Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education United States Science

Missouri Legislation Redefines Science, Pushes Intelligent Design 813

Posted by Soulskill
from the pi-is-exactly-3 dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Ars reports on new legislation in the Missouri House of Representatives which is seeking equal time in the classroom for Intelligent Design, and to redefine science itself. You can read the text of the bill online. It uses over 600 words to describe Intelligent Design. Scientific theory, the bill says, is 'an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy.' It would require that 'If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught.' The legislation's references to 'scientific theory' and 'scientific law' make it clear the writers don't have the slightest idea how science actually works. It also has this odd line near the end: 'If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Missouri Legislation Redefines Science, Pushes Intelligent Design

Comments Filter:
  • It's a race... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nickserv (1974794) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:01PM (#42877525)

    ...to the bottom.

    • Re:It's a race... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:03PM (#42877541) Homepage Journal

      Teach Darwin,

      Teach Spinoza and Godel.

      No problem.

      • Re:It's a race... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by WaywardGeek (1480513) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:35PM (#42877905) Journal

        I prefer the Halting Problem to Godel, but that's another issue... This is just another brain-dead bill by the god-tard legion.

      • by emil (695) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:36PM (#42877915) Homepage

        I have a much better idea. A fundamentalist Christian has no business seeing a physician or being in a hospital ever.

        Corinthians 2:12:5: ...but for myself I will glory nothing but in my infirmities. For though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me. And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. For which thing, thrice I besought the Lord that it might depart from me. And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Power is made perfect. . .The strength and power of God more perfectly shines forth in our weakness and infirmity; as the more weak we are of ourselves, the more illustrious is his grace in supporting us, and giving us the victory under all trials and conflicts. For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful.

        Any Christian that pushes intelligent design over evolution should have the courage of their convictions and forsake modern medicine. Glory in your disease, for it is a gift from God.

        • by VAElynx (2001046) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:37PM (#42877923)
          Sadly, there are nutcases like that. Called "Christian Scientists"
          • It's only sad that they force this on the children. Adults being idiots and culling themselves off is a good thing.

            • by jvillain (546827) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:08PM (#42878201)

              It sounds like you are describing evolution.

            • by dcollins (135727) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:25PM (#42878357) Homepage

              Now the only problem is that half-decade gap between sexual maturity and legal adulthood.

          • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

            by rmdingler (1955220) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:18PM (#42878307)
            Is not intelligent design an oxymoron? My human spine has smaller vertebra at the bottom of my back than it does at the top, my shoulder 'ball and socket' joint design works like the engineer went to Phoenix University, and my freakin' liver can't process ethanol efficiently.
            • Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Informative)

              by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:55PM (#42878605) Homepage Journal

              Intelligent design is not an oxymoron, it is a tautology; design by definition is intelligent. To qualify as an oxymoron the words themselves would have to be contradictory, like in the classic example "military intelligence," where it is to be assumed that the military is unintelligent. Living dead. Guest host. Deafening silence. The word itself means "sharp dull."

              Unfortunately, there isn't a term for "a euphemism that reveals the speaker is a bag of arses," so we will have to settle for calling it unintentional irony. The Greeks and Romans didn't live in a relativistic enough world for the abuse of language by the unimaginative to be a problem worth talking about.

        • by sam_nead (607057) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:11PM (#42878231)
          Bible - "For when I am weak, then am I powerful."

          Orwell - "Weakness is strength".

          Awesome. Never saw that before. Thanks!

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Pick a translation where the words haven't changed meanings in the last 5 centuries or so, and you might have a shot at actually understanding it. Let's try one, using that same passage (2 Corinthians 12:5-10):

          Over such a man I will boast, but I will not boast over myself, except as respects [my] weaknesses. For if I ever do want to boast, I shall not be unreasonable, for I shall say the truth. But I abstain, in order that no one should put to my credit more than what he sees I am or he hears from me, just

      • Re:It's a race... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Stripe7 (571267) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:15PM (#42878277)
        How about teach the Indian cosmology, Chinese creation, African tribal belief's in cosmology? Do they have to teach all of that now too?
        • by billstewart (78916) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @11:30PM (#42878885) Journal

          At least some states have said that teachers have to teach Intelligent Design, but aren't allowed to teach any particular religion's view of who the Intelligent Designer is, because that would be establishing religion and therefore blatantly unconstitutional.

          But that doesn't mean that different cultures don't have different beliefs about the design process that lead to different world views separately from the issue of the Designer's identity. For instance, did it happen quickly or slowly? Recently, or a long long time ago? Just once, or repeated in multi-million-year cycles? Did the stars, Earth, plants, animals, and humans get designed together, or in some order? How could you tell? Did the design follow song-lines? Were only natural processes involved, or supernatural beings, or pirates or other tricksters? Does there seem to have been just one designer, or multiple designers in the process? Does the design process appear to have been personal or impersonal? Can we learn anything from the distribution of genetic material in different human populations, or the genetic differences between modern humans and Neandertals and other apes? Why are we more closely related to fungi than to plants? How does Death affect design?

          If you want to teach Intelligent Design as Science, not just as philosophy, you can do it, but you'll find it's a much harder problem than its proponents think, and they may not like all the questions you'll be asking, much less the answers your students come up with.

      • by kenj0418 (230916) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:20PM (#42878333)

        Teach Darwin, Teach Spinoza and Godel.

        This list will never be complete. Or if it is, it will be inconsistent.

    • Re:It's a race... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ironhandx (1762146) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:32PM (#42877881)

      It really fucking is. The reason for NOT teaching intelligent design is written right into the fucking text of the law.

      "(2) "Biological evolution", a theory of"

      "(3) "Biological intelligent design", a hypothesis"

      Amazing how they got that right then got the entire text of the law wrong.

      I also like how they added "biological" to the front of intelligent design. It both makes it oh so obviously more legitimate and less pseudo science and also suggests we were created by aliens instead of god/gods/pigdemons/whateverotherrandombullshitpeoplearegullibleenoughtoswallow at the same time.

      • Re:It's a race... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:48PM (#42878043) Journal

        Oh, no. They got the text of the law exactly right. They said that it had to be taught, then said that you cannot teach who the creator is unless you can prove it scientifically. In order to comply with the law, schools in Missouri will have to teach intelligent design in a way that clearly casts it as an unprovable philosophical discussion rather than science. If anything, this will help disabuse those students of any notion that ID is a true scientific theory, which will actually lead to folks in that state having a better grasp of science in the long run.

        Don't get me wrong, it ain't science, and it really doesn't belong in a science classroom, but since we don't have philosophy classes in American high schools, at least Missouri's students will get to hear the science side of the issue instead of just an ultraconservative preacher's views.

        • by cheater512 (783349) <nick@nickstallman.net> on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:29PM (#42878403) Homepage

          They'll just use their bible as their proof. "Look! It says it right there!"

        • Re:It's a race... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by iiii (541004) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @11:23PM (#42878827) Homepage
          That's really an excellent point that I had not considered. It would certainly be possible to build a curriculum that is completely in compliance with these laws, but that uses the presentation of Intelligent Design as a counterexample to show what science is *not*. You could teach the scientific method and the work that led up to our current understanding of evolution, including the abundant evidence supporting it and the hypotheses that have been shown to be true. Then teach a unit on logical fallacies, manipulation, rhetorical trickery, superstition and cult psychology. Then use what you have learned to examine the scientific merit of Intelligent Design. Fuck, I just convinced myself that we *should* be teaching ID!! And teaching it well, so people understand exactly what it is, what the claims are, what evidence exists (or doesn't) to support those claims, how the message is carefully crafted for specific effect, and how the whole thing relates and compares to actual scientific work. Once we have this curriculum ready, any time some idiotic state passes a law like this schools in that jurisdiction would be able to turn to it to maintain their standards. Make it so!
      • by narcc (412956)

        How's that a hypothesis? For an hypothesis to be scientific requires that it be testable.

      • Re:It's a race... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dryeo (100693) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:26PM (#42878377)

        Well biological intelligent design is pretty well a fact. Dogs are one good example, wheat another. Then of course there is whatever Monsanto has been designing.
        I don't see any problem with teaching how for the last 10,000 odd years we've been designing organisms.

      • Re:It's a race... (Score:4, Informative)

        by multimediavt (965608) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:50PM (#42878563)

        It both makes it oh so obviously more legitimate and less pseudo science and also suggests we were created by aliens instead of god/gods/pigdemons/whateverotherrandombullshitpeoplearegullibleenoughtoswallow at the same time.

        How could you forget The Flying Spaghetti Monster! [venganza.org]

  • Treason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorinLynx (31751) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:02PM (#42877531) Homepage

    This sort of behavior from elected officials should be considered treason.

    It is severely hurting the future of our country and making the next generation more ignorant.

    They should be removed from office and any position of power of influence over others.

    • Re:Treason (Score:4, Interesting)

      by SwampChicken (1383905) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:21PM (#42877743)
      Removing them will do little. It's the lobbyists who are pushing Intelligent Design that need to be weeded out.
      • by billstewart (78916) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @11:37PM (#42878935) Journal

        It's not just about Evolution - that's a hook for getting one particular voting block supporting the Republican Party, and a favor to them for cooperating, but there's more to it than that. Teaching Anti-Evolution Anti-Science makes it easier to teach Anti-Global-Warming Anti-Science - same tools, same skepticism and unwillingness to believe the real world instead of the authorities.

        The Republican Party doesn't really care much about evolution. But their Corporate Sponsors really do care about global warming, and about anything that might force the government to make laws that affect their business. Anti-Evolution is fun, but anti-global-warming is where the money is.

    • by gmuslera (3436)

      Treason to who? American citizens or the ones that manage the government? Usually treason means going against the ones in power. Dumb voters are voters after all, they do what they are told to do, they are trained to just believe, not think. Intelligent or critical thinking ones, in the other hand, could vote against them, rebel, move away or do enough noise. Better that not be a lot of them.

      Anyway, unless the elected officials responsible for this are lawyers, I should not attribute this to malice if can

      • Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)

        by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:45PM (#42877999)

        Treason:

        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

        The Enemies always have been and always will be ignorance and stupidity.

        Open and shut case I'd say.

        • by green1 (322787)

          You don't even have to frame the enemy as an idea instead of a person or state. Killing off science in your country actively helps any nation who opposes you to gain the upper hand in the long run.

    • by Stripe7 (571267)
      Lawmakers are not scientists, do not understand it and have no idea what science is. These are the same people who would legislate PI. Then again the Republican party has proved throughout the last election that they have their own idea of truth or facts that have no bearing reality.
    • by Morgaine (4316) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:15PM (#42878269)

      This sort of behavior from elected officials should be considered treason.

      Treason may be the wrong word if one wants to be precise, but there is certainly something like treason going on. The creationists are willfully trying to undermine the country's scientific future and to infect school children's receptive minds with pure nonsense. As an analogy it's very true.

      There's also some very severe professional misconduct occurring there, because non-scientists are pretending to be scientifically competent and dictating school science curricula.

      Are carpenters allowed to establish guidelines for how surgeons will do heart surgery? No, they lack the professional competence so they are not accepted as having standing in the matter. What's happening in science education in a few US states is directly analogous. The creationists have no standing in science and so should have the door shut firmly in their faces.

      Pretending to have scientific competency when you don't even know how science works is pretty clear fraud. Aren't there controls in education to keep charlatans from taking jobs for which they have no professional competence? Apparently not.

    • Meh, just kiss your country goodbye and learn Mandarin. Wall St, Gun crime, Religion, lack of universal health, Rome is burning, the best you can expect is a quick death.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:03PM (#42877537)

    is that someone is being paid to write this shit.

  • by morcego (260031) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:04PM (#42877551)

    Rest in peace, oh great America. You had a nice run leading the world in science and technology.

    Pretty soon now you will be just another religious state, just like the ones you are fighting right now, but with a different religion.

    • by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:22PM (#42877747) Homepage

      Actually, it really wasn't all that long of a run, in the grand scheme of things. I mean, Athens had a century or so as the center of learning, Alexandria lasted several centuries, Rome had a couple of really good centuries, Baghdad spent 3 centuries on top, Britain had a pretty impressive run from about the mid 1600's to the end of the Industrial Revolution, etc. And what all of those societies had in common was that they placed the highest value on knowledge and learning and not so much value on foolish religiousity. And the ruling class supported those scientific efforts for their own sake, not just because they were profitable.

      • by morcego (260031) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:26PM (#42877789)

        Actually, it really wasn't all that long of a run, in the grand scheme of things.

        True. It was pretty much since the 1940s. But it was still a good run. Some very smart people in the USA government saw the writing in the wall and figure it would be a good idea to welcome all those scientists fleeing Europe (WWI and WWII) with open arms, and start investing heavily in science.

        I bet they are turning inside their graves right now, so to speak.

        • by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:30PM (#42877841) Homepage

          And what is it that put America in the forefront of the nuclear nations? and what is it that will make it possible to spend 20 billion dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? Well, it's good old American know-how, that's what, as provided by good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun.

          - Tom Lehrer

        • by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:24PM (#42878355)

          Also a fact was that the Scopes trials in which John Scopes allegedly broke the law by teaching evolution in a public school occurred in 1925. Well before the US "had its good run". Shenanigans by evangelicals on this topic have been ongoing for a very long time and have been mostly irrelevant to anything except making noise and grabbing headlines. The smart people in the USA would not have even had to turn in their graves, they proceeded unabashed while quite alive and vigorous.

          We're going to survive this one. Science and Technology has many things going against it in the US right now, but this doesn't rate.

    • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:51PM (#42878057)

      Rest in peace, oh great America. You had a nice run leading the world in science and technology.

      Pretty soon now you will be just another religious state, just like the ones you are fighting right now, but with a different religion.

      That is not true.

      One-in-Five Adults and One-in-Three Under Age 30 Have No Religious Affiliation [pewforum.org]. This kind of stuff are the death-throes of religious conservatism. As the more normal people leave formalized religion, the crazies are left behind. Without a moderating influence, they get even crazier than before.

      • by ThePeices (635180) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:47PM (#42878541)

        Then why do all of these supposed teeming masses of enlightened people sit about on their fat asses and DO NOTHING ABOUT IT.

        These religious nutjobs got elected by the majority of people. They stayed elected and started trying to pass religious laws. And they passed. And still, you all sat there and did nothing.

        How many more times do we all have to read about this shit happening in the US before people take a genuine stand against this tripe?

        You non-religiously-affiliated -people need to grow a pair and start changing things before the shit really starts hitting the fan.

      • by bmo (77928) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @11:04PM (#42878665)

        Between 40 and 50 percent of everyone believes in the Genesis story as literal truth depending on the poll. It's been that way for 50 years. The last Gallup survey had it somewhere around 46-48 percent.

        What is striking is that over the decades, this number has not budged much.

        1 in 5 adults and 1 in 3 under 30 aren't enough to stem the tide of derp.

        http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/706 [richarddawkins.net]

        Although the mean score on the Index of Genetic Literacy was slightly higher in the United States than the nine European countries combined, results from another 2005 U.S. study show that substantial numbers of American adults are confused about some of the core ideas related to 20th- and 21stcentury biology. When presented with a description of natural selection that omits the word evolution, 78% of adults agreed to a description of the evolution of plants and animals (see table S2 in SOM). But, 62% of adults in the same study believed that God created humans as whole persons without any evolutionary development.

        Death throes of religious conservatism? I think not.

        --
        BMO

    • by the gnat (153162) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:57PM (#42878109)

      Pretty soon now you will be just another religious state, just like the ones you are fighting right now, but with a different religion.

      There is another, more optimistic way of looking at this: we are seeing the last frantic struggles of a reactionary movement which can't adapt to social change. If you were to go back in time to, say, 1950, do you really believe that Americans as a group were any less superstitious or closed-minded? In that era, not only were racism and sexism often overt (or even violent), gays were subject to criminal prosecution in most states, often with involuntary psychiatric commitment, and I suspect evolution wasn't even an issue because it wasn't even being taught in most schools. Maybe the reason why there wasn't a big controversy back then is because there wasn't much disagreement - the country was far more conservative as a whole.

      Look at it from the perspective of the religious fundamentalists: in the past century (and some of these trends are far more recent), women have career opportunities that were unheard of (and are a majority of new college graduates); gays are "out, loud, and proud", with gay marriage now legal in four states (and civil unions in several more); no-fault divorce is available in nearly every state (I think NY is the lone holdout), and the divorce rate is something like 50% as a result; young women write exhibitionist columns in college newspapers glorifying their promiscuity; single motherhood is more common than ever; cohabitation before marriage is practically the norm (at least if you're a coastal elite like myself); the biological sciences are changing so fast that in another few decades (a century at the most) we'll probably have redefined reproduction (and humanity); the government has replaced the churches as the primary distributor of charity; and last but not least, we know more about the history of our universe and our species than ever before, and it's simply not compatible with Biblical literalism no matter how hard you try. The religious conservatives perceive their entire belief system to be under assault by the government, pop culture, and the dreaded liberal elites, and they are frantically trying to hold back the flood of perversity and Godlessness by every legal means at their disposal.

      Mind you, I'm absolutely not defending them; I find them ignorant and contemptible, and their actions contradict nearly every moral and ethical value I have. But, as someone who reads a lot of history, and often feels just as alienated from modern society, I think I have a pretty good idea how they feel, and the word is desperate. They're not winning, they're fighting a rearguard action, trying to return to a idyllic, morally virtuous, and thoroughly mythical past.

      • by the gnat (153162) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:44PM (#42878509)

        One more point before I head out the door: despite years of trying, creationism (including its more PR-friendly bastard child Intelligent Design) has had absolutely zero impact in the one area where it might actually matter: actual science (both basic and applied). The only extent to which it affects biologists is that some people end up wasting time arguing with superstitious, scientifically illiterate morons instead of doing actual research. Every other scientist I know, including everyone I work with, just ignores them and continues applying our materialist worldview ("the scientific method") with ever-increasing gains. There will never be a disease cured by application of Biblical principles, which means the entire concept is ultimately doomed. It's just going to take another few centuries for the facts on the ground to catch up with the fundies, by which time the rest of us will have engineered ourselves into near-superhuman intelligence. (At least I hope so, but I probably read too much science fiction.)

  • by Marcaen (568601) <Cache22@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:13PM (#42877655) Homepage

    That last sentence sounded strangely familiar:
            "If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course." ....

    `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
    `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
    `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

  • by Skiboy941 (2692201) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:18PM (#42877705)
    We should also devote equal time in astronomy to the hypothesis that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Earth is, in fact, flat.
  • Wait... what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by viperidaenz (2515578) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:19PM (#42877711)

    teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course

    They're supposed to be teaching the scientific method. ie: creating a hypothesis and proving or disproving it.. If you can't prove or disprove it, you've failed. Yet it is illegal for the teachers to mark it as wrong, since they can't question it?

    So I could say elephants have a long nose because the flying spaghetti monster decried that it shall have a noodley appendage and I would be correct because I don't have to verify the identity of the flying spaghetti monster?

  • what do you teach? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spiked_Three (626260) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:19PM (#42877715)
    I mean not that I any way believe in any of the ID stuff (flying spaghetti monsters is my bumper sticker), but, even if you do, what do you teach?

    "Some super brain/being designed it all. End of story".

    This is so wrong on so many levels. The dumbing down of children for fanaticals has to stop, one way or another. People like Rick Sanatorium are destroying this country and need to be run out.
  • by dubbayu_d_40 (622643) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:23PM (#42877759)

    In the long run, I'm pretty sure this is more harmful to religion than anything else.

  • by feedayeen (1322473) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:28PM (#42877817)

    50 bucks says an atheist wrote that line as an easter egg.

  • by Eightbitgnosis (1571875) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:32PM (#42877865) Homepage
    Sounds like the answer to most every question in science class can now be answered, "Because a wizard did it".

    Woe be it to the teacher who questions the "Get out of Science Class"-Wizard!
  • by accessbob (962147) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:35PM (#42877907)

    These bigoted idiots get away with what they do and say because we,

    who do know better,

    don't treat them and their ideas with the mockery that they deserve.

    Respecting their right to believe (and we must) is not the same as respecting the idiotic beliefs that they hold.

  • by Tokolosh (1256448) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @09:53PM (#42878077)

    "...incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy..."

    Sounds like a lot of Green people I know.

  • by mschaffer (97223) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:05PM (#42878181)

    These inbred, idealistic, heretical politicians do not understand the difference between truth and faith.
    You do not see the Roman Catholic Church (or many other organized religious organizations) have a problem with teaching science as a science and religion as a religion. The schools of higher learning, run by these religious organizations, openly teach the concepts of evolution as a science without interference.
    So, why can't the Missouri legislators get their act together and leave science to the scientists and religion to the clergy?
    So much for separation of church and state. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion (after all, every set contains the null set). State mandated hokum being posited as science is an abuse of faith and science.

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:16PM (#42878297)

    It's a bill not a law.
    Hearings not scheduled, not on the house calendar. You've been had ARS... this is a publicity stunt by 2 conservative politicians to garner attention for their next election by introducing a bill popular with their tiny constituencies, guaranteed never to even get voted on, but sure to bring in gullible leftist reporters who are all too eager to snap up any tidbit of info that might portray their political opponents in a negative light. And you guys are flooding ARS with traffic because you're also so eager to believe it.

    Sponsor: Brattin, Rick (055)
    Co-Sponsor: Koenig, Andrew (099) ... et al.
    Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2013
    LR Number: 506L.01I
    Last Action: 1/31/2013 - Referred: Elementary and Secondary Education(H)
    Bill String: HB 291
    Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
    Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
    http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB291&year=2013&code=R [mo.gov]

    As if there were nothing in the world actually worth reporting on, they've got to spoon feed you this horseshit. How many people die in Africa from AIDs per day? Oh wait, you can't blame that on republicans so it's uninteresting. Fuck you.

  • by retchdog (1319261) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:40PM (#42878485) Journal

    1: 'If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught.'

    2: 'If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation.'

    well, since the second condition is impossible to meet, and is a necessary condition to satisfy the first, it means only that scientific theory concerning biological origin cannot be taught in a course of study. (contrapositive)

    so... does that just mean you can't teach abiogenesis? that is what `origin' means in this context, right? evolution is okay to teach, and doesn't trigger the latter necessary conditions, even though they mention ``biological evolution,'' apparently as a red herring.

    wait. did they mean for this to be a silly logic puzzle, or are they just too stupid to realize what they're saying?

  • by Cassini2 (956052) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @10:44PM (#42878511)

    Once, there was a legislature that attempted to make pi=3, [wikipedia.org] because it would make life so much simpler.

  • The World Laughs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by arthurpaliden (939626) on Tuesday February 12, 2013 @11:45PM (#42878987)
    And Americans wonder why the world is basically laughing at them.

: is not an identifier

Working...