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?

.

[Tcg]

Why do the constants of physics have the values that they do to support life and matter.

Or, to put it another way, why is a hole always the right shape to hold the water that fills it?

Why do ponds have the values that they do to support the growth of fragrant water lilies?




Tcg

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

From Opening post:

The bill will allow kindergarten through 12th grade teachers to teach students about...

Presumably this wide range means that the curriculum will need to be adapted for different age ranges in order to be useful for the students. I’m curious about where the ‘z pinch’ mentioned in this thread, for example, might sit in that range?

What scientific concepts can be taught to children in kindergarten? I don’t think magnetic fields and radioactivity will be. I may be mistaken but ‘science’ as a subject generally starts at high school level. So what good reason can there be to introduce a controversial subject to students before they develop the critical reasoning skills essential to truly understand the concepts involved?

[brunumb]

What is there to teach? According to the theory, God did it. It's not evidence based. It's based on one particular creation story from one particular religious book. No matter what question you ask, you have an answer. But it's an invented answer. If you make up a god that can do anything it can then be used to answer even the most difficult questions. That doesn't belong anywhere near a science class.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

From Opening post:

The bill will allow kindergarten through 12th grade teachers to teach students about...

Presumably this wide range means that the curriculum will need to be adapted for different age ranges in order to be useful for the students. I’m curious about where the ‘z pinch’ mentioned in this thread, for example, might sit in that range?

What scientific concepts can be taught to children in kindergarten? I don’t think magnetic fields and radioactivity will be. I may be mistaken but ‘science’ as a subject generally starts at high school level. So what good reason can there be to introduce a controversial subject to students before they develop the critical reasoning skills essential to truly understand the concepts involved?

Introducing pseudo-scientific concepts to students before they develop the critical reasoning skills essential to truly understand them is an excellent way to indoctrinate them. Get 'em while they're young and dumb has long been a traditional (albeit, usually unvoiced) slogan throughout the world's religions.

As for possible kindergarten + teaching aids:






Book Blurbs:


Animals By Design
Author: Institute for Creation Research

"Fur, feathers, and fins - when did they all begin? Were animals designed by a genius Creator, or did they evolve by random chance? In Animals by Design, you'll discover what the Bible and science say about the source of all life. You'll also explore the unique features of favorite, famous, and far-out creatures! You'll find answers to these questions and more! The third book in the Science for Kids series, Animals by Design will leave you in awe of your creator as you study the wonderful creatures in His world!"


Case For A Creator For Kids
Author Lee Strobel

"Did God create the universe? Is the Big Bang theory true? Are your science teachers wrong? Packed full of up-to-date scientific research and eye-opening investigations, The Case for a Creator for Kids gives you the answers and is written in kid-friendly language that is logical and easy to understand."


My Creation Bible
Author: Ken Ham

"You won’t want to miss this must-have “first Bible” for small children, from the president of Answers in Genesis, the world’s largest creation ministry. Ken Ham, the country’s most in-demand creationist speaker, has crafted a lavishly illustrated, biblically faithful Bible board book for toddlers."


.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #23]

Not this one again! If this sort of nonsense is all you can present to support "creation science" then you've already lost the argument. Humphrey's 6000-year-old model of the universe for his planetary magnetic field rubbish is 6 orders of magnitude out compared to the known age of the Earth (and the universe), making his model worthless, not even considering his other plucked-from-thin-air assumptions (the planets started out as balls of H2O which he states with no evidence, and a god swooped in and aligned all the H-atom nuclear spins to conveniently create a starting magnetic field ... again offered up with no supporting evidence).

Not only was his prediction on Uranus and Neptune correct but also his prediction on the degradation of Mercury's magnetic field from when it was measured in the '70s to when it was measured in the (I think) early 2000s. And yes his theory makes predictions on the make-up of the planet if it does not have a magnetic field like Venus and Mars. As theories go I would say that it is pretty comprehensive.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #33]

Presumably this wide range means that the curriculum will need to be adapted for different age ranges in order to be useful for the students. I’m curious about where the ‘z pinch’ mentioned in this thread, for example, might sit in that range?

What scientific concepts can be taught to children in kindergarten? I don’t think magnetic fields and radioactivity will be. I may be mistaken but ‘science’ as a subject generally starts at high school level. So what good reason can there be to introduce a controversial subject to students before they develop the critical reasoning skills essential to truly understand the concepts involved?

I actually tend to agree with you. Elementary science is more experience-based because they are concrete learners. I do not believe evolution is even mentioned until Jr. High and even then only in very general terms.

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. I had been up until the sixties the Bible was taught in schools until the sixties if the majority of the parents wanted it to be.

Why do the rights of the minority have to step on the rights of the majority to raise their children as they wish?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Tcg in post #32]

Why do ponds have the values that they do to support the growth of fragrant water lilies?

That is exactly what I am talking about. Why the electrostatic force that bonds atoms together have the values that it has? Why do the fundamental forces of nature have the constants that they have?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #32]

Why do ponds have the values that they do to support the growth of fragrant water lilies?

That is exactly what I am talking about. Why the electrostatic force that bonds atoms together have the values that it has? Why do the fundamental forces of nature have the constants that they have?

It's not even close to what I mentioned. You are talking about electrostatic force and atoms. I asked about ponds and fragrant water lilies.


Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Tcg in post #39]

It's not even close to what I mentioned. You are talking about electrostatic force and atoms. I asked about ponds and fragrant water lilies.

Ponds and fragrant water lilies cannot exist unless the fundamental forces have the values that they do.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #36]

As theories go I would say that it is pretty comprehensive.

It is not a scientific theory ... it is a lame attempt at a hypothesis based on purely made up assumptions that aren't supported by any evidence whatsoever. The universe is not 6000 years old (known fact), the planets in our solar system did not start out as balls of H2O (known fact), and invoking the actions of a god to align all the H-atom nuclear spins at t=0 to create a starting magnetic field is just a nonsensical convenience in his attempt to come up with a present field via a single exponential decay from a starting field and claim that his "model" is consistent with observations. The fact that he may have landed on an approximate number or two that is ballpark correct is irrelevant ... his base assumptions are demonstrably wrong so anything derived from them is meaningless.

Why do the rights of the minority have to step on the rights of the majority to raise their children as they wish?

Science is not personal opinion. There is nothing stopping parents from home schooling their kids and teaching them anything they want, but in the public school systems science should be taught as the subject it is, which is study of the natural world with the goal of a better understanding of how it works and how we can benefit from that knowledge (eg. new medicince and vaccines, new technology to improve quality of life in many ways, etc.), with hypotheses supported by extensive evidence, observation and analysis yielding consistent and reproducible results.

Creationism is not science, and it could also be presented to students at some level for what it is ... various mythical stories common to many religions and cultures that are inconsistent with each other and have no scientific basis, but are part of those religions or cultures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

Creationism and science are two orthogonal subjects. The problem is when creationism is taught as science and presented as an equally viable explanation (of anything).