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 119:

What happened to create this universe is an open question and it will not be answered by atheistic cosmology anytime soon. And unless the laws of physics change it will never be answered. So that means there are two theories that can describe the origin of the universe. So why should public opinion not dictate what is being taught in the schools?
...

Please provide examples of such teachings - from publically funded schools - for analysis.

In fact, the only theory of the origin of the universe that breaks the laws of physics as we know them is atheistic cosmology.

Proposing a sentient entity created the universe violates what we know about sentience, namely the requirement of a physical brain to do all that sentiencing.

...
Or the law of Biogenesis which says, " The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material."

All life is observed to be created out of atoms. Are you now proposing atoms are living material?

...
The universe exists. As far as we know. There are some atheistic cosmologies out there that say we do not exist in fact most current atheistic cosmologies end in us not existing.

Please present such cosmologies for analysis.

So the only way that we can even get to a universe in which man and everything we see physically exists is for a Creator God that has eternally existed to have created it all.

Where has it been established this creator god exists, other'n by bald assertion?

Please show your work.

The problem with an 'eternally existing creator god' is that it fails to consider the universe having existed eternally in one form or the other.

So which theory describes the universe we observed?

I'll reserve comment here until you present these various cosmologies / teachings I've above requested.

Why should the majority have to bend to the demands of the minority if we are a democracy?

Courts have ruled, repeatedly, that "god did it" an inherently religious claim, devoid of supportive scientifically valid data. Many, many, many of which were theists' when they made their rulings.

...
In fact, it was not the people or the elected officials that denied the majority its parental rights it was the branch of government that was supposed to be the least powerful. Unless you are one of those who did not actually read the founding documents of the United States and believe that the three branches are supposed to co-equal.

As soon as the supreme court chose not to follow the original intent of the constitution, they were then able to make the constitution say whatever they wanted it to say.

The court made law again in Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court is specifically set up as a 'final arbiter' of what is and ain't acceptable interpretation of laws, and the Constitution.

And nigh on everyone was a theist, and they still ruled how they did.

...
In fact, the supreme court to this day has yet to answer the question of when life begins. How can you legalize abortion without defining it when life starts?

By recognizing the wimminfolk're them people too. No matter when they got born.

The whole idea of the constitution being a living document is nothing more than a way to circumnavigate the legislative branch of government.

I wonder if you'd be fretting you any of this if they ruled how you want em to all the time.

The whole idea of a 'dead' Constitution is to forever bind us to the thoughts of the ancients, ignoring our inalienable right to think for ourselves when new and better information comes into play.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #121]

What happened to create this universe is an open question and it will not be answered by atheistic cosmology anytime soon.

What on earth is "atheist cosmology"? It can't be related to the current Standard Model of physics, or General Relativity, or the Big Bang hypothesis, or related ideas because these have all been developed over many decades by many scientists, some of which were religious (practicing many different religions) and some of which were not. So what, specifically, is "atheist cosmology"? Is this some sort of cosmology that only atheists believe or advocate? Do you have any references or links that describe this strange subject and what it is all about?

Or the law of Biogenesis which says, " The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material."

This is not a "law" ... biogenesis refers to life that arose from pre-existing life, while abiogenesis refers to life arising from nonliving material. The former is widely observed of course, but it does not preclude abiogenesis as a possibility.

So the only way that we can even get to a universe in which man and everything we see physically exists is for a Creator God that has eternally existed to have created it all.

No ... that is a religious position with virtually zero evidentiary support, which is its biggest problem. Proposing the existence of a creator god is just a possible answer to a question science has not yet answered fully, and no such being has ever been demostrated to exist. So attributing anything to such a being has no basis in reality, and certainly cannot be claimed as the "only way" for a universe with living things such as human beings to have come about.

And for almost 200 years they voted to have the Bible taught in schools.

Then it was realized that a creation myth described in a holy book (the one in Genesis is just one of dozens or even hundreds) was most likely not how things happened and was positively not based on any science. So many districts decided that creationism should not be taught as real science (because it isn't, and it has no scientific support) but may be introduced as a subject in a debate class for example, or as a thing some religious people believe. Since there are may different creation myths, teaching just one (eg. the Genesis version) might upset children from other religions who are taught different creation myths at home by their parents who may not agree that the Genesis version is the correct version.

Science, on the other hand, doesn't have any preferences as to which myths to believe or teach. It is constantly updating itself as new information comes along and science classes in school should teach what the current "best" ideas are which do have evidence to support them. They should also describe (for this or any other science subject) that all the answers are not currently known and may never be by humans, and that science is a never-ending work in progress to better understand the natural world. There is no "holy science book" that has all the answers .... they must be found by hard work and consensus, and this is how the current ideas on cosmology have landed where they currently are ... with contributions by many theists and atheists over the centuries.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #122]

The problem with an 'eternally existing creator god' is that it fails to consider the universe has existed eternally in one form or the other.

This has been extensively argued in the string already along with everything above this in your comment. So my position on these topics have already been laid out.

Why should the majority have to bend to the demands of the minority if we are a democracy?
Courts have ruled, repeatedly, that "god did it" an inherently religious claim, devoid of supportive scientifically valid data. Many, many, many of which were theists' when they made their rulings.

That is the problem the courts do not have this power, under the constitution. By declaring that a creator God cannot be taught they are endorsing the religion of atheism, so they are breaking their own interpretation of the constitution. This is what happens with a living document that you can make say whatever it is you want it to say, it becomes internally inconsistent.

And nigh on everyone was a theist, and they still ruled how they did.

Theist or not they still interpreted the constitution in their own way and not in the way that it was intended by the founding fathers.

The whole idea of a 'dead' Constitution is to forever bind us to the thoughts of the ancients, ignoring our inalienable right to think for ourselves when new and better information comes into play.

That is why we can add to the constitution by adding amendments. Not by court degree.

[Difflugia]

The school is going to support one group's private position. Why should the atheist group's position be supported above someone else's position. The establishment clause states that the government should not endorse a particular religious group over another group.

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

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.

That is my point I am saying this is not the way it should be. Take Christianity out of it for a minute. If a district has more Muslims in it and wants to teach Islam the majority should rule. Which actually does happen. If a school district has more Hindu or Buddist they should be able to teach that. This is called parental rights. Giving the parents of that community the right to choose what their children are taught.

I'm not quite that much of a libertarian, or at least not in that way, and there are two competing interests here that I think are more compelling than either parental rights or the rights of a local religious majority.

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.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 123:

The problem with an 'eternally existing creator god' is that it fails to consider the universe has existed eternally in one form or the other.

This has been extensively argued in the string already along with everything above this in your comment. So my position on these topics have already been laid out.

Thank you for so graciously conceding I'm right here.

That is the problem the courts do not have this power, under the constitution. By declaring that a creator God cannot be taught they are endorsing the religion of atheism, so they are breaking their own interpretation of the constitution.

The courts are most certainly there to interpret the laws, up to and including some laws being unconstitutional.

Atheism is NOT a religion. It a disbelief in the claims of the religious.

This is what happens with a living document that you can make say whatever it is you want it to say, it becomes internally inconsistent.

The professional experts who are paid to study and consider the laws disagree with you - as evidenced by their ruling to disallow religious proselytizing in our public classrooms.

Theist or not they still interpreted the constitution in their own way and not in the way that it was intended by the founding fathers.

The founding fathers are dead, so we have no way of knowing their thoughts on how to interpret their opinions in light of new facts and ideas that have come along in the TWO HUNDRED YEARS since they died.

And I dare say you can't read you the minds folks to tell us what they would think.

That is why we can add to the constitution by adding amendments. Not by court degree.

Before you implied changing the law would create a 'living document' - your term - fraught with 'internal inconsistencies'.

Now you seem content to accept changes to the law.

I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #123]

What on earth is "atheist cosmology"? It can't be related to the current Standard Model of physics, or General Relativity, or the Big Bang hypothesis, or related ideas because these have all been developed over many decades by many scientists, some of which were religious (practicing many different religions) and some of which were not. So what, specifically, is "atheist cosmology"? Is this some sort of cosmology that only atheists believe or advocate? Do you have any references or links that describe this strange subject and what it is all about?

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Cosmology: is a branch of astronomy that involves the origin and evolution of the universe.

NO God created the universe. Is that not what you believe? And is that not what modern cosmology trying to prove.

Or the law of Biogenesis which says, " The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material."
This is not a "law" ... biogenesis refers to life that arose from pre-existing life, while abiogenesis refers to life arising from nonliving material. The former is widely observed of course, but it does not preclude abiogenesis as a possibility.

Well, when you can think of an example when the law of biogenesis is not true then you might have an argument. But up until this point all observations indicate that life came from life.

No ... that is a religious position with virtually zero evidentiary support, which is its biggest problem. Proposing the existence of a creator god is just a possible answer to a question science has not yet answered fully, and no such being has ever been demonstrated to exist. So attributing anything to such a being has no basis in reality, and certainly cannot be claimed as the "only way" for a universe with living things such as human beings to have come about.

We only can experience 3 spatial dimensions. And yet for gravity to exist there has to be more than 3 spatial dimensions. So we know these other dimensions exist because they explain the observations we make in this universe. So it is not unusual to know something exists by seeing the effects it creates.

The only working theory we have is the special creation of the universe.

And for almost 200 years they voted to have the Bible taught in schools.
Then it was realized that a creation myth described in a holy book (the one in Genesis is just one of hundreds) was most likely not how things happened and was positively not based on any science. So many districts decided that creationism should not be taught as real science (because it isn't, and it has no scientific support) but may be introduced as a subject in a debate class for example, or as a thing some religious people believe. Since there are may different creation myths, teaching just one (eg. the Genesis version) might upset children from other religions who are taught different creation myths at home by their parents who may not agree that the Genesis version is the correct version.

Fine if you think this is true, then have people run for school board or state government and have them change the policy. If the majority of people wanted prayer in schools and what creationism in schools then the government will reflect the will of the people. 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.

But for the last 70 years, the courts have been making law in the courts by interpreting the constitution as a living and ever-changing document.

Science, on the other hand, doesn't have any preferences as to which myths to believe or teach.

Talk to a scientist who tries to do research on a static universe or the fallacy of global warming. (or excuse me climate change)

It is constantly updating itself as new information comes along and science classes in school should teach what the current "best" ideas are which do have evidence to support them. They should also describe (for this or any other science subject) that all the answers are not currently known and may never be by humans, and that science is a never-ending work in progress to better understand the natural world. There is no "holy science book" that has all the answers .... they must be found by hard work and consensus, and this is how the current ideas on cosmology have landed where they currently are ... with contributions by many theists and atheists over the centuries.

How can you be sure of that when the current theory predicts that we are nothing more than random energy at the worst and random chemical reactions at the best? A rational universe in which man is a rational being that can interpret his environment only exists in creation cosmology.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #128]

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Cosmology: is a branch of astronomy that involves the origin and evolution of the universe.

NO God created the universe. Is that not what you believe? And is that not what modern cosmology trying to prove.

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.

Well, when you can think of an example when the law of biogenesis is not true then you might have an argument. But up until this point all observations indicate that life came from life.

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?

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 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.

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?

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.

How can you be sure of that when the current theory predicts that we are nothing more than random energy at the worst and random chemical reactions at the best? A rational universe in which man is a rational being that can interpret his environment only exists in creation cosmology.

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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #116]

Public schools are funded with taxpayer money and administered by the government, which means that if sectarianism (or anti-sectarianism, for that matter) is taught in public schools, that amounts to a governmental endorsement of one group's private position, which is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

The school is going to support one group's private position. Why should the atheist group's position be supported above someone else's position. The establishment clause states that the government should not endorse a particular religious group over another group. The founding fathers did not want to adopt a system like England where everyone had to be part of the Church of England, which is why most of them came to the "New World." Most of the founding fathers were deeply religious.

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.

So it's actually the opposite. If Christians want their kids taught Christianity in school, they can fund their own private Christian schools for that purpose, which many of them have.

That is my point I am saying this is not the way it should be. Take Christianity out of it for a minute. If a district has more Muslims in it and wants to teach Islam the majority should rule. Which actually does happen. If a school district has more Hindu or Buddist they should be able to teach that. This is called parental rights. Giving the parents of that community the right to choose what their children are taught.

Parents have the right to teach their religion to their children in their private homes and their private schools, not in public schools.

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

[Kenisaw]

Mathematically speaking, the universe adds up to zero. All the positive energy (mass, light, kinetic, etc) minus the negative energy (gravity) equals zero. All the positive and negative charges cancel each other out. All the spins when brought together equal zero. To put it in equation form, 1+1+1-1-1-1=0. Both sides of that equation are zero, they are just two different forms of zero. So is the universe. This universe adds up to a big fat zero. Technically the universe is nothing, from nothing

I believe this started as a misapplication of the theory that the universe as a whole has no electrical charge, but wherever it's from, taking this version of the idea to its logical conclusion shows it to be devoid of logic.

You believe incorrectly. If you had kept reading that post you would have read: "Conservation of Momentum. Law of Conservation of Charge. Conservation of Angular Momentum. Conservation of Energy. Conservation of Mass. Theory of nothing rejected? Every one of these verified laws (and more) of the universe agree that everything IN the universe cancels out. You can't create or destroy anything in our universe. Which means that when you add the universe up, you get nothing. This isn't controversial. Scientists have done the mathematical calculations on top of that. You don't have to assume anything. It's simple and straightforward."

If you have an old-fashioned balance scale with a pointer in the center, the pointer will indicate zero when the scale is empty. If you place two objects of exactly the same weight on the scale opposite each other at exactly the same time, the pointer will still rest on zero. Does this mean that you haven't added any weight to the scale? No. So why hasn't the pointer moved? Because the weights balance each other out; they don't "cancel" each other out. Because the levels are opposite and equal, "zero" isn't the sum of them; it's the difference between them, meaning there's no surplus and no deficit on either side. It doesn't mean that they don't exist. "Zero" energy isn't "no" energy. For there to be no energy there would have to be no matter, no gravity, no light etc., which would mean no universe. The only reason the opposing levels of energy can be measured in the first place is because they're there. If they weren't, the equation wouldn't be 1+1+1-1-1-1=0; it would be 0+0+0-0-0-0=0.

Your paragraph displays a stunning lack of knowledge about the universe. If you put a negative charge together with a positive charge, you get ZERO charge. Not two charges that are opposite, but ZERO charge. Law of Conservation of Charge. If you put matter and antimatter together (which happens with virtual particles all the time) you get ZERO matter. Not double the matter, but ZERO matter. Conservation of Mass. We will skip the rest of the explanations for the sake of brevity.

The universe is a closed system and, as a whole, cancels itself out. The fact you can weigh something on a scale doesn't disprove this. Put the scale against an antimatter scale and see what happens...

[Athetotheist]

Mathematically speaking, the universe adds up to zero. All the positive energy (mass, light, kinetic, etc) minus the negative energy (gravity) equals zero. All the positive and negative charges cancel each other out. All the spins when brought together equal zero. To put it in equation form, 1+1+1-1-1-1=0. Both sides of that equation are zero, they are just two different forms of zero. So is the universe. This universe adds up to a big fat zero. Technically the universe is nothing, from nothing

I believe this started as a misapplication of the theory that the universe as a whole has no electrical charge, but wherever it's from, taking this version of the idea to its logical conclusion shows it to be devoid of logic.

You believe incorrectly. If you had kept reading that post you would have read: "Conservation of Momentum. Law of Conservation of Charge. Conservation of Angular Momentum. Conservation of Energy. Conservation of Mass. Theory of nothing rejected? Every one of these verified laws (and more) of the universe agree that everything IN the universe cancels out. You can't create or destroy anything in our universe. Which means that when you add the universe up, you get nothing. This isn't controversial. Scientists have done the mathematical calculations on top of that. You don't have to assume anything. It's simple and straightforward."

If you have an old-fashioned balance scale with a pointer in the center, the pointer will indicate zero when the scale is empty. If you place two objects of exactly the same weight on the scale opposite each other at exactly the same time, the pointer will still rest on zero. Does this mean that you haven't added any weight to the scale? No. So why hasn't the pointer moved? Because the weights balance each other out; they don't "cancel" each other out. Because the levels are opposite and equal, "zero" isn't the sum of them; it's the difference between them, meaning there's no surplus and no deficit on either side. It doesn't mean that they don't exist. "Zero" energy isn't "no" energy. For there to be no energy there would have to be no matter, no gravity, no light etc., which would mean no universe. The only reason the opposing levels of energy can be measured in the first place is because they're there. If they weren't, the equation wouldn't be 1+1+1-1-1-1=0; it would be 0+0+0-0-0-0=0.

Your paragraph displays a stunning lack of knowledge about the universe. If you put a negative charge together with a positive charge, you get ZERO charge. Not two charges that are opposite, but ZERO charge. Law of Conservation of Charge. If you put matter and antimatter together (which happens with virtual particles all the time) you get ZERO matter. Not double the matter, but ZERO matter. Conservation of Mass. We will skip the rest of the explanations for the sake of brevity.

The universe is a closed system and, as a whole, cancels itself out. The fact you can weigh something on a scale doesn't disprove this. Put the scale against an antimatter scale and see what happens...

If light doesn't exist, how is the screen you're looking at visible? If gravity as a force doesn't exist, why isn't the device you're looking at floating around in mid-air? The "cancels-out-to-nothing" you're coming up with is number-line math which has no practical application.