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]

From Post 130:

...
If light doesn't exist, how is the screen you're looking at visible?

It's kinda it magnified by us putting us energy into it, some extra energy so that we can see that it does.

Ever blow you out a candle in you a room that only has it, it one of em?

Light exists as a form of energy. Our perception of that energy is what makes it, definitionally, it "light". Or "heat" pick one that compliments your dietary preferences.

If gravity as a force doesn't exist, why isn't the device you're looking at floating around in mid-air?

Gravity = mass x how big are her, the pretty thing and her hips, and how fast it is, you're atrying to run you up to fetch you on em, or how fast it is, you're atrying to get you away from em cause ya don't know what it is, it is she's mad about, ya just know it is, ya can't afford to lose ya you not one nother more tooth about it.

Gravity is a property of mass, and speed, and the pretty thing's hips. That's just math right there.

The "cancels-out-to-nothing" you're coming up with is number-line math which has no practical application.

You're inability to apply the data put before you ain't the responsibility of em that can't get em them to get you to do it.

[Athetotheist]

From Post 130:

...
If light doesn't exist, how is the screen you're looking at visible?

It's kinda it magnified by us putting us energy into it, some extra energy so that we can see that it does.

Ever blow you out a candle in you a room that only has it, it one of em?

Light exists as a form of energy. Our perception of that energy is what makes it, definitionally, it "light". Or "heat" pick one that compliments your dietary preferences.

How can light exist as a form of energy unless energy exists?

Gravity = mass x how big are her, the pretty thing and her hips, and how fast it is, you're atrying to run you up to fetch you on em, or how fast it is, you're atrying to get you away from em cause ya don't know what it is, it is she's mad about, ya just know it is, ya can't afford to lose ya you not one nother more tooth about it.

Gravity is a property of mass, and speed, and the pretty thing's hips. That's just math right there.

"Jabberwocky" makes more sense than what I just read here.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 132:

How can light exist as a form of energy unless energy exists?

Cause energy can't exist unless it does?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

"Jabberwocky" makes more sense than what I just read here.

Lol

I do like to carry on. But my sincere compliments, you carried it on so much better

My point was to show that the ("force of" - not included in my original statement) gravity is a product of mass and speed.

I edited out an incorrect assumption there at the end, cause I woke up before the pretty thing, and I can't find were she put her up the coffee pot. Or the coffee. Found the creamer, she keeps that in the fridge. I gave up looking for the sugar that time there I floured me up a cup of coffee. Wait a minute, maybe she keeps the coffee in the coffee table... Nope, of all the most logical places to keep the coffee, don't ya know she don't keep it there.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #129]

You're presenting a false dilemma. The atheist position is not being supported just because the government remains religiously neutral. And the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from doing two things: opposing religious practice AND aiding religious practice.

I suggest that you read James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" for further historical background.

Free public education did not start until 1867 and compulsory education started in 1852. The bill that Madison was writing about was to pay preachers with tax money it had nothing to do with free public education because that did not start until 1867. At the time parents paid schools to have their children educated, so they could choose the type of education they wanted for their children.

Education is never neutral on certain topics. In literature, the type of novels chosen are not always neutral, in history, the topics covered are not neutral. Take for example Washington's farewell address which all US students had to study. In that address, Washington makes this declaration.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to
political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim
the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

Education is not neutral when it comes to religion and morality.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Take for example homosexuality both the Quan and the Bible call the type of behavior immoral. Christianity and Isalm make most of the world's population. And yet it is taught as moral in our schools.

Who is determining what right and wrong if the voters cannot decide what their children are being taught.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #125]

The courts have ruled that that's what the Establishment Clause means,

And this is the problem with the view of a living constitution. 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.


but in principle there could always be some religious tenet that would negatively affect the protected rights of others. There will always be a compromise, so that's why more nuanced laws and court cases often include phrases like "compelling state interest."

What "protected rights" are you speaking of?

The problem here is that teaching children science can be argued to be an unfair endorsement of religions that are more consonant with reality. If the only principle that the government had to observe were strict religious fairness, then the best solution would certainly be to keep all knowledge out of the curriculum that could potentially affect religion. If everyone were kept completely ignorant from childhood, then no religion, no matter how much its tenets aligned with real-world knowledge, would have an advantage. The question, then, is whether there are any other compelling state or public interests that are negatively affected by ignorance and if so, how they should be weighed against the fairness to religion that ignorance provides.

No, the question is whether or not parents have the right to bring up their children as they see fit and religious education is not unconstitutional.

In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children `come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements' " (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602 (1979) ("Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753 (1982) (discussing "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720 ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the `liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ[t] . . . to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce )). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case ... t=20000006

So the court precedent is that parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit.

The first, and I think most important, is that certain rights of children should be protected beyond any parental whim. While miseducation certainly isn't in the same category as things like physical abuse and medical neglect that cause immediate and proximate damage, I'd put it in the same category as, for example, a parent allowing a child to smoke cigarettes. The worst damage isn't immediate and probably won't show up for years, but the government (rightly, I believe), recognizes that a child's long-term health, in the interests of both the individual child and of the overall health of the future adult population, trumps parental rights. While the comparison between smoking and lack of education isn't perfect, it may be more apt than we might initially suppose.

Homeschools are predominantly Christian and teach Christian cosmology so why is it that they out preform their public school counterparts.

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (The public school average is the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.) A 2015 study found Black homeschool students to be scoring 23 to 42 percentile points above Black public school students (Ray, 2015).

78% of peer-reviewed studies on academic achievement show homeschool students perform statistically significantly better than those in institutional schools (Ray, 2017).

Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.

Whether homeschool parents were ever certified teachers is not related to their children’s academic achievement.

Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.
Homeschool students are increasingly being actively recruited by colleges.


SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT (SOCIALIZATION)
87% of peer-reviewed studies on social, emotional, and psychological development show homeschool students perform statistically significantly better than those in conventional schools (Ray, 2017).

Homeschool students are regularly engaged in social and educational activities outside their homes and with people other than their nuclear-family members. They are commonly involved in activities such as field trips, scouting, 4-H, political drives, church ministry, sports teams, and community volunteer work.

Adults who were home educated are more politically tolerant than the public schooled in the limited research done so far.

SUCCESS IN THE “REAL WORLD” OF ADULTHOOD

69% of peer-reviewed studies on success into adulthood (including college) show adults who were home educated succeed and perform statistically significantly better than those who attended institutional schools (Ray, 2017).

they participate in local community service more frequently than does the general population,
these adults vote and attend public meetings more frequently than the general population
they go to and succeed at college at an equal or higher rate than the general population
by adulthood, they internalize the values and beliefs of their parents at a high rate
https://www.nheri.org/research-facts-on ... 2C%202017).

The second is that I think the state has a compelling economic interest in encouraging a higher standard of public education in adults and the easiest way to do that is to provide a robust education for children. Even if a higher level of education leads to a reduced membership of certain religious groups, I don't think that is enough of an argument for even a local majority to protect their religious preferences through either a lack of education or deliberate miseducation.

As indicated above the opposite is what actual research indicates. That religious education directed by their parents produces children that are more successful and socially adjusted. In twenty years this country will be run by homeschoolers.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #128]

I don't believe that gods exist so of course I would not attribute creation of the universe to such a being. But this most certainly is NOT what modern cosmology is trying to prove (I take it that "atheist cosmology" is the same as "modern cosmology" in your view since you didn't answer the question explicitly). Modern cosmology is trying to work out the physics of how the universe may have came into being and its evolution over time, regardless of what the mechanisms turn out to be. That is how science works ... there is no predetermined answer as is the case for religion. Answers are found via research and application of the scientific method, and no modern science that I'm aware of has as its goal to prove the nonexistence of a god or gods. No idea where you got that from.

Really no predetermined answer in atheistic cosmology?

Your senses tell you that you are an individual with your own thoughts and you can make your own decisions and that there are other individuals with the same qualities as you have. And that you live in a physical universe made up of physical objects.

Modern theories do not give a universe with those qualities. There is a string right now on this site arguing whether there is free will or not. This argument is taking place because modern theories do not give a universe in which this can be the case.

Observations do not match the theories of modern cosmology so how can there not be predetermined answers in modern cosmology.

Why don't you apply this same line of reasoning when it comes to the existence of gods? I can apply it to say: When you can demonstrate that gods of any kind exist then you might have an argument. But up until this point all observations indicate that gods do not exist. Is that not perfectly analogous?

I have already. The universe could not exist in the form that it is in unless there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God. Just like we do not need to be able to see an indention in the fabric of space to know that gravity is caused by an indention in space. We know gravity is caused by an indention in space because we can see the effects of gravity. We know God exists because we can see the effects of a Creator God on the universe.

We only can experience 3 spatial dimensions. And yet for gravity to exist there has to be more than 3 spatial dimensions.
Are you claiming that spacetime differs from three spatial dimensions and one time dimension as a 4-dimensional manifold? Why does gravity (as described by General Relativity) need more than 3 spatial dimensions?

The number of dimensions that the universe is a bit of an open question. But was saying is that we can only really experience 3 spatial dimensions. And yet for all of the effects that gravity causes there has to be at least one more time. The open question on the time dimension is what is it and why is it in constant motion if it is a spatial dimension. We can experience time but not like the other dimensions. We can not see where backward in the time direction or forward in the time direction. So how do we know it truly exists? We see the effects that it has.

The only working theory we have is the special creation of the universe.
It isn't a working theory (or even a theory of any kind) because it assumes a special creator such as a god being which has never been demonstrated to exist (see above). It can't become a theory without this step being taken because without this it has no basis.

How do you know that you are creating an indention in space right now? You cannot see that. How do you know that the earth is creating an indention in space right now?

If the majority of parents believed that nothing actually physically exists and we are nothing more random energy inside a Boltzmann brain let them run for school board and local government and argue the case in front of the people.

Do you know even one person who believes this?

Yes, it is being argued on the freewill string on this site.

Talk to a scientist who tries to do research on a static universe or the fallacy of global warming. (or excuse me climate change)
I dont' know any static universe researchers (probably because they'd have a hard time getting funded). But it is ironic that a person calling themself "EarthScienceguy" doesn't believe that anthropogenic activity is impacting global atmospheric temperatures and thinks it is a hoax. Very telling.

I knew you would love the global warming comment. And I would love to get into that but I will save that for another time.

Again, "creation cosmology" has a fatal flaw in that the postulated entity doing the creating has yet to be found or shown to exist in any form. So it is a hypothesis without (as of yet) any supporting physical evidence or convincing theoretical backing.

Mathematically there is no other solution to the origin of the universe.

[Difflugia]

And this is the problem with the view of a living constitution. 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.

Whether or not it's a problem, it's required for your statement to be true. The Establishment Clause says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You, on the other hand, said that it says that "government should not endorse a particular religious group over another group." Those aren't the same thing, but that's how the courts have interpreted it, hence my comment.

What "protected rights" are you speaking of?

Any rights that the courts choose to protect.

No, the question is whether or not parents have the right to bring up their children as they see fit and religious education is not unconstitutional.

That's two more questions, neither of which is a question I was addressing. It sounds like we're up to four.

• Does public education unfairly advantage or disadvantage any given religion in a way that would, absent any other consideration, violate the Establishment Clause?
• Is public education constitutionally protected in some other way or does it serve an otherwise compelling state interest?
• Do parents have the right to raise their children according to whim at the expense of either the rights the children themselves or any otherwise compelling state interests?
• Is religious education unconstitutional?

So the court precedent is that parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit.

First, how the courts have decided the question isn't an argument against anything I said, which was simply that there is a constitutional question.

Second, allowing parents the latitude of providing religious education does not allow them carte blanche to do "as they see fit." The courts do, in fact, place limitations on parental conduct. While thus far, the courts have consistently ruled in favor of religious education, they have equally consistently ruled that children are, indeed, covered by the Equal Protection clause, which is used to justify statutes against other forms of abuse. Though most states have stricter laws, the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 places distinct limitations on what parents may legally "see fit" to inflict upon their children.

Third, there is a current trend of courts ruling more in favor of children's rights over parental rights, especially in cases involving religion, than they have in the past. A number of states (Minnesota, Oregon, and Massachussetts, for example) have laws that explicitly excuse religiously-motivated medical neglect or murder, but recent cases have resulted in sustained abuse and murder convictions that in the past would either have been acquitted or overturned on appeal. The fact that certain abusive behavior has been allowed in the past is no guarantee that it will be allowed in the future, let alone an argument against it being considered a valid constitutional question.

Homeschools are predominantly Christian and teach Christian cosmology so why is it that they out preform their public school counterparts.

Very likely, and perhaps ironically, for similar reasons to those that cause professed atheists to outperform Christians on tests of religious knowledge in the United States. As a self-selected group choosing against the majority, they're statistically more likely to invest more resources and effort into the process than those from the "default" majority group.

I suspect that the improved performance of religious homeschoolers is simply because their parents, however misguided, are taking an active interest in their children's education. If you want to compare apples with apples, then you'd need to compare creationist homeschoolers with homeschoolers whose education also includes science.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #138]

Your senses tell you that you are an individual with your own thoughts and you can make your own decisions and that there are other individuals with the same qualities as you have. And that you live in a physical universe made up of physical objects.

Modern theories do not give a universe with those qualities.

Why not? There is nothing within "modern theories" that says matter can't exist and that life could not arise, or any other physical object that can exist within the rules of chemistry and physics. What makes you think modern science predicts that physical matter can't exist when it predicts exactly that? As far as humans that make their own decisions, my dog makes decisions (not always good ones) and so do the fish in my fish tank. They may not have brains as advanced and capable as a human brain, but there is nothing special about humans in the grand scheme of evolution of life other than that we have evolved a very capable brain, opposable thumbs, and some other modifications that have enabled our accomplishments.

Observations do not match the theories of modern cosmology so how can there not be predetermined answers in modern cosmology.

How are these even connected? Modern cosmology attempts to explain observations, and does a very good job in many areas. If some observations cannot yet be explained it just means the answer is not yet found. If there were predetermined answers we'd have explanations for everything by definition, but we don't, therefore there are no predetermined answers. Only religion makes that claim.

The universe could not exist in the form that it is in unless there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.... We know God exists because we can see the effects of a Creator God on the universe.

Statements of opinion only, with no evidence to support them. No such being has ever been shown to exist, much less to have created anything.

The open question on the time dimension is what is it and why is it in constant motion if it is a spatial dimension.

Because time isn't a spatial dimension. Why do you think time is a spatial dimension?

How do you know that you are creating an indention in space right now? You cannot see that. How do you know that the earth is creating an indention in space right now?

An indention in spacetime, not space. Spacetime is a 4D manifold (look up the mathematical definition of a 4D Lorentzian manifold). People a lot smarter than I am came up with General Relativity and it has been confirmed in many different experiments with many practical applications (eg. adjustment of time on GPS satellites due to the time dilation caused by their motion). So if General Relativity says gravity "is a consequence of masses moving along geodesic lines in a curved spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass" (from Wikipedia), I'm happy to believe it.

Mathematically there is no other solution to the origin of the universe.

Really? Care to share this math with us (and the physics community at large ... I'm sure they'd be very interested in the details).

[Athetotheist]

Free public education did not start until 1867 and compulsory education started in 1852. The bill that Madison was writing about was to pay preachers with tax money it had nothing to do with free public education because that did not start until 1867. At the time parents paid schools to have their children educated, so they could choose the type of education they wanted for their children.

I was referring to Madison's arguments for keeping the government out of the business of making religious endorsements.

Education is never neutral on certain topics. In literature, the type of novels chosen are not always neutral, in history, the topics covered are not neutral. Take for example Washington's farewell address which all US students had to study. In that address, Washington makes this declaration.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to
political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim
the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

Washington's declaration isn't part of the Constitution. The Establishment Clause is.

Education is not neutral when it comes to religion and morality.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Take for example homosexuality both the Quan and the Bible call the type of behavior immoral. Christianity and Isalm make most of the world's population. And yet it is taught as moral in our schools.

It isn't taught as moral in Muslim or Christian schools, is it? And teaching it as moral isn't an "atheist" position; there are religions such as Wicca which accept same-sex attractions. And as far as "most of the world's population" being this or that, a tyranny of the majority is one of the things Madison warns against.

[Athetotheist]

From Post 132:

How can light exist as a form of energy unless energy exists?

Cause energy can't exist unless it does?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

"Jabberwocky" makes more sense than what I just read here.

Lol

I do like to carry on. But my sincere compliments, you carried it on so much better

My point was to show that the ("force of" - not included in my original statement) gravity is a product of mass and speed.

I edited out an incorrect assumption there at the end, cause I woke up before the pretty thing, and I can't find were she put her up the coffee pot. Or the coffee. Found the creamer, she keeps that in the fridge. I gave up looking for the sugar that time there I floured me up a cup of coffee. Wait a minute, maybe she keeps the coffee in the coffee table... Nope, of all the most logical places to keep the coffee, don't ya know she don't keep it there.

My own point was about everything supposedly cancelling out into nothing, and that the existence of energy cancels out that cancelling out.

As for the existence or nonexistence of your coffee, you'll have to take that up with her....