"Intelligent design" bill in Missouri

Jan 24, 2013 Full story: Joplin 70

House Bill 291, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 23, 2013, would, if enacted, require "the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design," according to the legislature's summary of the bill.

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1 Jan 24, 2013
Who would have thought it possible!?? Republicans trying to push ignorance into public education again!? Oh, wait...

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#2 Jan 25, 2013
That bill says to allow equal treatment of science instruction in evolution and intelligent design. Ok, no problem! Since there's no science in ID there's nothing to teach!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#3 Jan 25, 2013
For higher education:
"If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught."

For elementary and secondary:
"If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design."

Haven't these clowns ever heard of Dover?

Time to piss away more taxpayer money, it seems.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#4 Jan 25, 2013
MikeF wrote:
For higher education:
"If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught."
For elementary and secondary:
"If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design."
Haven't these clowns ever heard of Dover?
Time to piss away more taxpayer money, it seems.
The Dover trial is just one more thing to be ignored in the pursuit of ignorance.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#5 Jan 25, 2013
Speaking as a quantum creationist, I really hate the "Intelligent Design" movement.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#6 Jan 25, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Speaking as a quantum creationist, I really hate the "Intelligent Design" movement.
I bet!

"Quantum Creation" makes Intelligent Design seem silly by comparison, dontchyathink?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#7 Jan 25, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Speaking as a
Who cares?(shrug)

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#8 Jan 25, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet!
"Quantum Creation" makes Intelligent Design seem silly by comparison, dontchyathink?
I would have guessed it was the other way around?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#9 Jan 25, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I bet!
"Quantum Creation" makes Intelligent Design seem silly by comparison, dontchyathink?
Yes I do.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#10 Jan 25, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Yes I do.
Quantum Creation rocks. Check out their web page.

http://www.quantumcreationfx.com/ #

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#11 Jan 27, 2013
Shubee wrote:
Speaking as a quantum creationist, I really hate the "Intelligent Design" movement.
So ... you made up yet another name for creationism, as if we needed another one.

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Phoenix, AZ

#12 Jan 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
For higher education:
Haven't these clowns ever heard of Dover?
Perhaps. Kinda like Judge Jones admitting, "I could not remember hearing about ID before, so I really didn't know what it was."

Not a quote mine. Go here [PLoS interivew, 12/5/08] for the complete interview.

Scroll to "Jones: Large, meaning impactful, notable, involving a big issue."

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Phoenix, AZ

#13 Jan 27, 2013
TerryL wrote:
The Dover trial is just one more thing to be ignored in the pursuit of ignorance.
And rather than ignore it, I've read most of the testimony, and Jones' ruling, multiple times.

Part two of his ruling is a highly subjective opine, based on skewed testimony. And his 90.9 percent of copy-and-paste of the Plaintiff's Brief ["Findings of Fact", table D] is plainly indicative of his lack of understanding of ID, and the points that it raised.

And yes, Jonsey received his Biology 101 from Kenneth Miller.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#14 Jan 27, 2013
Lee Bowman wrote:
<quoted text>
And rather than ignore it, I've read most of the testimony, and Jones' ruling, multiple times.
Part two of his ruling is a highly subjective opine, based on skewed testimony. And his 90.9 percent of copy-and-paste of the Plaintiff's Brief ["Findings of Fact", table D] is plainly indicative of his lack of understanding of ID, and the points that it raised.
And yes, Jonsey received his Biology 101 from Kenneth Miller.
Why do you claim that Jones opinion was "highly subjective"?

He heard testimony from both sides. Yes, Kenneth Miller testified for the side of right and justice. Michael Behe testified for the side of evil and ignorance. Right and justice won. What are you complaining about? That your side had an idiot testifying for it? I would agree with you there.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#15 Jan 27, 2013
Lee Bowman wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps. Kinda like Judge Jones admitting, "I could not remember hearing about ID before, so I really didn't know what it was."
Not a quote mine. Go here [PLoS interivew, 12/5/08] for the complete interview.
Scroll to "Jones: Large, meaning impactful, notable, involving a big issue."
Lee Bowman wrote:
<quoted text>
And rather than ignore it, I've read most of the testimony, and Jones' ruling, multiple times.
Part two of his ruling is a highly subjective opine, based on skewed testimony. And his 90.9 percent of copy-and-paste of the Plaintiff's Brief ["Findings of Fact", table D] is plainly indicative of his lack of understanding of ID, and the points that it raised.
And yes, Jonsey received his Biology 101 from Kenneth Miller.
You, yourself in your first post indicated that Judge Jones '...could not remember hearing about ID before, so I really didn't know what it was.". THEN you contradict yourself by saying that his ruling was 'highly subjective' suggesting that he WAS familiar with ID to the point that he could formulate an opinion.

Which is it?

The Defense in this case had AMPLE opportunity to present their 'facts'[cough-cough], and to present them to a CONSERVATIVE Judge, appointed by George W. Bush.

The Defense HAD no facts to present, and essentially admitted to this, and to the fact that they do no scientific research in court.

It was shown, and ruled upon correctly, that ID is nothing more than an attempt by a faction of Christian fundimentalists, guided by the Discovery Institute (among others) to insert the teaching of the Christian God into public school science classes.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#16 Jan 27, 2013
Lee Bowman wrote:
<quoted text>
And rather than ignore it, I've read most of the testimony, and Jones' ruling, multiple times.
Part two of his ruling is a highly subjective opine, based on skewed testimony. And his 90.9 percent of copy-and-paste of the Plaintiff's Brief ["Findings of Fact", table D] is plainly indicative of his lack of understanding of ID, and the points that it raised.
And yes, Jonsey received his Biology 101 from Kenneth Miller.
http://everything.explained.at/Discovery_Inst...

<<begin cut/paste>>

Controversy was stirred up again in December 2006 by the Discovery Institute and its fellows publishing several articles describing a "study" performed by the Discovery Institute criticizing the judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. It claims that "90.9% of Judge Jones’[opinion] on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling."[82] The study, though making no specific allegations of wrongdoing, implies that Judge Jones relied upon the plaintiff's submissions in writing his own conclusions of law.

Within a day, the president of the York County Bar Association had pointed out that parties are required by the courts to submit findings of fact and "a judge can adopt some, all or none of the proposed findings." She added that in the final ruling, a judge's decision "is the judge's findings and it doesn't matter who submitted them". A partner in a York law firm said that "Any attempt to make a stink out of it is absurd."[83]

Several commentators pointed out that Jones' use of the plaintiff's submissions were limited to his opinion, not his conclusion of law, and that "Vice President for Legal Affairs John West is not a lawyer, so he may not be familiar with the fact that this is exactly what proposed findings of fact are for. They are proposed findings which a judge, if he or she agrees, then incorporates as his or her own findings.... The press release suggests that Judge Jones did something improper in adopting the plaintiffs’ proposed findings as his own—but that is just what a judge does when he finds that the party has proven its case."[84] Others noted that the institute's reliance on MS Word's "Word Count" function to conduct their study was flawed and resulted in inflated numbers, and that the bulk of the document Discovery studied was written by the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP, not the ACLU.[85] Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania and the ACLU's lead attorney on the case called the Institute's report a stunt: "They're getting no traction in the scientific world so they're trying to do something ... as a PR stunt to get attention,... That's not how scientists work,... Discovery Institute is trying to litigate a year-old case in the media." He also said the Discovery Institute staff is not, as it claims, interested in finding scientific truths; it is more interested in a "cultural war," pushing for intelligent design and publicly criticizing a judge.[86]

A subsequent study was performed by Wesley Elsberry, author of the text comparison program that was partly responsible for the decision in the case, indicated that only 38% of the complete ruling by Judge Jones actually incorporated the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the plaintiffs proposed that he incorporate, and only 66% of the section (on whether intelligent design was science) incorporated the proposals, not the 90.9% the Discovery Institute claimed was copied in that section. Significantly, Judge Jones adopted only 48% of the plaintiffs’s proposed findings of fact for that section, and rejected 52%, clearly showing that he did not accept the section verbatim.[87][88]

<<end cut/paste>>
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#17 Jan 27, 2013
Lee Bowman wrote:
<quoted text>
And rather than ignore it, I've read most of the testimony, and Jones' ruling, multiple times.
Part two of his ruling is a highly subjective opine, based on skewed testimony. And his 90.9 percent of copy-and-paste of the Plaintiff's Brief ["Findings of Fact", table D] is plainly indicative of his lack of understanding of ID, and the points that it raised.
And yes, Jonsey received his Biology 101 from Kenneth Miller.
What is there to understand about ID? Something intelligent did something intelligent. Somewhere. Somehow. At sometime. Fantastic "theory".
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#18 Jan 27, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You, yourself in your first post indicated that Judge Jones '...could not remember hearing about ID before, so I really didn't know what it was.". THEN you contradict yourself by saying that his ruling was 'highly subjective' suggesting that he WAS familiar with ID to the point that he could formulate an opinion.
Which is it?
Would you expect anything else from a DI hack?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#19 Jan 27, 2013
Of course it still just could be little green men. Right, Bowman? Had any luck at convincing your pals yet that that's the way to go?
Anonymous

Schenectady, NY

#20 Jan 27, 2013
TerryL wrote:
Who would have thought it possible!?? Republicans trying to push ignorance into public education again!? Oh, wait...
so pleased this bill is being introduced. finally!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min Subduction Zone 131,848
How would creationists explain... 54 min Chimney1 290
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Dogen 462
What you should know about Tuesday's vote on ev... (Feb '08) 10 hr IAMIOOWAN 516
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 14 hr Brian_G 13,614
Science News (Sep '13) 17 hr positronium 2,939
sea-dwelling dinosaur found alive (Apr '10) 18 hr The Dude 87
More from around the web