‘Healthy skepticism’ bill appears to be ailing [Intelligent Design in Missouri]

Kansas City Star ^ | 02 April 2006 | KIT WAGAR and TIM HOOVER

[PatrickHenry]

A new tack for trying to introduce supernatural explanations for the origin of life into Missouri’s public school science classes appears dead this year.

Legislation backed by conservative Christian groups sought to discredit the theory of evolution by requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.

Called the Missouri Science Education Act, HB 1266 would require science instructors in sixth through 12th grades to promote “healthy skepticism” about any theory of biological origins. State assessment tests would be required to include a section on such criticisms and alternate explanations about the origins of life.

The bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Wayne Cooper of Camdenton, was approved by the House Education Committee last month.

The committee’s chairwoman, Jane Cunningham, a St. Louis County Republican, cast the deciding vote in favor of the bill.

But each committee has a limited number of bills that it can move to the House floor. Cunningham said she simply doesn’t have room for Cooper’s bill.

“The bill had a very positive hearing,” Cunningham said. “I think that’s because it’s a different bill than has been introduced before, so it’s not as controversial. It basically says to teach theory as theory and fact as fact.”

Cunningham’s description understates the controversy surrounding the bill. The Education Committee approved the bill 7-6. The bill was opposed by a wide range of teacher groups and school organizations, and several faith-based groups.

Otto Fajen, chief lobbyist for the Missouri affiliate of the National Education Association, said the bill’s intention is to water down science education, which bodes ill for the nation’s economic future.

“We need to be doing our utmost to increase science literacy so our kids can compete,” Fajen said.

Cooper said the measure would improve the discussion of science by fostering open inquiry.

[Omitted a few paragraphs at the end about immigration proposals.]

[PatrickHenry]

Gentle reminder: Now hear this: No personal attacks (title of thread posted 15 March 2006 by Jim Robinson).

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 360 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[VadeRetro]

IB4TC. (In before the "chat.")

[facedown]

...supernatural explanations for the origin of life...

Exactly.

[Dog Gone]

requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.

At least half?

I've got a suggestion for parents worried about their kids learning about evolution:

Parochial school.

Home school.

Or just discuss it at home with them.

The battle to teach what is science and what is not is a guaranteed loser for the creationist side.

[js1138]

I wonder who gets to choose the list of problems, and whether the list gets peer reviewed.

[Non-Sequitur]

Legislation backed by conservative Christian groups sought to discredit the theory of evolution by requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.

If they spent half their time pointing out the flaws in evolution, and the other half pointing out the flaws in intelligent design then when would any teaching get done?

[curiosity]

Otto Fajen, chief lobbyist for the Missouri affiliate of the National Education Association, said the bill’s intention is to water down science education, which bodes ill for the nation’s economic future.

Yikes. I'd never thought I'd be on the same side of an issue as the teachers' unions. Oh well. Broken clocks and all that...

[jexus]

Of course, I think we should spend a lot of time discussing some ""Healthy Skepticism" about the claims of fundamentalist Christians.

Like how about an example of a talking snake? Or even a fossil snake with vocal chords.

Or an example of a single human male who lives to 300 years and then has children, (even before the invention of Viagra.)

Or an equation of nuclear chemistry that can start with 100 lbs of woman and end up with a pillar of NaCl without blowing a chunk of earth out into space.

I wonder how a tower that collapsed could be the derivation of different languages.
Do they have a theory of that that can be tested? I wonder why they have a problem with modern Biology, when Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Medicine, Astronomy and Linguistics all point out how silly their ideas are.

We should demand some evidence of their claims and subject them to some rigorous testing. But why bother, they have no evidence and are simply silly.

[Just mythoughts]

"The battle to teach what is science and what is not is a guaranteed loser for the creationist side."


Really, the theory of evolution modeled upon the survival of the fittest, requiring the intervention of government programs has been the model followed by the public school system for decades. These children are taught they are just descendants of the rest of the global animals.

Too bad the evolutionists won't accept the test results of their system of education.

[PatrickHenry]

Here is a link to the full text of the bill being discussed. It applies to all science courses, but it singles out biology (the only science dealt with specifically) with this provision:

If a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount.

[ml1954]

requiring instructors to spend at least half their time pointing out perceived flaws in the theory.

It's really annoying when ignorant conservative politicians make stupid proposals making all conservatives look like scientifically illiterate boobs.

[MonroeDNA]

In related news, Missouri pubbies vote to repeal the law of gravity.

[balrog666]

It's really annoying when ignorant conservative politicians make stupid proposals making all conservatives look like scientifically illiterate boobs.

Or perhaps they think that the majority of their constituency is composed of scientifically illiterate boobs.

[MonroeDNA]

1. God did it.

2. God did it.

3. God did it.

4. God did it.

5. God did it.

Understand? If not, you will burn for eternity in hellfire and limestone, or brimstone, or something.

If you have a problem with it, talk to the burning bush. It speaks, too.

[ml1954]

To me, the wording in that bill implies that science cannot be trusted...

Information that appears to be verified empirical data, but is not, shall be identified to distinguish it as separate from verified empirical data.

Since when is unverified empirical data presented as verified in a high school science class?

Teacher classroom instruction shall use the following best practices to support the objective teaching of scientific information and minimize dogmatism while promoting student inquiry, healthy skepticism, and understanding:

Since when is 'dogmatism' an issue in high school science classes?

When information other than verified empirical data is taught representing current scientific thought such as theory or hypothesis regarding phenomena that occur in the future or that occurred previous to written history, a critical analysis of such information shall be taught in a substantive amount.

'that occurred previous to written history' covers an awful lot of science that is now required to be critically analyzed.

This bill sounds like it's been written from the YEC playbook.

[ml1954]

Or perhaps they think that the majority of their constituency is composed of scientifically illiterate boobs.

Think they can tell the difference?

[Dimensio]

Really, the theory of evolution modeled upon the survival of the fittest, requiring the intervention of government programs has been the model followed by the public school system for decades.

The theory of evolution is not, in any way, modelled on a requirement of government programs. In fact, governmnet programs are neither an element of the theory nor a logical outgrowth of the theory. I do not know where you have obtained your information, but it is clearly not from an informed source.