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
Prodigy
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 941 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?

.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1362 times
Been thanked: 520 times

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

Post #2

Post by benchwarmer »

[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.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 941 times

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

Post #3

Post by Miles »

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.
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.


.

Online
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18758
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1729 times
Been thanked: 1169 times

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

Post #4

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Kitzmiller 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.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1669
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

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

Post #5

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Miles in post #3]
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 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.

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2316
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1887 times
Been thanked: 1384 times

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

Post #6

Post by Difflugia »

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?
Are all the answers "Jesus?"
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3394
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 266 times
Been thanked: 941 times

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

Post #7

Post by Miles »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:24 pm [Replying to Miles in post #3]
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 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.
So in what way do these topics come to bear on creationism? That is, what is there necessary function in creationism?



.

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2316
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1887 times
Been thanked: 1384 times

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

Post #8

Post by Difflugia »

Miles wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:45 pm
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.
So in what way do these topics come to bear on creationism? That is, what is there necessary function in creationism?
Or, 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?

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 preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2106
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1362 times
Been thanked: 520 times

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

Post #9

Post by benchwarmer »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:24 pm [Replying to Miles in post #3]
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 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.
What 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.

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.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 886 times

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

Post #10

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #5]
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.
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):

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

Post Reply