Missouri Reps submit anti-evolution bill again

Jan 18, 2013 Full story: The Joplin Independent 110

House Bill 179, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 16, 2013, and not yet referred to a committee, is the latest anti-evolution bill in the Missouri state legislature.

Full Story
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#1 Jan 21, 2013
If creationists had brains, they'd be dangerous.

“A have offended, Brickie, Dark”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Blue, Suncore, Replay whoever

#2 Jan 21, 2013
My home state ladies and gentlemen. My pride is shining like the stars above.
the real guest

United States

#3 Jan 21, 2013
This is from the article:

"The bill would, if enacted, call on state and local education administrators to "endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution" and to "endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies."

One wonders why anyone would oppose encouraging students to develop critical thinking skills and use them while exploring controversial subjects, scientific or otherwise.

Isn't that the main goal of education?

I didn't find anything anti-evolution stated in the bill, yet that was the charge of the author of the article. It's nothing but slanted, yellow journalism thinly veiled as news.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#4 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
This is from the article:
"The bill would, if enacted, call on state and local education administrators to "endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution" and to "endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies."
One wonders why anyone would oppose encouraging students to develop critical thinking skills and use them while exploring controversial subjects, scientific or otherwise.
Isn't that the main goal of education?
I didn't find anything anti-evolution stated in the bill, yet that was the charge of the author of the article. It's nothing but slanted, yellow journalism thinly veiled as news.
Perhaps you should read for comprehension. From the same article....
"It's ironic that creationist strategies continue to evolve," commented NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott. "At first, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools altogether. When they were no longer able to do so, they tried to 'balance' it with the teaching of Biblical creationism, or scientific creationism, or intelligent design. After the Kitzmiller trial in 2005, in which teaching intelligent design was found by a federal court to be unconstitutional, there's been a shift toward belittling evolution -- as just a theory, or as in need of critical analysis, or as the subject of scientific controversy." She explained that over 40 bills adopting the tactic of encouraging teachers to misrepresent evolution as controversial have been introduced in the last decade, successfully in Louisiana in 2008 and in Tennessee in 2012. Scott added, "The sponsors of House Bill 179 will doubtless claim that there are good reasons for it. Missourians concerned with the integrity of science education are going to be skeptically replying: show me."

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#5 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
This is from the article:
"The bill would, if enacted, call on state and local education administrators to "endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution" and to "endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies."
One wonders why anyone would oppose encouraging students to develop critical thinking skills and use them while exploring controversial subjects, scientific or otherwise.
Isn't that the main goal of education?
I didn't find anything anti-evolution stated in the bill, yet that was the charge of the author of the article. It's nothing but slanted, yellow journalism thinly veiled as news.
Personally, I wish those on the ToE side of this bill would highlight the part of the bill that says: "endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies."

...in that there **IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY** pertaining to the Theory of Evolution.

The only 'controversy' is one where one holds a LITERAL Biblically-ordered world, not a scientific-based (or reality-based) one.

Part of me wants the rational side of this argument to stand up to the Bible-thumpers, point right at them and tell them to keep their Genesis where it belongs: In their church and in their own home(s).
the real guest

United States

#6 Jan 21, 2013
Elohim wrote:
...there's been a shift toward belittling evolution -- as just a theory, or as in need of critical analysis, or as the subject of scientific controversy.
Uh, well yeah. The idea that one species evolves into another is indeed just a theory, and yes it does need critical analysis, and yes it is the subject of scientific controversy.

What is glaringly absent is the "missing link". You know, the actual proof that one species evolves into another. Without that, all you have is a theory, and with every advance in biological science, the mathematical possibility of spontaneous quantum leaps from one species to another becomes more and more remote.

Surely you don't think we should just teach kids something as fact when there is no evidence to support it, do you? Should we just ignore critical analysis because we've chosen one side of the argument and we don't want kids to learn about the other? Should we ignore controversies that arise, and just teach one view as fact, even though there is no evidence to support it?
She explained that over 40 bills adopting the tactic of encouraging teachers to misrepresent evolution as controversial have been introduced in the last decade
Those 40 bills aren't THIS bill.

And evolution as it is currently taught IS controversial! Again, why should teachers NOT tell kids the truth???
Missourians concerned with the integrity of science education are going to be skeptically replying: show me."
Exactly! People skeptical of the theory of evolution should indeed question it's underlying basis and make their own determination of whether it's believable or not. And that includes school age kids.

As far as the article goes, the writer bitches and moans about other bills in a failed attempt to paint this bill as something it is not.

As I said, it's nothing but a hack job; slanted yellow journalism at it's worst.
the real guest

United States

#7 Jan 21, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
The only 'controversy' is one where one holds a LITERAL Biblically-ordered world, not a scientific-based (or reality-based) one.
Bullshit. The basis of the controversy is the complete lack of evidence to support the hypothesis that one species evolves into another.

A critical analysis of Darwinism results in a conclusion that there are far too many holes for it to be a viable theory.

It's funny as hell to watch those of you who, with nothing but blind faith, cling to the theory of evolusion while charging those of us smart enough to reject it as bullshit with being removed from science and reality.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#8 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, well yeah. The idea that one species evolves into another is indeed just a theory, and yes it does need critical analysis, and yes it is the subject of scientific controversy.
What is glaringly absent is the "missing link". You know, the actual proof that one species evolves into another. Without that, all you have is a theory, and with every advance in biological science, the mathematical possibility of spontaneous quantum leaps from one species to another becomes more and more remote.
Surely you don't think we should just teach kids something as fact when there is no evidence to support it, do you? Should we just ignore critical analysis because we've chosen one side of the argument and we don't want kids to learn about the other? Should we ignore controversies that arise, and just teach one view as fact, even though there is no evidence to support it?
<quoted text>
Those 40 bills aren't THIS bill.
And evolution as it is currently taught IS controversial! Again, why should teachers NOT tell kids the truth???
<quoted text>
Exactly! People skeptical of the theory of evolution should indeed question it's underlying basis and make their own determination of whether it's believable or not. And that includes school age kids.
As far as the article goes, the writer bitches and moans about other bills in a failed attempt to paint this bill as something it is not.
As I said, it's nothing but a hack job; slanted yellow journalism at it's worst.
LMAO!! Just a theory? Do you even know what a scientific Theory is? Missing link? How 19th century of you. The only controversy about The Theory of Evolution is the one created by creationists.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#9 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. The basis of the controversy is the complete lack of evidence to support the hypothesis that one species evolves into another.
It's funny as hell to watch those of you who, with nothing but blind faith, cling to the theory of evolusion while charging those of us smart enough to reject it as bullshit with being removed from science and reality.
Not only is the ToE a viable theory, it is the theory with the MOST EVIDENCE available to support it.

The ToE has more evidence supporting it than the Theory of Gravity, or Germ Theory.

That it tends to throw a monkey wrench into the LITERAL reading of Genesis is the problem of those that adhere to that literal reading of Genesis.

Question: How old is the Universe in your opinion?
the real guest

United States

#10 Jan 21, 2013
Elohim wrote:
LMAO!! Just a theory? Do you even know what a scientific Theory is? Missing link? How 19th century of you. The only controversy about The Theory of Evolution is the one created by creationists.
Yes, it's just a theory. There is no evidence to prove that one species evolves into another.

Those of you who embrace it do so with nothing but blind faith.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#11 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
This is from the article:
"The bill would, if enacted, call on state and local education administrators to "endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution" and to "endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies."
One wonders why anyone would oppose encouraging students to develop critical thinking skills and use them while exploring controversial subjects, scientific or otherwise.
Isn't that the main goal of education?
I didn't find anything anti-evolution stated in the bill, yet that was the charge of the author of the article. It's nothing but slanted, yellow journalism thinly veiled as news.
The bill states an out right LIE within it's wording: "... controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution."

There is NO, repeat, NO scientific controversy about biological evolution. Further, there are LOTS of idiotic OPINIONS in the world, including the ones about biological evolution being controversial. Are you suggesting that all IDIOTIC opinions be taught in school? When will you have time to teach the children logic, reasoning, research, empirical evidence and FACTS.

You would think that you would be at least a little bit angry about US lawmakers telling FLAT OUT LIES in the legislation they craft.
the real guest

United States

#12 Jan 21, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Not only is the ToE a viable theory, it is the theory with the MOST EVIDENCE available to support it.
Yeah? Well then present evidence to prove that one species evolves into another.
Genesis is the problem of those that adhere to that literal reading of Genesis.
I don't really care about Genesis. I want proof that one species evolves into another. If you can't prove the theory, what is wrong with teaching students to think critically and examine the issue for themselves?

Where is all that liberal support for individual choice and tolerance of other viewpoints and diversity? LOL! Your hypocrisy is glaring.
Question: How old is the Universe in your opinion?
Yeah, let's not stray from the issue at hand. Present proof or admit that your position is simply a theory that has no solid foundation.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#13 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. The basis of the controversy is the complete lack of evidence to support the hypothesis that one species evolves into another.
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "xristian creationists" LIE so much? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion?

Obviously, since YOU lie like this, then you have no problem with US legislators LYING in the legislation they write. This may help explain why the most "fundamentalist xristian" states are also amongst the least educated.
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>A critical analysis of Darwinism results in a conclusion that there are far too many holes for it to be a viable theory.
This would be a LIE!

Say "hi" to ha'Satan for us when you get to Hell.
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>It's funny as hell to watch those of you who, with nothing but blind faith, cling to the theory of evolusion while charging those of us smart enough to reject it as bullshit with being removed from science and reality.
RIght, that's why YOU guys are the LAUGHING STOCK of pretty much everyone outside of your bronze age FAIRY TALE cult.

And just in case anyone needs reminding of what passes for "science" in "the real guest"'s world:

The cosmos was magically conjured into existence with a magic "word".

The first man was conjured up out of a pile of dirt.

The first woman was conjured up from a rib taken out of the man.

Magic fruit that makes the eater really intelligent or immortal.

A talking snake.

Incest, incest and more incest was a very good thing at one point in human history.

An little bunny brings eggs to good boys and girls on Easter morning.

Angels and demons.

Giants and unicorns.

Satyrs and cockatrices.

Witches and wizards.

A jolly elf brings toys to good boys and girls on Christmas morning.

Angels having sex with mortal women.

People living 600+ years.

People and dinosaurs living together.

A fairy brings money to good boys and girls when they loose a tooth.

A big global flood that destroys everything except the passengers of a wooden boat.

The sun standing still in the sky to provide more light for more productive mass genocide.

A talking burning bush.

A talking donkey.

A man living inside of the stomach of a fish for three days.

Pi = 3.

Insects have 4 legs.

Letting livestock copulated in front of a stick painted with stripes produces offspring with striped coats.

Sprinkling the blood of a sacrificed dove on a lepers toes cures his leprosy.

Etc., etc., etc..
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#14 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's just a theory. There is no evidence to prove that one species evolves into another.
Those of you who embrace it do so with nothing but blind faith.
This would be a LIE!

But keep up the good work. You are doing your "fundamentalist xrisitan creationist" cult proud.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#15 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah? Well then present evidence to prove that one species evolves into another.
<quoted text>
I don't really care about Genesis. I want proof that one species evolves into another. If you can't prove the theory, what is wrong with teaching students to think critically and examine the issue for themselves?
Where is all that liberal support for individual choice and tolerance of other viewpoints and diversity? LOL! Your hypocrisy is glaring.
<quoted text>
Yeah, let's not stray from the issue at hand. Present proof or admit that your position is simply a theory that has no solid foundation.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/sear...
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#16 Jan 21, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
Nice, but probably futile. "fundamentalist xristian creationists" are to too dogmatically blind and willfully ignorant to understand, or want to understand, the research and evidence.

If it isn't in their bronze age, goat herder FAIRY TALE, then it isn't worth knowing.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#17 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah? Well then present evidence to prove that one species evolves into another.
I earlier supplied a link to information from Berkely that more completely answers your questions regarding the current information for the Theory of Evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/sear...
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>I don't really care about Genesis.
Please. Of course you care about Genesis. Again: How old is the Universe in your opinion?
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>I want proof that one species evolves into another. If you can't prove the theory, what is wrong with teaching students to think critically and examine the issue for themselves?
Since when do students choose the validity of the subjects they are to be studying? Do they choose their own "math"? How about history?
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>Where is all that liberal support for individual choice and tolerance of other viewpoints and diversity? LOL! Your hypocrisy is glaring.
Not hypocritical at all. You are more then welcome to believe any silly story you want. If you want to teach your kids that Eve was made out of a rib from Adam, and teach that as a FACT, have at it. The future will need more janitors, fast food workers, and truck drivers.

But keep your mythology out of public school science classrooms. I would like MY kids to learn the latest scientific facts, not bronze-age campfire stories.
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, let's not stray from the issue at hand. Present proof or admit that your position is simply a theory that has no solid foundation.
You really should learn what "Theory" means in science before throwing that word around so casually:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon."

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#18 Jan 21, 2013
the real guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's just a theory. There is no evidence to prove that one species evolves into another.
Those of you who embrace it do so with nothing but blind faith.
You need to learn what scientific theory means before you make a complete fool of yourself.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#19 Jan 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to learn what scientific theory means before you make a complete fool of yourself.
A tad too late for that, I'm afraid.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#20 Jan 21, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
A tad too late for that, I'm afraid.
Yep, I saw that. Should have read on before submitting.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
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) 30 min ChristineM 117,363
Darwin on the rocks 1 hr anonymous 151
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 1 hr Shavin Marvin 13
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr DanFromSmithville 174,453
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr DanFromSmithville 137,375
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 4 hr DanFromSmithville 656
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? Sep 27 David M 2

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE