Missouri Legislator Introduces Bill To Teach Creationism As A Scientific Theory And To Teach Evolution As A Philosophy

RickBrattinMissouri GOP Rep. Rick Brattin still doesn’t buy that whole evolution thing. Indeed, Brattin is the latest politician to seek to make science conform to religious beliefs by introducing bills that would force creationism into science classes and make “intelligent design” theories equivalent to evolution as a scientific subject. Brattin has proclaimed in this district that he would work to stop the “slow erosion of our God ordained liberties and freedoms.” That apparently begins by ordering “God-ordained” science for Missouri children. By the way, Missouri is already ranked 41st out of 50 states in school quality. Brattin appears committed to beating South Dakota for the distinction of the worst school system in the nation. Students will now receive education in the three rs: reading, ‘riting, and religion.

House Bill 291 defines biological evolution as a “philosophy” that “denies the operation of any intelligence, supernatural event, God or theistic figure in the initial or subsequent development of life.” It further states “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.”

The law dictates a religious based understanding of science, including “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.”

The rather convoluted and pseudo-sciencific language then states:

(3) If scientific theory is taught, the theory shall be identified as theory when taught orally or in writing. Empirical data and conjecture may be presented to support taught theory where considered instructive. As used in this subsection, the term “theory” shall mean theory or hypothesis;
(a) If a scientific theory concerning origin or destiny is taught without the teaching of opposing scientific theory, the taught theory may be criticized by the teaching of conflicting empirical data where considered instructive;
(b) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught. 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;
(c) If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught.

The tortured language is an effort to avoid the word “creationism” and to dress up religious beliefs as scientific theory while treating evolution as a philosophy.

The bill would recreate “standard science” in a more faith-based image and guarantee Missouri will fall further in its educational rankings. What is clear is that the drafters may be the best argument against evidence of evolution. The law is poorly crafted and both intellectually and politically dishonest. It is little more than to legislate that science teachers will legitimate religious views despite the overwhelming support for the fact of evolution.

Bratten has only a high school degree and science does not appear to have been his favorite subject. However, his bio assures voters that “He and his kids are devoted Christians and members of the Strasburg Baptist Church.”

Source: ARTechnica

79 thoughts on “Missouri Legislator Introduces Bill To Teach Creationism As A Scientific Theory And To Teach Evolution As A Philosophy”

  1. His next battle is to pass a law that dictates the sun revolves around the earth. Followed by a law that demands women bare the child of any rapist or unwanted incestual relationship, even at the risk of the mother’s certain death. And then to keep men honest, he wants a law.demanding women wear burkas at all times, even in the shower. Oh, wait, I’m thinking of those Muslim crazed religious lunatics about the burka thing.

  2. Radioman KansaSitty wrote:
    No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session
    Sadly, so very true

  3. No Josh. You need to get a book or use your internet to educate yourself to what a scientific theory is and how it differs from your usage. Is Gravity Theory also proving that the Earth rests on the backs of stacks and stacks of turtles? No. Is Germ Theory also proving that evil spirits are the cause of disease too? No.

    Scientific Theory:

    In science there is nothing higher than a theory because scientific theories take many facts, repeatable experiments and observation to culminate in a body of knowledge that we call a scientific theory.

  4. I agree with everything here except this:

    “for the fact of evolution.”

    Last I checked, it’s called “Evolution Theory” not “Law of Evolution”. You can’t call a theory a fact. If you did, you are also proving that creationism is a fact, not a belief (or theory).

  5. Have you ever been to missouri? Fully 50% of the population is on disability! This does not include other govt. freebies. Had an attorney there (highly recommended) who told us he hated his job and would rather be bass fishing. And the Judge in the case accepted more “evidence” in the case from the opposing side (fellow missourians – voters) after the circus, er, hearing/ our leaving.
    But they do have indoor plumbing.

  6. Meanwhile in St. Louis:

    US college student creates blueprints for a drone-proof city

    Published: 15 February, 2013, 21:20


    “Asher Kohn isn’t an urban planner, but he has managed to draw up designs for an entire city — and a drone-proof one, at that. But according to Kohn, a town that’s impermeable to the newest instruments of war isn’t just a novelty. It’s a necessity.

    “Architecture against drones is not just a science-fiction scenario but a contemporary imperative,” says Kohn, a 25-year-old American-born law student who is currently living in the Netherlands. And although architecture and urban planning are rarely core classes of most law school curricula, earlier this year Kohn handed in a simple blueprint for an assignment offered by a professor at the Sam Fox School of Design in St. Louis, Missouri.

    “I was assigned ‘military architecture’ and realized that for every huge military advance that made it easier to blow up urban areas, there was usually a passive response invented within a generation,” he tells Britain’s Daily Mail. “So I was wondering what the response would be for drones if drones are the next great advance like artillery and airplanes were.”

    A hypothetical answer is presented in Shura City, a fictional compound that Mr. Kohn’s drew up earlier this year and published online, garnering a fair share of attention from bloggers and reporters in the weeks since. But since Kohn isn’t exactly a trained architect — and says he wasn’t even taking the Sam Fox class for credit — his blueprint is one that doesn’t necessarily examine the most aesthetically pleasing building options. Instead, Kohn favors components that could keep a small civilization in tack as the use of drones escalates and the unmanned aircraft launch missiles around the world on a daily basis.

    “As a law student, I am fascinated by drones’ existence in a post-legal world,” he writes in his report. “Architecture can adapt, and this project clearly aims to show just those adaptations, but American jurisprudence is simply not capable of making clear, comforting, adjudications on drones and the sorts of crimes they have been created to deter. Architecture as a discipline has a long history of being capable of developing within the cracks left by law.”

    “In the case of drones, the current legal regime is just wholly unprepared for warfare by algorithm,” he explains. “Architecture can work where law cannot by giving dignity and safety to people physically when they are not afforded those privileges legally.”

    Kohn’s explanation could be considered quite the bummer, but it isn’t without reason. With the United States governments largely defending the extrajudicial killings of American citizens with drones as the program expands overseas, the bad guys in the eyes of Uncle Sam aren’t just al-Qaeda’s top-guns anymore. In late 2011, a drone strike in Yemen killed Abdurahman al-Awlakis, the 16-year-old American son of a suspected al-Qaeda operative. The White House stands by the killing. Speaking of Shura City, Kohn says, “Such creations are not needed for the John Connors but for the Abdurahman al-Awlakis.”

    By using minarets and wind-catching cooling towers called badgirs, aerial drones would ideally be kept out of the Shura city limits because navigating through a series of obstacles would create a nuisance for the drone pilot, who could be located as far as thousands of miles away, in the case of the US drone wars. But those structures wouldn’t even be a starting point. From Kohn’s report:

    “Somewhere between the figurative embrace of the St. Peter’s Square and the chain-link fortification of Pablo Escobar’s compound, there has to be a happy medium. Shura City needs a roof because without one it is just a gesture, a Disney-ified attempt at safety. An open sky is an invitation for the patient masters of the air, and those drones feel no need to RSVP.”

    Within the city, he also calls on specially-made windows, ones that beam self-destruct codes at drones that have managed to enter Shura from the outside. By implementing QR codes — the same kind of technology that sends commands to smartphones with a single glimpse — he says he’d have yet another form of fortification. That isn’t to say, though, that there’d be no escape.

    “The city is a ‘black box’ impenetrable to data miners and military-trained individuals but it is not a prison. It is instead a gated community, providing its society with sunshine and safety from the scary world outside,” he writes.

    In other words, though, Kohn suggests that the need for a drone-proof city might soon be imperative. With the right planning, Shura City could exist as a city that serves as a safe-haven and not a prison-walled facility where a step outside means guaranteed execution.

    “If people are going to create new and exciting ways to kill people, I think there’s no harm in pushing the envelope of peace technology,” he tells Sarah Goodyear of The Atlantic Cities.” continues…

  7. “God-ordained” science…..”

    Oxymorons are funniest when offered by such clueless morons as this (I’m betting home-schooled) one.

  8. I implore everyone who disagrees with this bill, to write him and voice your opinion! I did:

    Rick Brattin-

    Thank you for contributing to the ruination of our country’s education system.

    You don’t get to just change the definitions of terms to suit your needs or your bills. I hope this is your last term and I hope you never, EVER, get another chance to speak for others. You do not deserve another vote or cent of tax dollars. This bill is an absolute atrocity to REAL SCIENCE and continues to hold this country back.

    In case you haven’t noticed, America holds only one top rank in the world, and it isn’t education. Missouri ranks 41 out of 50 in school quality. Why don’t you take a look at other school systems in the countries with high ranking education systems for some cues? Why not? WHY NOT!? Look at what they do, because they are onto something, and WE ARE FALLING BEHIND.

    The day your religion no longer plagues this country cannot come soon enough.

    If I were you, I would push for better health care for Missourians. If your bill passes, those people will need that extra health care money to cure the perpetual nausea caused from you shoving Bibles down their throats.

    Thanks again for destroying our future-

  9. “I don’t buy that whole reality thing. There has to be magic and ghosts and swans, doesn’t there? Lots of swans – oh, and bright colors! Purples and pinks and lavenders and chartreuses. And ponies! Lots and lots of ponies. Science has none of those, so we shouldn’t have to think about it! Even swans hate it, so why teach children? Why? Let them dream up their own answers to life’s questions, let them be ignorant and incapable, let them grow up to be Republican politicians! Yaaaaay!!” ~ Rick Brattin

  10. Pinocchio is saying he won’t take his medicine until after he gets the sugar. Does anyone really believe him?

    Considering the constant and repetitive dishonesty of religious wingnuts, only those just off the turnip truck.

Comments are closed.