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?

.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #7]

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?

So in what way do these topics come to bear on creationism? That is, what is there a necessary function in creationism?

The first three deal with radioactive dating.
The last two deal with the flood.

There are others that I could have asked.
1. What is the nature of energy and where did it come from?
2. At what point in the past does current cosmology stop and why?
3. What is the nature of matter and what does it need to exist?

Despite your moniker, "EarthScienceguy," obviously you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, which, by looking at the comments of others here, is supported in spades. My condolences.


Have a good day


.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #21]

Humphrey's predicted the magnetic field Uranus and Neptune before the voyager probe measured them. Using a 6000 year old model of the universe.

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

Can't you appreciate how ridiculous such "models" are, and why people laugh at this kind of "creation science"? How well did his model do in predicting the magnetic field of Venus? A stopped (12-hr) clock is right twice a day ... Humphrey's just worked out what he needed for a single exponential decay in magnetic field (another baseless assumption) to fit his idea and threw it out as if it were a legitimate scientific analysis. It is a joke, yet you've pushed it here many times before as if it should be taken seriously as science. You may want to find another example that isn't so obviously debunked as nonsense.

[benchwarmer]

Creationist answer (Protestant version): "Dear God, ...

Oh I do miss the old token system. You, my friend, would have just emptied my supply. That was both priceless and apt.

I think what we have is creationists hoping to jam SOME science into their worldview such that it seems they are making sense. In reality, if there were a god and we were able to implore it to do our bidding (even if only rarely) any and ALL science would be broken because this god would do things that break it every time.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #9]

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.

Atheists make up 7% of the world's population. That means that 93% of the people in the world believe in some sort of supernatural being created the universe.

Creation science describes the worldview in which cosmology is being studied. As opposed to "atheist science" worldview of cosmology. I will point out that "atheist science" cannot make any predictions of what occurred before the creation of the universe.

First, actual science has nothing to do with religious affiliation. i.e. there is no such thing as 'atheist science' any more than 'creation science'.

Actual science is being done around cosmology so I have no clue what you are on about. If you mean that 'creation science' means you can insert unobserved entities into the equation and pretend you have an answer, then I guess I can rule it out as useful. Pretending to be able to make predictions because you believe in a given god concept is not science. It's just wishful thinking based on no actual data.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #23]

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

Can't you appreciate how ridiculous such "models" are, and why people laugh at this kind of "creation science"? How well did his model do in predicting the magnetic field of Venus? A stopped (12-hr) clock is right twice a day ... Humphrey's just worked out what he needed for a single exponential decay in magnetic field (another baseless assumption) to fit his idea and threw it out as if it were a legitimate scientific analysis. It is a joke, yet you've pushed it here many times before as if it should be taken seriously as science. You may want to find another example that isn't so obviously debunked as nonsense.

And it worked!!! BEFORE THE FIELD WAS ACTUALLY MEASURED!!!

You can hate it all you want but it still worked.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #25]

First, actual science has nothing to do with religious affiliation. i.e. there is no such thing as 'atheist science' any more than 'creation science'.

Cosmology is all about a person's starting premise.

Either there is a creator or there is not a creator that is the starting question that must be answered in any cosmological theory.

Both are assumptions.
Atheistic cosmology can not answer the question of what was before the universe. It assumes there was nothing or no creator God.
Creation cosmology assumes that there was a creator.

Actual science is being done around cosmology so I have no clue what you are on about. If you mean that 'creation science' means you can insert unobserved entities into the equation and pretend you have an answer, then I guess I can rule it out as useful. Pretending to be able to make predictions because you believe in a given god concept is not science. It's just wishful thinking based on no actual data.

Wishing that there is not a God. I guess you can also rule their theories as useless. The only theories that have predictive power are those that are aligned with creation cosmology.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/1 ... 605a/full/

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #22]

So which of the above topics are not part of a modern-day science course?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 20:

...
Humphrey's predicted the magnetic field Uranus and Neptune before the voyager probe measured them. Using a 6000 year old model of the universe.
From ICR Tenets:

The Bible, consisting of the 39 canonical books of the Old Testament and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

They are an organization dedicated to their own Christian / Triune biases, which should lead all to consider the legitimacy of any of their claims and conclusions.

Whether or not a magnetic field was predicted, accurately or not, this still should not lead us to the conclusion a divine, extra-universal entity was involved.

People that believe in evolution believe that ostriches were once flying birds. Ostriches did not need to evolve to become flightless birds. There was no new information needed for an ostrich to become flightless. Ostriches becoming flightless would be an example of a loss of information in the genome.

Perhaps it'd serve you well not try to put beliefs in the mouths of others.

I do NOT believe ostriches were once flying birds, but are descendants of birds -not ostriches- that may or may not have had the capability of flight.

We've gotta be careful about using the term 'loss of information in the genome'. This term let's us all know immediately the claimant has at best a rudimentary understand of genetics.

Genes don't carry information. They carry chemical compositions / compounds that act according to their properties. That we might gather information, in the form of understanding, is not to say genes care one tinker's dang about information. Genes act on a whole different level.

...
Mammals with feathers would be an evolutionary prediction, not a creation cosmology prediction.

I would agree that biological classification is a bit of a messy field, with legitimate disagreements here and there This is one reason I don't usually muck about considering 'kinds' and such from creationists.

Heck, when their go-to site for evidence / support is the Institute for Creation Research, I just figure they mean well, but how about that.

[Difflugia]

Uranium in granite is an observation that needs an explanation. As of now creation cosmology (better nomenclature) has the best answer to this question. I think it may have the only answer to this question.

That's just saying that because creationists can make up answers and don't have to test them, creationism's better. If any scientists have speculated about what the answer might be, then those have to be considered as equal in quality to the creationist speculation. Once the answer's been confirmed, then you get to say that creationists have found an answer.

Humphrey's predicted the magnetic field Uranus and Neptune before the voyager probe measured them. Using a 6000 year old model of the universe.

The only thing he predicted that is anomalous is that Uranus has a stronger magnetic field than should be expected based on existing models involving fluid dynamics. Humpreys based his predictions on a solid core. More detailed measurements later falsified Humphries model by showing that the magnetic field of Uranus is, in fact, highly dynamic and variable. It turns out that rather than being more solid and static than expected (as Humphreys' model assumed), the fluid dynamics of Uranus are weirder and more unstable than expected. That's the wrong direction for Humphreys.

Humphreys predicted that Uranus was weird. It turned out that he was right, but for entirely the wrong reasons. Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut.

People that believe in evolution believe that ostriches were once flying birds.

Yes.

Ostriches did not need to evolve to become flightless birds. There was no new information needed for an ostrich to become flightless. Ostriches becoming flightless would be an example of a loss of information in the genome.

You're using the term "evolution" incorrectly. It doesn't matter whether the change involves some unquantifiable "gain" or "loss" of information. The key claim here, unless I'm misunderstanding you, is that ostriches flew at the time they were collected by Noah, but then lost that ability sometime before the modern era. Is that right?

Not only that, but if that's your counterargument, you're assuming that an ostrich is just like any other bird, but with nonworking wings. They're not. You're overlooking all of the other adaptations to ostrich flightlessness. An ostrich weighs three hundred pounds and can run forty miles per hour. Were those true four thousand years ago when they could still fly? Or are you also claiming that the adaptation of legs that can propel a 300-pound bird at forty miles per hour (and kick people to death) is also based on a "loss of information?"

People that believe in evolution admit to not seeing gradualism in the fossil record. The belief now is that there are great jumps in evolution. I would assume that many of these "great jumps" are not jumps in evolution but simply different created kinds.

Even if you were right, what would that have to do with this conversation?

Why do all cars have four tires and an engine? Because that is how we classify cars.

That's right. And to extend the analogy to my claim, things like cars, trucks, and motorcycles gain the benefits of design lessons learned from each other even after the divisions already existed. There are now fuel-injected cars and motorcycles because they were developed for trucks because designers don't have to rely on descent (or the rare case of convergent evolution).

We classify animals with certain characteristics as mammals. That does not mean that one had to come from another.

If animals fit your car analogy the way you want them to, then just like fitting a motorcycle with a fuel injector, why were no mammals ever fitted with a few feathers?

No mammals with feathers would be in support of creation cosmology. No mammals with feathers would be a refute of evolution.

No. You really have that backwards.

There should be mammals with feathers if there is no limited evolutionary space.

This is correct and that's why you had your last statement backwards. Descent with modification means limited evolutionary space. An omnipotent designer means a space unlimited by the constraints of evolution.

Mammals with feathers would be an evolutionary prediction, not a creation cosmology prediction.

You're just wrong about this and it's pretty fundamental to the understanding of evolution.

The evolutionary lines leading to mammals and birds diverged before mammals and birds evolved. That means that no organism with any of the uniquely mammalias traits will ever have uniquely bird traits and vice versa. This is a limitation inherent in the mechanism of evolution. An omnipotent designer wouldn't be bound by such a limitation, so there's no predestined reason that traits would "cluster" in existing animals the way they do. They would be like LEGO blocks; some animals would have gills, hair, and beaks. Some would have chitin exoskeletons, but be warm-blooded. Some would have feathered wings, but lactate for their young. Nothing like that exists. All of the patterns look evolutionary. While it's possible that a divine designer exists and her tastes simply never deviate from an evolotionary aesthetic, the simplest answer is that evolution happened.

[brunumb]

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

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