ID Bill Introduced In Missouri

Sovereign · #1 by **Sovereign** » Jan 12, 2012 10:34 pm

House Bill 1227, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 10, 2012, would, if enacted, require "the equal treatment of science instruction regarding evolution and intelligent design," according to the legislature's summary of the bill. The equal treatment provision would apply to both public elementary and secondary schools and to "any introductory science course taught at any public institution of higher education" in Missouri. Continued...

http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/intelligen ... uri-007092

mraltair · #2 by **mraltair** » Jan 12, 2012 10:46 pm

Creationsists just don't understand science. A law doesn't make you right, it doesn't make your skyfairy real, it just means you're obviously wrong.

quixotecoyote · #3 by **quixotecoyote** » Jan 12, 2012 11:44 pm

Hmm "equal treatment". Can we set a standard of evidence/logic and treat them equally based on that?

UnderConstruction · #4 by **UnderConstruction** » Jan 13, 2012 10:54 am

quixotecoyote wrote:Hmm "equal treatment". Can we set a standard of evidence/logic and treat them equally based on that?

Well that sounds fair, though I suspect that they are looking more for the kind of "equal opportunities" that gives special treatment to the less able.

But certainly, I am very much in favour of treating them equally with respect to the standards that they are required to meet before they are taught in schools.

chairman bill · #5 by **chairman bill** » Jan 13, 2012 11:13 am

There's the deceit right there - equal treatment. They have no regard for equal treatment, but for special treatment in relation to supernaturalist explanations. ID has fuck all evidence, so it's dismissed as nonsense, other stuff has supporting evidence, so it isn't so dismissed. That's fair, that's equal in terms of treatment based on evidence. Other unevidenced nonsense is dismissed, so dismissing ID is on a par with that other stuff.

Garm · #6 by **Garm** » Jan 13, 2012 12:11 pm

These are the IDiots who introduced this inane bill:

F.l.t.r.: Rick Brattin, John McCaherty and Charlie Davis

F.l.t.r.: Andrew Koenig, Sue Allen and Darrell Pollock

It's just a rehash of the same old canards:

(3) "Biological intelligent design", a hypothesis that the complex form and function observed in biological structures are the result of intelligence and, by inference, that the origin of biological life and the diversity of all original species on earth are the result of intelligence. Since the inception of each original species, genetic material has been lost, inherited, exchanged, mutated, and recombined to result in limited variation. Naturalistic mechanisms do not provide a means for making life from simple molecules or making sufficient new genetic material to cause ascent from microscopic organisms to large life forms. The hypothesis does not address the time or sequence of life's appearance on earth, time or formation of the fossil record, and time or method of species extinction. The hypothesis does not require the identity of intelligence responsible for earth's biology but requires any proposed identity of that intelligence to be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation. Concepts inherent within the hypothesis include:

(a) The origin of life on earth is inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no plausible mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic origin of the first independent living organism;

(b) All original species on earth are inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no significant mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic development of earth's species from microscopic organisms;

(c) Complex forms in proteins, enzymes, DNA, and other biological structures demonstrated by their constituent molecules in regard to size, shape, quantity, orientation, sequence, chirality, and integration imply intelligent design was necessary for the first life on earth. Intelligence is capable of designing complex form;

(d) Complex functions demonstrated by growth, reproduction, repair, food metabolization, waste disposal, stimuli response, and autonomous mobility in microscopic organisms imply intelligent design was necessary for the first life on earth. Intelligence is capable of designing complex function;

(e) Within the history of human experience, all exhibits of recurring discrete symbols from a set of symbols arranged in a specific sequence which store information and can be read by human intelligence, is itself the result of intelligence. DNA contains stored information for the assembling of proteins and enzymes which can be read by humans and is the result of intelligence. The recurring discrete symbols sequenced within DNA which store information are the molecules adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine;

(f) Intelligence-directed design and construction of all original species at inception without an accompanying genetic burden is inferred rather than random mutational genetic change as a constructive mechanism. Random mutational genetic change results in an increasing genetic burden and species degradation rather than species ascent;

(g) Intelligence-directed action is necessary to exceed the limits of natural species change, which is a combination of autogenous species change and environmental effected species change. Multi-generation breeding experiments illustrate the limits of natural species change and its inadequacy for developing required genetic information found in dissimilar species;

(h) The irreducible complexity of certain biological systems implies a completed design and construction at inception rather than step-by-step development, as indicated by the structures observed for sight, hearing, smell, balance, blood coagulation, digestion, and hormone control;

(i) The lack of significant transitional forms between diverse species existing today and in the fossil record implies all original species were completed at inception rather than by a step-by-step development from other species. A lack of transitional forms is illustrated by the appearance of large complex life forms in the Cambrian fossil record without any significant previous fossils;

(j) Common designs and features evident in different species imply the intelligent reuse of proven designs analogous to the reuse of proven designs by human designers;

(k) The lack of significant present-day observable changes in species due to random variation, mutation, natural selection, adaptation, segregation, or other naturalistic mechanisms implies intelligence as the cause for all original species;

mattwilson · #7 by **mattwilson** » Jan 13, 2012 12:16 pm

and how did that intelligence begin to exist?

That's the simplest way to get IDiots to admit their religious motivation...

If they wanted to say it was another form of life then they have the who created who problem, so their only real answer is that it was an uncreated being, in other words, a god.

Fucking IDiots and creotards

MacIver · #8 by **MacIver** » Jan 13, 2012 12:20 pm

All right, God did it. That kind of makes sense I guess.

One question though IDers. Who the fuck 'did' God?!?!

edit: Or pretty much what matt just said.... sort of.

blindfaith · #9 by **blindfaith** » Jan 13, 2012 12:24 pm

lol, same old arguments, they could have at least made some effort and produced some new canards.

Garm · **#10** by **Garm** » Jan 13, 2012 12:33 pm

I especially love the 'life is inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction' part.

Inferred, how? There is only negative inferrence from an argument of incredulity. Where's the positive evidence for this intelligent design hypothesis? Where's the metric for design with which they establish that lifeforms were actually designed?

"I can't conceive of evolution happening. We still don't know absolutely everything about how life on earth came about. Therefore evolution is false. Therefore God (Oops, sorry, I meant 'intelligent force'...seriously, who do they think they're fooling?)."

Paul G · **#11** by **Paul G** » Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

Can't they just be referred to the dover trial and be told to fuck off? What a waste of time and public resources.

FreshwaterSeaCowHero · **#12** by **FreshwaterSeaCowHero** » Jan 13, 2012 1:49 pm

Goddamn it, what is wrong with my state?

orpheus · **#13** by **orpheus** » Jan 13, 2012 4:33 pm

MacIver wrote:All right, God did it. That kind of makes sense I guess.

One question though IDers. Who the fuck 'did' God?!?!

edit: Or pretty much what matt just said.... sort of.

But the minute they say God did it, it's game over: they'd be admitting it's a religious stance. Those are a no-no in US public schools.

Spearthrower · **#14** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 13, 2012 7:23 pm

Back to the courts to have their asses handed to them. Public humiliation to ensue after massive waste of tax-dollars.

CdesignProponentsist · **#15** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Jan 13, 2012 7:27 pm

It wont pass. If it does, there will be a huge stink and it will be brought back into the courts again.

It will be good practice for secular law.

Moonwatcher · **#16** by **Moonwatcher** » Jan 13, 2012 8:19 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:It wont pass. If it does, there will be a huge stink and it will be brought back into the courts again.

It will be good practice for secular law.

Yes. I thought this already happened at a higher than state level a number of years ago and the ruling was that ID is a religious belief, not science in that it does not meet the requirements of science. It figures this would happen in Missouri. I'm no legal expert but I wonder if they are essentially defying federal law or not. I have little doubt this will quickly be challenged.

CdesignProponentsist · **#17** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Jan 13, 2012 8:52 pm

Moonwatcher wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:It wont pass. If it does, there will be a huge stink and it will be brought back into the courts again.

It will be good practice for secular law.

Yes. I thought this already happened at a higher than state level a number of years ago and the ruling was that ID is a religious belief, not science in that it does not meet the requirements of science. It figures this would happen in Missouri. I'm no legal expert but I wonder if they are essentially defying federal law or not. I have little doubt this will quickly be challenged.

Search my name on YouTube, or Google it, you will get the whole story on that

willhud9 · **#18** by **willhud9** » Jan 14, 2012 12:19 am

The problem that ID-ers can't seem to grasp their mind around is even if things were designed, even if evolution and natural selection were driven by intelligence, even if the eye was irreducibly complex, the problem lies with demonstrating the intelligence.

What criteria do we have to experiment to decide if something is designed by intelligence or designed by naturalistic processes? Until that criteria is brought forth, and peered reviewed correctly (yes that means you Stephen Myers) Intelligent Design has no bearing in the science classroom. One can "believe" in a intelligent source which drives naturalistic processes, I suppose, but this sort of thinking is philosophy and religion, NOT science.

Kingsley · **#19** by **Kingsley** » Jan 14, 2012 1:49 am

Paul G wrote:Can't they just be referred to the dover trial and be told to fuck off? What a waste of time and public resources.

My thoughts exactly.
I'm no expert on English & Welsh law, never mind US law, but even if this passes won't it just be overturned based on the precedents set by Kitzmiller vs Dover and the earlier case referred to in CdesignProponetist's video (an excellent documentary BTW, well worth watching in it's entirety if you haven't already seen it)?

Is there anyway a law such as this could survive the first legal challenge made by a scientifically literate parent and backed by the ACLU? Am I misunderstanding the American system or would for this law to be valid require a constitutional amendment negating or modifying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

I don't know anything about the politics of the State of Missouri. Does this actually have a chance of making it through the legislature and if it did is there any chance the Governor would veto it?

Overall, it sounds like a waste of legislative time and tax payers money in legal fees to me. I hope these IDiots are voted out on the next electoral cycle. I may be wrong though and my hope is probably forlorn.

Rumraket · **#20** by **Rumraket** » Jan 14, 2012 10:21 am

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
Moonwatcher wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:It wont pass. If it does, there will be a huge stink and it will be brought back into the courts again.

It will be good practice for secular law.

Yes. I thought this already happened at a higher than state level a number of years ago and the ruling was that ID is a religious belief, not science in that it does not meet the requirements of science. It figures this would happen in Missouri. I'm no legal expert but I wonder if they are essentially defying federal law or not. I have little doubt this will quickly be challenged.

Search my name on YouTube, or Google it, you will get the whole story on that

I could laugh at this to the end of existence. I'll never tire hearing this story. :lol: