each other, and when the rejoin the completely annihilate each other. From nothing, to something, to nothing. This isn't a concept, these are real particles that pop into and out of existence. The entire universe is basically a humongous virtual particle set, only instead of two particles there are a number so big it hurts (like 10^80 of them).

This universe is nothing, broken up into a lot of offsetting pieces, that if it could be brought back together again would cancel itself out.

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 #153

Post by Athetotheist »

Kenisaw wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 3:10 pmVirtual particles appear all the time. Casimir Effect if you'd like to look it up.
I'm familiar with the Casimir effect, thank you very much.
They pop into existence is pairs, completely opposite of each other, and when the rejoin the completely annihilate each other. From nothing, to something, to nothing.
You're contradicting yourself. You're the one who pointed out that energy can't be created or destroyed, so quantum particles most certainly do not go "from nothing, to something, to nothing". They appear as particles from the quantum energy field, so the energy which makes them up is always there.

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 #154

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:28 pm
Kenisaw wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 5:40 pmWho said light and gravity and air doesn't exist? They obviously do exist, and they exist inside a closed system (the universe). When everything in that universe is added up together, it equals nothing.

A closed, net-zero universe doesn't mean light can't exist. What it does mean is that nothing in the universe can get out, and nothing outside the universe can get in, and that everything in a universe that came from nothing will be nothing again when it is brought back together.
Nothing which exists can be "nothing"; existing makes everything which exists something. If nothing can be destroyed, then something can never become nothing.
That'll be point Athetotheist, for those keeping score at home.

I'm very curious to see if our various debaters - strong as they are - can assail this logic.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

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 #155

Post by Difflugia »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 2:43 pmThat'll be point Athetotheist, for those keeping score at home.
Not all of us keeping score at home assign points for equivocation fallacies.

Whether Athetotheist realizes it or not, their rebuttal is equivocating Kenisaw's net-zero "nothing" with a nothing that is something like the lack of a quantum field. It's perhaps sloppy wording on Kenisaw's part, but it's clear from previous posts that what's being discussed is the inflationary Universe as a quantum field fluctuation with zero or near-zero delta energy in relation to the underlying quantum field. At quantum levels, the various conservation laws are also subject to the uncertainty principle and fluctuations must obey the uncertainty relation ΔEΔt ≤ ½ħ. As long as Δt is short enough, a particle does indeed appear out of "nothing" and return to "nothing." If ΔE is small enough or zero, as is postulated for the Universe, then Δt can be a long time or forever.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

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 #156

Post by Athetotheist »

Difflugia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 6:12 pmWhether Athetotheist realizes it or not, their rebuttal is equivocating Kenisaw's net-zero "nothing" with a nothing that is something like the lack of a quantum field.
equivocation (noun): use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself

nothing (noun): not anything; not something; naught

Thus the equivocation is actually the other way around, as you yourself inadvertently admit by putting Kenisaw's "nothing" in quotation marks and leaving mine without.

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 #157

Post by Difflugia »

Athetotheist wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 7:50 pmThus the equivocation is actually the other way around, as you yourself inadvertently admit by putting Kenisaw's "nothing" in quotation marks and leaving mine without.
And now that you know what Kenisaw meant, you can rebut the actual argument instead of an unintentional straw man.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

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 #158

Post by Athetotheist »

Difflugia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 8:04 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 7:50 pmThus the equivocation is actually the other way around, as you yourself inadvertently admit by putting Kenisaw's "nothing" in quotation marks and leaving mine without.
And now that you know what Kenisaw meant, you can rebut the actual argument instead of an unintentional straw man.
A straw man is an intentional misrepresentation of a proposition. How does pointing out Kenisaw's equivocation on the word "nothing" misrepresent anything?

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 #159

Post by Difflugia »

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.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

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 #160

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Difflugia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 6:12 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 2:43 pmThat'll be point Athetotheist, for those keeping score at home.
(I also expressed interest in how folks might debate such, and boy howdy...)

Not all of us keeping score at home assign points for equivocation fallacies.

(Joey underlines...)
Whether Athetotheist realizes it or not, their rebuttal is equivocating Kenisaw's net-zero "nothing" with a nothing that is something like the lack of a quantum field. It's perhaps sloppy wording on Kenisaw's part, but it's clear from previous posts that what's being discussed is the inflationary Universe as a quantum field fluctuation with zero or near-zero delta energy in relation to the underlying quantum field. At quantum levels, the various conservation laws are also subject to the uncertainty principle and fluctuations must obey the uncertainty relation ΔEΔt ≤ ½ħ. As long as Δt is short enough, a particle does indeed appear out of "nothing" and return to "nothing." If ΔE is small enough or zero, as is postulated for the Universe, then Δt can be a long time or forever.
:blink: :dizzy: :-k

I'm just proud to be witness to when big brains talk about stuff.

Y'all keep it up. Though I struggle to fully understand, it sure is fun to try.

I'm pointing this out cause I think it's important to encourage the lesser brains among us to do their best to follow along. There's learning to be had here.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply