Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anticreationist legislation in Montana
NCSE ^ | January 30, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 01/30/2007 9:09:17 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger

House Joint Resolution 21, introduced by Representative Robin Hamilton (D-District 92) on January 26, 2007, in the Montana House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Education, would, if enacted, express the Montana legislature's recognition of the importance of separation of church and state and support of the right of local school board trustees to adopt a science curriculum based on sound scientific principles.

The resolution refers to "a number of national fundamentalist organizations seeking to force local schools to adopt a science curriculum that conforms to their particular religious beliefs and that includes theories commonly referred to as creationism, creation science, and intelligent design theory" and describes their efforts as undermining "a community's local control, a teacher's academic freedom, and a student's opportunity to receive quality science education" as well as the separation of church and state.

A similar resolution, SJR 8, was introduced in the Montana Senate in 2005, but died in committee.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: commonsenseprevails; creation; crevolist; darwinismsnotscience; evolution; idjunkscience; yecisnotscience
I am curious as to which national fundamentalist organizations are seeking to force schools to adopt pro-creationist or pro-intelligent design materials? The largest of such groups (The Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, etc.) do not seek to force their views in the classroom.

So far, the only movements I've seen have been grassroots.

1 posted on 01/30/2007 9:09:18 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; AndrewC; Havoc; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debate and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution debate - from the young-earth creationist perspective.
To to get on or off this list (currently the premier list for creation/evolution news!), freep-mail me:
Add me / Remove me

2 posted on 01/30/2007 9:09:35 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger (Wellllllll! Guess it's not about the economy anymore, is it? Stupid?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

"to adopt a science curriculum based on sound scientific principles"
heh, heh, heh, how many billions of years did it take to make that up?


3 posted on 01/30/2007 9:17:24 PM PST by rusureitflies? (OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD! There, I said it. Prove me wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
This might be of interest on DC...since you lurk in both worlds. ;-)

Cheers!

4 posted on 01/30/2007 10:29:40 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
and support of the right of local school board trustees to adopt a science curriculum based on sound scientific principles.

I assume that means no teaching of theories since theories aren't "sound scientific principles".

5 posted on 01/30/2007 11:30:09 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
I assume that means no teaching of theories since theories aren't "sound scientific principles".

Yes. There will be no teaching of the Theory of Gravity, Number Theory, Set Theory, Electromagnetic Theory, the Kinetic Theory of Gasses, Chaos Theory, Probability Theory, Game Theory, Signal Theory, General Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Theory or indeed any theories at all.

6 posted on 01/31/2007 12:38:15 AM PST by HowardsBattler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Should be a BATTLE ROYAL.


7 posted on 01/31/2007 12:42:17 AM PST by timer (n/0=n=nx0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Lllllet's get rrrready to rrrrrumble! : )


8 posted on 01/31/2007 12:44:04 AM PST by WestVirginiaRebel (A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel-Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
"Lllllet's get rrrready to rrrrrumble!"

Beans for dinner?

9 posted on 01/31/2007 7:20:44 AM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

What a novelty! A dem coming out against affirmative action (in science)!


10 posted on 01/31/2007 7:21:20 AM PST by LibertarianSchmoe ("...yeah, but, that's different!" - mating call of the North American Ten-Toed Hypocrite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Just once. JUST ONCE I would love to see a national debate where someone throws a copy of the constitution into the face of one of these Marxists and insists that he points out the phrase "Separation of Church and State."

I would pay good money to see an exchange like that. I would love to see one of these idiots be forced to say that this nonsense is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

11 posted on 01/31/2007 7:30:37 AM PST by SaveTheChief (This tagline goes to eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SaveTheChief
Just once. JUST ONCE I would love to see a national debate where someone throws a copy of the constitution into the face of one of these Marxists and insists that he points out the phrase "Separation of Church and State."

I didn't see where that claim (church-state separation is derived from the Constitution) was made. That doesn't mean that it isn't a sound principle; it was endorsed by the Founders.

12 posted on 01/31/2007 7:41:19 AM PST by LibertarianSchmoe ("...yeah, but, that's different!" - mating call of the North American Ten-Toed Hypocrite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SaveTheChief
Just once. JUST ONCE I would love to see a national debate where someone throws a copy of the constitution into the face of one of these Marxists and insists that he points out the phrase "Separation of Church and State."

And I'd like someone to point out where in the constitution the government has the right to force Christian fundamentalist dogma on students in school, too.

13 posted on 01/31/2007 8:51:07 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HowardsBattler

So tell me, how many of those theories are based on "scientific principles".


14 posted on 01/31/2007 10:37:49 AM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SaveTheChief
Just once. JUST ONCE I would love to see a national debate where someone throws a copy of the constitution into the face of one of these Marxists and insists that he points out the phrase "Separation of Church and State."

The Constitution doesn't use the phrase "separation of powers," either. Or "federalism," or "states' rights," or "checks and balances." But all of those concepts are in the Constitution.

James Madison, the principal author of the First Amendment, used the phrase "separation of church and state" in his own writings as a summary of the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses.

15 posted on 01/31/2007 10:42:21 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Reason seems to have prevailed on this thread. But it's early yet...


16 posted on 01/31/2007 12:37:04 PM PST by LibertarianSchmoe ("...yeah, but, that's different!" - mating call of the North American Ten-Toed Hypocrite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

???

You are kidding me, right? That was a joke post?

In the spirit of what Wikipedia calls "assume good faith" I will answer.

ALL OF THEM ARE SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.

You do understand that Gravity is "only a theory" don't you?

You do understand that Electromagnetism is "only a theory".


17 posted on 02/03/2007 2:47:16 AM PST by HowardsBattler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HowardsBattler
You do understand that Gravity is "only a theory" don't you? You do understand that Electromagnetism is "only a theory".

Not in my mind. I drop a rock and it falls. Gravity is no longer a theory.

18 posted on 02/03/2007 9:38:53 AM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson