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?

.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #6]

Are all the answers "Jesus?"

No, Are they for you?

I suppose you could get to that answer if one would ask the question. Why do the constants of physics have the values that they do to support life and matter.

[EarthScienceguy]

[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?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #8]

Or, to put it another way, how can we apply principles of creation science to one of these or any other problem and arrive at a testable solution where just plain science gets it wrong?

Well, this assumption is just plainly incorrect. In fact, in the cases, I listed above creation science has the answer for a problem that eventually I assume the rest of the scientific community will adopt. The problem is why is most of the radioactive material on the surface of the Earth is in granite and not in basalt. Uranium is always found in granite and not in basalt. If radioactive material is coming from the interior and has always existed in the interior of the earth then basaltic lava flows should contain equal amounts of uranium as granitic pyroclastic flows.

As an example, all birds have wings, but this makes little sense from a design perspective (even common design) for flightless birds like ostriches. An ostrich's wings are virtually useless as limbs, yet according to a creationist viewpoint, God decided that such wings were the way to go. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense, because one of the cardinal rules of evolution is "descent with modification." Once birds lost their limbs with usable digits in exchange for wings, it was much harder for birds to "modify" them back to something useful, so ostriches are stuck with what they inherited.

I am not understanding why you would think this would make little sense from a design perspective. Besides, most people that believe in evolution, believe that the ostrich is a descendant of a bird that could fly. The only difference in the views is the time it took for this to happen.

Can you think of an example where the converse is true? For example, an animal that has derived mammalian traits (mammary glands, alveolar lungs, placental gestation), but also has, say, derived arthropod traits (silk production, chelicerae, chitin exoskeleton)? I happen to know that that particular pattern has never been discovered, but do you know of any pattern where scientific expectations fail in favor of what one might reasonably expect from a designer?

I am not sure what you are asking me to contrast. Creation scientist for years has maintained that animals can change within a kind. The difference between creationists and evolutionists is the fact that creationists place a limit on the amount of change within a kind. This limitation is produced by the DNA within the originally created animal.

[EarthScienceguy]

[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.

[Difflugia]

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?

The answers are just as important as the questions for your demonstrations. You have to come up with a question that science gets wrong in some practical or testable way and then show how creationist thinking would lead one to the correct answer. I'll give you another example:

If you have a beaker with 100ml of 1M HCl solution, how much NaOH by weight would it take to neutralize the solution?

Science answer: 4g of NaOH. Make sure you close the jar tightly and wear your goggles.

Creationist answer (Protestant version): "Dear God, we just thank you today for the fellowship we have here in the lab and we just pray that you'd bless this time that we have together and that you'd just use us in your way and in your time. Lord, we know that many scientists trust in their own wisdom and refuse to believe on you and we just ask that you'd convict them of their sin and help them to see that you're the only way, Lord, for though it may seem impossible to us, Lord, we just have to trust that all things are possible with you and know that on that last day, Lord, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that you are Almighty God. Since we only have two grams of sodium hydroxide left, Lord, we just ask that it would be enough to neutralize this hundred milliliters of one molar hydrochloric acid. We know that we should have gotten some when we put in the order with Ward's last week, but we just know that you can turn our oversight into a witness for you in this lab and in the halls of this university, Lord, and we just trust in you that after we add this two grams of sodium hydroxide that our meter will show a pH of 7, or maybe even 7.2. We just thank you again, Lord. In Jesus' Name we pray, amen."

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #16]

The answers are just as important as the questions for your demonstrations. You have to come up with a question that science gets wrong in some practical or testable way and then show how creationist thinking would lead one to the correct answer. I'll give you another example:

If you have a beaker with 100ml of 1M HCl solution, how much NaOH by weight would it take to neutralize the solution?

Science answer: 4g of NaOH. Make sure you close the jar tightly and wear your goggles.

You do not seem to be grasping the parameters of the discussion. Maybe creation science is not the best nomenclature. A better nomenclature would be supernatural cosmology and atheistic cosmology.

[Difflugia]

Or, to put it another way, how can we apply principles of creation science to one of these or any other problem and arrive at a testable solution where just plain science gets it wrong?

Well, this assumption is just plainly incorrect.

What assumption?

In fact, in the cases, I listed above creation science has the answer for a problem that eventually I assume the rest of the scientific community will adopt. The problem is why is most of the radioactive material on the surface of the Earth is in granite and not in basalt. Uranium is always found in granite and not in basalt. If radioactive material is coming from the interior and has always existed in the interior of the earth then basaltic lava flows should contain equal amounts of uranium as granitic pyroclastic flows.

Is uranium in granite something that creationists predicted would be there, or is that the data affirming some bit of creationist thinking? If the latter, could that creationist thinking be applied to other questions and produce answers that wouldn't be anticipated by scientific methods?

As an example, all birds have wings, but this makes little sense from a design perspective (even common design) for flightless birds like ostriches.

I am not understanding why you would think this would make little sense from a design perspective. Besides, most people that believe in evolution, believe that the ostrich is a descendant of a bird that could fly. The only difference in the views is the time it took for this to happen.

Wings seem a poor design choice for a flightless bird. Are you saying that creationists claim that ostriches evolved from flying birds, only quicker than scientists think they did? Were ostriches designed to be flying birds, perhaps as part of a kind with other flying birds, but then they evolved into heavy, flightless, powerfully-legged runners in a few thousand years?

Can you think of an example where the converse is true? For example, an animal that has derived mammalian traits (mammary glands, alveolar lungs, placental gestation), but also has, say, derived arthropod traits (silk production, chelicerae, chitin exoskeleton)?

I am not sure what you are asking me to contrast. Creation scientist for years has maintained that animals can change within a kind.

That's why I asked about all mammals rather than, say, horses. The creationists that I'm aware of think that there are many kinds within the mammals. Since those kinds are all separate creations, there's no reason for all of the mammals to share all of the same traits, "common design" notwithstanding. A small, insectivorous mammal that could spin a web would do very well from a design perspective, I would think. Or a spider with wings, for that matter. Similarities between different species or kinds can successfully be predicted by scientists by extrapolating limitations based on common descent. Since creationists don't believe animal traits are limited by common descent. then they should be able to identify some created kinds with trait assortments that absolutely defy any sort of cladistic analysis.

The difference between creationists and evolutionists is the fact that creationists place a limit on the amount of change within a kind. This limitation is produced by the DNA within the originally created animal.

You're still thinking like an evolutionist! If wolves aren't related to elephants, then they're not related to elephants! Why do alveolar lungs and mammary glands go together in wolves, elephants, and every other mammal on Earth? Even if we were to accept your premise of limited evolutionary space, you still can't explain the similarities between kinds in a way that allows evolutionary predictions. I can be confident in predicting that no mammal anywhere has feathers and no bird lactates. I expect that you're confident of the same thing, but why? Is it just statistical? No mammal has yet been found with feathers, so God must just like it that way?

If each kind was created with a set of traits curated by a god, why don't we see assortments of traits that simply couldn't conceivably be because of common descent? An ostrich would do much better with arms, hands, and teeth, even if its feathers are ideal. Why does it share all of the adaptations for flight with other birds unless it is descended from a bird that could fly?

[Difflugia]

You do not seem to be grasping the parameters of the discussion. Maybe creation science is not the best nomenclature. A better nomenclature would be supernatural cosmology and atheistic cosmology.

How does that make a difference to either your or my argument? Are you a Deist, such that we shouldn't expect prayer to affect the outcome of a chemistry experiment?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #15]

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.

And this as zero bearing on whether their beliefs are actually correct (and I think you're shortchanging the atheist population by a factor of two or more). With zero actual evidence of a supernatural creator, the only support for its existence is that people "believe" in it. And "it" has been postulated to be many different things by different people and different religions. Argumentum ad populum doesn't cut it.

I will point out that "atheist science" cannot make any predictions of what occurred before the creation of the universe.

Yet science (there is no such thing as "atheist science") has an infinitely better track record of explaining and predicting things since that point, which is far more practical for us humans don't you think? Open scientific problems yet to be completely solved cannot be used to claim that all of science is therefore wrong (a common creationist tactic). "Creation science" is indeed an oxymoron. It has produced nothing useful in the realm of real science which is why it continues to be ignored by 99% of that community.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #18]

Is uranium in granite something that creationists predicted would be there, or is that the data affirming some bit of creationist thinking? If the latter, could that creationist thinking be applied to other questions and produce answers that wouldn't be anticipated by scientific methods?

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.

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

I am not understanding why you would think this would make little sense from a design perspective. Besides, most people that believe in evolution, believe that the ostrich is a descendant of a bird that could fly. The only difference in the views is the time it took for this to happen.

Wings seem a poor design choice for a flightless bird. Are you saying that creationists claim that ostriches evolved from flying birds, only quicker than scientists think they did? Were ostriches designed to be flying birds, perhaps as part of a kind with other flying birds, but then they evolved into heavy, flightless, powerfully-legged runners in a few thousand years?

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.

That's why I asked about all mammals rather than, say, horses. The creationists that I'm aware of think that there are many kinds within the mammals. Since those kinds are all separate creations, there's no reason for all of the mammals to share all of the same traits, "common design" notwithstanding. A small, insectivorous mammal that could spin a web would do very well from a design perspective, I would think. Or a spider with wings, for that matter. Similarities between different species or kinds can successfully be predicted by scientists by extrapolating limitations based on common descent. Since creationists don't believe animal traits are limited by common descent. then they should be able to identify some created kinds with trait assortments that absolutely defy any sort of cladistic analysis.

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.

You're still thinking like an evolutionist! If wolves aren't related to elephants, then they're not related to elephants! Why do alveolar lungs and mammary glands go together in wolves, elephants, and every other mammal on Earth?

Why do all cars have four tires and an engine? Because that is how we classify cars. We classify animals with certain characteristics as mammals. That does not mean that one had to come from another. I

Even if we were to accept your premise of limited evolutionary space, you still can't explain the similarities between kinds in a way that allows evolutionary predictions. I can be confident in predicting that no mammal anywhere has feathers and no bird lactates. I expect that you're confident of the same thing, but why? Is it just statistical? No mammal has yet been found with feathers, so God must just like it that way?

No mammals with feathers would be in support of creation cosmology. No mammals with feathers would be a refute of evolution. There should be mammals with feathers if there is no limited evolutionary space.

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