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?

.

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 #81

Post by Kenisaw »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:29 pm [Replying to Kenisaw in post #65]
There is no creation science or atheist science. Science is a process, nothing more. Creationism is, to this point, an unsubstantiated hypothesis that most religious AND atheist scientists reject.
Sure there is:

There is the belief that a Supernatural being created the universe and from this starting point gives a very specific cosmology.

There is the belief that nothing created the universe and that gives a different cosmology.
Using the scientific method doesn't have a specific cosmology, or belief system, or mantra, or favorite baseball team. It takes data and empirical evidence to support any science claim, regardless of non-scientific motivations...

This is a good thing, not a bad thing. If there is data for the existence of a god, that will be shown to be scientifically true no matter what. If there is no data, it won't be shown to be true. That is as it should be.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

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

Post #82

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #78]
If you're arguing that starting points matter then you can't realistically support Humphreys' planetary magnetic field nonsense where the starting conditions were completely made up with no supporting evidence at all. Accepting things like that is indeed a "worldview" based on fantasy, not one based on actual science.
Really an infinite number of EarthScience guys is not fantasy, as great as that might be, and just think in one or more of those universes there would be a DrAwesomeGods. Fantasy has not stopped modern cosmology. The only difference is that Creation cosmology can actually make accurate predictions about the universe in which we live based only on the original assumption.




What things are you saying there is consensus on that is different in creation cosmologies?
Essentially everything supported by scientific consensus that differs from "creation cosmology's" claims to the contrary (eg. age of the Earth and universe, star formation, etc.).

age of the Earth yes that is what we have been addressing.
Star formation: there is no consensus of how stars form.

The big problems in star formation: The star formation rate, stellar clustering, and the initial mass function (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 731400009X) (I did not read this particular paper there are others out there that are free and the problems are similar. I did not take the time to find one of the free papers.)
I believe you said that there was no evidence of a global flood. And yet there is evidence that the earth was covered in water during the Archean Eon. Are you conceding the point that the Earth was at one time covered in water?
I said there is no evidence of the global flood described in Genesis, which would be entirely unrelated to any events prior to about 4,300 years ago. If the Earth was covered with water in the Archean Eon (which you dredge up as support for the biblical global flood in one instant, and discard as impossible in another because solar winds or some other imagined explanation would not allow it) it would have absolutely nothing to do with events several billions of years later.
Archean Eon is not a creation cosmology theory. So we can finally establish that the earth was covered in water at some point in the past.

What do you think the shielding effect means? But is the atom a wave or a particle? Are electrons waves or particles? Does an electron take up space? If the electron does not take up space what are we actually measuring when we measure atomic radii?
It means just what it implies. The inner shell electrons are between the nucleus and the outer shell electrons. So they can act as a "shield" from the strong positive nuclear charge, reducing its influence on the outer shell electrons with the result that the ionization energy is reduced. Electrons orbit the nucleus at some distance from the nucleus, and this is what generally defines the atomic radius. It has no dependence on the the size of an electron, which is miniscule in comparison to either the nucleus, or the distance from the electron shell to the nucleus. Electrons do have mass (9.11e-28 grams).
Electrons have mass but they are point particles meaning they do not take up space. So they are essentially a wave probability wave function until they are observed. In fact, I think it is a millionth of a degree (did not take the time to look up) above absolute zero atoms are no longer individuals but one quantum state, they call this new state of matter a Bose-Einstein condensate. I do not know if you ever looked into this but I just find it fascinating. Quantum computers use the properties of the Bose-Einstein condensate to make the new generation of computers.


Actually, there is. There is no observable evidence that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The 4.6 billion years is an assumption.
What? This is not an assumption but a value derived from a tremendous amount of highly consistent radiometric dating of meteorites and rocks on Earth. Have a look at these tables from one of your favorite sources Answers in Genesis (one of a series on meteorite dating):

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... hondrites/

Are they assuming all these referenced measurements? Do you think their conclusions about "primordial material" at the end is not an assumption pulled straight from the behind?
These meteorites also contain liquid water.
Scientists have even found water as hydroxyls and molecules in meteorites in the context of hydrous minerals, which are basically solids with some ionic or molecular water incorporated within them. Dr. Akira Tsuchiyama, Visiting Research Professor at Ritsumeikan University, says, "Scientists further expect that liquid water should remain as fluid inclusions in minerals that precipitated in aqueous fluid" (or, to put it simply, formed from drops of water that contained various other things dissolved inside them). Scientists have found such liquid water inclusions inside salt crystals located within a class of meteorites known as ordinary chondrites, which represent the vast majority of all meteorites found on Earth though the salt actually originated from other, more primitive parent objects.

Prof. Tsuchiyama and his colleagues wanted to know whether liquid water inclusions are present in a form of calcium carbonate known as calcite within a class of meteorites known as "carbonaceous chondrites," which come from asteroids that formed very early in the history of the solar system. They therefore examined samples of the Sutter's Mill meteorite, a carbonaceous chondrite originating in an asteroid that formed 4.6 billion years ago. The results of their investigation, led by Prof. Tsuchiyama, appear in an article recently published in Science Advances.

The researchers used advanced microscopy techniques to examine the Sutter's Mill meteorite fragments, and they found a calcite crystal containing a nanoscale aqueous fluid inclusion that contains at least 15% carbon dioxide. This finding confirms that calcite crystals in ancient carbonaceous chondrites can indeed contain not only liquid water, but also carbon dioxide.
They say that these meteorites came from beyond Jupiter in space.
By studying ancient meteorite fragments, scientists can gain important insights into how our solar system formed eons ago. Now, in a new study, researchers have discovered carbon dioxide-rich liquid water inside a meteorite from an asteroid that formed 4.6 billion years ago. This finding suggests that the meteorite's parent asteroid formed beyond Jupiter's orbit before being transported into the inner solar system and provides key evidence for the dynamics of the Solar System's formation.
Wait!!!! Does anyone else see a problem with liquid water being formed in space?
Has "creation cosmology" figured out how to quantify the magnitude of solar winds during the sun's formation? Wouldn't you think that an accretion disk would have the heavier elements closer to the center of the circulation and center of mass, while the lighter elements would be farther out? Plus, once hydrogen is bound up in H2O molecules it is no longer gaseous H2 and its local concentration is governed by the fate of the H2O it is now part of.
Why would creation cosmology care about any idea in stellar evolutionary theory? The solar winds pushing the lighter elements away from the sun is part of stellar evolutionary theory.

Here is how it is explained by scientific America:
But in the early period of our solar system’s formation, that disk was much hotter at the position where our Earth sits now. So even though there were most likely water molecules present in the mess of debris that made up the disk, it was too hot for water to condense into a liquid, causing it to evaporate instead. What’s more, the early Earth did not yet have an atmosphere making it easier for any liquid water droplets to be blown off into space. This leaves us with a bit of a puzzle. If the Earth could not have formed from the disk with its oceans already intact, how did they get here? https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -on-earth/
So water had to come from after the planet started forming from farther out in the solar system. And yet how was water a liquid if it were out farther in the solar system.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

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

Post #83

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #83]
The only difference is that Creation cosmology can actually make accurate predictions about the universe in which we live based only on the original assumption.
If the original assumption is that an all powerful god who can do virtually "anything" created the universe, then of course that scenario can explain virtually anything you want to dream up including cosmology. The problem with that is proof of the existence of this magic being ... and without that the assumption just leads to a hypothesis that has yet to be confirmed.
Star formation: there is no consensus of how stars form.
There is a general consensus of how stars form, and any gaps in our understanding are just open problems to be worked on. If we don't understand something 100%, that does not mean that we don't understand it at all and have to take the easy way out and resort to a magic god being as the explanation.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... and-evolve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
So we can finally establish that the earth was covered in water at some point in the past.
Possibly, but certainly not during the period where humans existed (or any member of the genus Homo). So Noah's flood is a myth.
In fact, I think it is a millionth of a degree (did not take the time to look up) above absolute zero atoms are no longer individuals but one quantum state, they call this new state of matter a Bose-Einstein condensate. I do not know if you ever looked into this but I just find it fascinating. Quantum computers use the properties of the Bose-Einstein condensate to make the new generation of computers.
Every chemistry major learns about Bose-Einstein (BE) condensates. A group of identical particles with integer spin are bosons, and unlike Fermions (particles that aren't bosons, like electrons) bosons can all occupy the same quantum state (including spatially). If you can get a bunch of bosons (not any atoms ... only bosons) together at very low density, and cool them to very near absolute zero, they can condense into the unusual state of matter called a BE condensate. Although predicted by Einstein based on a paper by Bose around 1925, it wasn't until 1995 that someone actually created one in the lab (Cornell, Wieman, and Ketterle received the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for this).

Quantum computers do not need a BE condensate to work, nor their properties (a bunch of cold bosons all in the same quantum state). They need stable qubits which can be created many different ways without any connection to a BE condensate, or using bosons at all. However, BE condensates have been proposed as a possible method to communicate between quantum computers.

https://physics.gatech.edu/news/bose-ei ... -computers
These meteorites also contain liquid water.
They say that these meteorites came from beyond Jupiter in space.
And?
Wait!!!! Does anyone else see a problem with liquid water being formed in space?
Who said it was liquid when it was trapped? It could have been ice that melted or vapor that condensed. Also: "they found a calcite crystal containing a nanoscale aqueous fluid inclusion". It's not like they found puddles of drinking water ... just extremely tiny (nanoscale) regions with aqueous content after the meteorite was sitting in a lab, probably warm.
So water had to come from after the planet started forming from farther out in the solar system. And yet how was water a liquid if it were out farther in the solar system.
Again, water exists in three phases like most things (solid, liquid and gas). If comets bombarded the Earth and contained large quantities of water ice, what would happen when that ice impacted the Earth and warmed up? It would not remain ice but most likely initially be converted to vapor during the impact and associated energy dissipation, than condense into liquid when the vapor hit that part of the phase diagram for H2O. There is no need to have water in the liquid phase out in the solar system to accumulate liquid water on Earth.
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

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

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

Post #84

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Kenisaw in post #82]
Using the scientific method doesn't have a specific cosmology, or belief system, or mantra, or favorite baseball team. It takes data and empirical evidence to support any science claim, regardless of non-scientific motivations...
So what are you saying is the point of origin of the universe? What forces are you saying created the universe? If space and time came into existence at the same time as the universe then the universe had to be created from something that can exist outside the universe. If whatever it was that created the universe can exist outside the universe then it does not have to obey the physical laws of this universe. Meaning it does not have to occupy space. If it does not have occupy space to exist then it can be at all points of space at the same time. Whatever created the universe would also have to cross infinite time and the only way to cross infinite time is to have infinite power. If whatever created the universe is not bounded by space and time then it could be all-knowing.

So whatever created the universe is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnipotent. In other words God.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

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

Post #85

Post by DrNoGods »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:18 am [Replying to Kenisaw in post #82]
Using the scientific method doesn't have a specific cosmology, or belief system, or mantra, or favorite baseball team. It takes data and empirical evidence to support any science claim, regardless of non-scientific motivations...
So what are you saying is the point of origin of the universe? What forces are you saying created the universe? If space and time came into existence at the same time as the universe then the universe had to be created from something that can exist outside the universe. If whatever it was that created the universe can exist outside the universe then it does not have to obey the physical laws of this universe. Meaning it does not have to occupy space. If it does not have occupy space to exist then it can be at all points of space at the same time. Whatever created the universe would also have to cross infinite time and the only way to cross infinite time is to have infinite power. If whatever created the universe is not bounded by space and time then it could be all-knowing.

So whatever created the universe is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnipotent. In other words God.
This chain of logic is as fatally flawed as the various ontoogical arguments, but even weaker. Lots of "ifs" followed by conclusions that are based on nothing but opinion. It certainly doesn't lead to any support for the idea that a god created the universe. Pure hand-waving.
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

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 #86

Post by Kenisaw »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 9:18 am [Replying to Kenisaw in post #82]
Using the scientific method doesn't have a specific cosmology, or belief system, or mantra, or favorite baseball team. It takes data and empirical evidence to support any science claim, regardless of non-scientific motivations...
So what are you saying is the point of origin of the universe? What forces are you saying created the universe?
Venom and I are talkin about this in another thread right now. What is the point of origin of the universe? Don't know. The forces that created it (if it was indeed created)? Don't know. That's the problem. You can't assume anything regarding these questions.
If space and time came into existence at the same time as the universe then the universe had to be created from something that can exist outside the universe. If whatever it was that created the universe can exist outside the universe then it does not have to obey the physical laws of this universe. Meaning it does not have to occupy space. If it does not have occupy space to exist then it can be at all points of space at the same time. Whatever created the universe would also have to cross infinite time and the only way to cross infinite time is to have infinite power. If whatever created the universe is not bounded by space and time then it could be all-knowing.

So whatever created the universe is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnipotent. In other words God.
You are making assertions you can't prove. How do you know that the universe had to be created from something outside the universe? 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.

What are the rules outside of the universe? Don't know? Don't even know if there are rules. Was there time, or space, or cause and effect before the Big Bang? No idea. Can a true "nothing" even exist for that matter? No idea. It could be that a low level quantum field is as "nothing" as it gets. Again, we don't know.

Which is why the assertion that there "has to be" anything is utter nonsense. No one has the first clue what does or doesn't need to be in order for this universe to exist. You are applying the rules of this universe to what is before or outside this universe, without a shred of data telling you that is the proper thing to do.

On a side note, you do realize that it is utterly impossible for any being to be all knowing, correct?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

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

Post #87

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #86]

So whatever created the universe is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnipotent. In other words God.
This chain of logic is as fatally flawed as the various ontoogical arguments, but even weaker. Lots of "ifs" followed by conclusions that are based on nothing but opinion. It certainly doesn't lead to any support for the idea that a god created the universe. Pure hand-waving.
Are you saying that space and time did not come into existence at the big bang?
How can anything exist without space?
What can cross infinite time?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

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

Post #88

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #88]
Are you saying that space and time did not come into existence at the big bang?
How can anything exist without space?
What can cross infinite time?
Details of the mechanism for how the universe came into existence have not yet been worked out positively (it is an open scientific problem). So we can't say, definitively, whether space and time came into existence at the Big Bang or not. That is a prevailing current hypothesis with not insignificant observational support, but we don't "know" the correct answer yet meaning no conclusions can be drawn from an assumption that the origin of space and time was the Big Bang.

The other two philosophical questions might be good for a debate over beers at a bar, but I don't see any practical use for making guesses at the answers. I would assume you think the answers (or lack thereof) somehow suggest the existence of a creator god?
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

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

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

Post #89

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Kenisaw in post #87]
Venom and I are talkin about this in another thread right now. What is the point of origin of the universe? Don't know. The forces that created it (if it was indeed created)? Don't know. That's the problem. You can't assume anything regarding these questions.
There are several things that do not need to be assumed.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Space had a beginning
3. Time had a beginning
4. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore the energy in this universe 1.35 E70 joules (according to mass) had to come from somewhere

These are not assumptions these are the observations that need to be explained in any cosmology.
You are making assertions you can't prove. How do you know that the universe had to be created from something outside the universe?
Because space had to have a beginning and everything in this universe needs space to exists.
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
.

Now whether the expansion rate positive energy and gravity negative energy can be subtracted in this manner to come up with zero is an assumption. Especially since we do not even know what the essence of dark energy is or what could have caused inflation at the origin of the universe.

This theory of nothing was rejected when it was first proposed in the '70s and then reintroduced in the 80's and then re reintroduced by Lawerence Krauss in a book, not a peer-reviewed paper. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... r=7b178bae

What are the rules outside of the universe? Don't know? Don't even know if there are rules. Was there time, or space, or cause and effect before the Big Bang? No idea. Can a true "nothing" even exist for that matter? No idea. It could be that a low-level quantum field is as "nothing" as it gets. Again, we don't know.
We do know. Because a "low-level" quantum field needs space and time to exist.

Which is why the assertion that there "has to be" anything is utter nonsense. No one has the first clue what does or doesn't need to be in order for this universe to exist. You are applying the rules of this universe to what is before or outside this universe, without a shred of data telling you that is the proper thing to do.
We can observe what is in this universe and events that are taking place in this universe. Then any true cosmology has to able to explain those observations.
On a side note, you do realize that it is utterly impossible for any being to be all-knowing, correct?
Why is that?

A being that can exist outside of this universe would have to be able to exist without space. Things exist in space because of disruptions in the quantum field. If something can exist outside of space and time then it does not have to be bound to a single point in space. Because it is space that binds man to a single point in space. So if God is not bounded by space and time He can be at any place and at anytime all at the same time. So being all-knowing would be a natural consequence of being omnipresent.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

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

Post #90

Post by nobspeople »

Miles wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:19 pm .




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?

.
If a school has a 'religious' program (which no public school should IMO) it should only be spoken about there. It should not be taught in any science related program.
Period.
That is passed the government show how the education system has failed the USA.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

Post Reply