I read this bill and think, if this bill strives to protect only scientific theories, then by exclusion it does not protect non-scientific theories, such as I.D. That gives biologists legal leverage against I.D. where today it has none.

I know that isn’t the intent of the bill, but isn’t it better, indirectly, than not having the bill? Given that the desire to teach I.D. won’t go away with or without it, I mean.

“It’s a shame that the Republicans allowed their cause of parental choice in schools to be so corrupted by people trying to teach Creationism in schools that this statement can be made.”

I change it to this: “It’s a shame that the Republicans allowed their cause of X to be so corrupted by people trying to do Y that this statement can be made.”

“It’s a shame that the Democrats allowed their cause of X to be so corrupted by people trying to do Y that this statement can be made.”

That is also an entirely true statement in my mind, unfortunately for all of us in the American public.

A few years back, I worked for a small trade association that, being pro-business, tended to lean heavily republican in its politics and values.

I, a democrat (more than anything else, at any rate), found the experience to be quite enlightening. I got a good look at some viewpoints I was previously unaware of, and was able to learn much about the other side of the coin, so to speak.

I didn’t necesarily agree with everything that I learned, but my mind was changed on a couple things. And, for sure, I could understand why the Republicans thought the way they did on certain points–because they put a higher value on some things than other things.

The Republicans, right now, in Michigan (where I reside) and elsewhere, are so very focused on the religious aspect, to the detriment of the rest of their platform. The Democrats don’t have nearly the problem with this that Republicans do. They go out of their way to brand themselves as the religously extreme party.

It’s frustrating, because moderate Republicans, the ones who are not blinded by religion, have proposed some intriguing policies. But when a bunch of people (including some good friends of mine) seriously believe that teaching science, or letting two people of the same sex marry, is going to destroy the fabric of society and the entire United States, there’s no arguing against them. There’s only voting, and sending letters to or having discussions with more moderate individuals.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ag2zyzetcrbshl55lvwmdxvd))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2008-HB-6027

You can see that the bill hasn’t been touched in over a month. Hopefully, that means they aren’t fond of it.

Either way, we have a decent amount of opposition here in Michigan. I have contacted the governor and my reps to let them know how I feel. This won’t survive.

Although it hurts that this kind of legislation has finally been presented in my home state I am quite confident that it will not pass. Michigan may falling down an economic downward spiral right now, but I don’t think that our legislators are dumb enough to vote for something like this. I certainly know that mine isn’t.

Seriously, I really wish that people would be more open to different ideas and viewpoints. It’s okay to have maybe a 10 minute discussion in a science class about controversial science topics (i.e., my Biology class last year had an anonymous survey question about the ethics of GMOs during a quiz), but I think science classes are dedicated to teaching the current scientific theories with the most evidence. Creationism / ID is not a scientific theory (as far as I know, which actually isn’t much), so non-scientific theories don’t get taught.

I’m Christian, but really I just skip over most of the Bible and focus on the “love everyone and don’t be a jerk” parts. What comes first for me is knowledge. Tests in classes are ways of measuring how well you have learned the knowledge taught, so being allowed to refuse to learn ticks me off.

If teachers had to teach creationism, I’d hope they’d teach it abusively so as to create a negative correlation in the student’s minds. (I love that xkcd, that’s all)

Did I hear someone say badgers?

Badgers?

BADGERS?

WE DON’ NEED NO STEENKEEN’ BADGERS!

Anyway.

Remember what Saint Obama said (honestly and accurately) about all those bitter people? Well, here’s your proof in the pudding. The last recession was probably seen as a failure of technology and modernity, and so a large portion of the population is looking back to better times. Why was it better back then than it is today? Ignore all variables too complex to understand. Oh, we were more religious back then. More pious. Must be what happened; we’re being punished, etc. etc. etc.

Which is, in the end, a rationalization that they share in common with the hard-line Wahhabist sect of Islam.

“I made some pretty strong arguments (I think, of course) on this very blog that teaching Creationism in school doesn’t violate the First Amendment, but you never replied to any of them.”

Phil, allow me:

Robbie, I don’t know what your earlier contention was, but the teaching of Creationism in PUBLIC school does not violate the first amendment PROVIDED it’s in a class on “Bible as Literature” or “Comparative Religion” or “Mythology,” or the like.

Teaching Creationism in public school as IN ANY WAY DESCRIPTIVE OF SCIENTIFIC REALITY (e.g. in a biology class), IS in fact a violation of the separation clause of the First Amendment, and has been so declared repeatedly by US courts at all levels.

Worse than that however, it is monumentally stupid. You can change a law, but stupid tends to persist.

Well, maybe he’ll actually listen to me that way. (But probably not.)

I hadn’t realized how abysmal the state of intellectual affairs was until I was home on vacation last month and actually had to argue against my family — each and every one of them — for the existence of climate change.

“I’ll have you remember,” they said, “about 1000 years ago we had a mini ice age. And do you know what happened when it was over? ‘Global warming.’”

“Are any of you familiar with the term ‘statistical significance’?”

-born Grand Rapids, MI, graduate Grandville H.S. now living in Washington, D.C.

I guess Jeff Daniels will have to update his Michigan commercial if this passes.

I’m gonna roll a Tauren shaman right now! Awesome name.

(sorry, I couldn’t help myself)

Wolverines? Bah! Badgers rule.

>:-(

Take it for what it’s worth from a Christian, Libertarian leaning, U of M (Go Blue!) educated engineer living in Holland, MI…

Sigh. I moved to California after graduating from Michigan (go wolverines!). Texas had recently demanded that textbook publishers remove the term “evolution” from textbooks to be sold in the Lone Star State. California slapped Texas down with the ultimatum that the Golden State would not purchase books that been so “cleansed” of evolution. I decided I could work in a state like California.

Back then, there was usually just one version of a textbook, so I’m sure more publishers went with the California-friendly model. Texas was the 4th largest market; California was number 1.

As far as the current doomedness is concerned, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Michigan has been in a one-state recession for the past several years. The people have been pretty beat up by the economy. These legislative geniuses should be plying their talents to the state’s economy rather than to turning the Great Lake State into an intellectual backwater.