Joe Meert

apparently this is a repeat bill. Found this in my e-mail archives:

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:06:56 -0600
From: Judy Scotchmoor <judys@ucmp1.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: ncte@beloit.edu
>
>
>
> HOUSE BILL No. 4382
>
> February 28, 2001, Introduced by Reps. Gosselin, Garcia, Vander Veen,
> Bradstreet, Vear, Kooiman, Hager, Voorhees, Kuipers and Tabor and
referred to
> the Committee on Education.
>
> A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled "The revised school code," by amending
> section 1278 (MCL 380.1278), as amended by 1995 PA 289.
> THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
> 1 Sec. 1278. (1) In addition to the requirements for accred-
> 2 itation under section 1280 specified in that section, if the
> 2 itation under section 1280 specified in that section, if the
> 3 board of a school district wants all of the schools of the school
> 4 district to be accredited under section 1280, the board shall
> 5 provide to all pupils attending public school in the district a
> 6 core academic curriculum in compliance with subsection (3) in
> 7 each of the curricular areas specified in the state board recom-
> 8 mended model core academic curriculum content standards developed
> 9 under subsection (2). The state board model core academic
> 10 curriculum content standards shall encompass academic and
> 03317'01[ 2 ]TAV
>
> 1 cognitive instruction only. For purposes of this section, the
> 2 state board model core academic curriculum content standards
> 3 shall not include attitudes, beliefs, or value systems that are
> 4 not essential in the legal, economic, and social structure of our
> 5 society and to the personal and social responsibility of citizens
> 6 of our society.
> 7 (2) Recommended model core academic curriculum content stan-
> 8 dards shall be developed and periodically updated by the state
> 9 board, shall be in the form of knowledge and skill content stan-
> 10 dards that are recommended as state standards for adoption by
> 11 public schools in local curriculum formulation and adoption, and
> 12 shall be distributed to each school district in the state. The
> 13 recommended model core academic curriculum content standards
> 14 shall set forth desired learning objectives in math, science,
> 15 reading, history, geography, economics, American government, and
> 16 writing for all children at each stage of schooling; and SHALL
> 17 be based upon the "Michigan K-12 program standards of quality" to
> 18 ensure that high academic standards, academic skills, and aca-
> 19 demic subject matters are built into the instructional goals of
> 20 all school districts for all children; AND SHALL COMPLY WITH SUB-
> 21 SECTION (10). The state board also shall ensure that the
> 22 Michigan educational assessment program and the high school pro-
> 23 ficiency exam are ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 1279 SHALL BE based
> 24 on the state recommended model core ACADEMIC curriculum content
> 25 standards, are testing SHALL TEST only for proficiency in basic
> 26 academic skills and academic subject matter, and are not SHALL
> 27 NOT BE used to measure pupils' values or attitudes.
> 03317'01[ 3 ]
>
> 1 (3) The board of each school district, considering academic
> 2 curricular objectives defined and recommended pursuant to subsec-
> 3 tion (2), shall do both of the following:
> 4 (a) Establish a core academic curriculum for its pupils at
> 5 the elementary, middle, and secondary school levels. The core
> 6 academic curriculum shall define academic objectives to be
> 7 achieved by all pupils and shall be based upon the school
> 8 district's educational mission, long-range pupil goals, and pupil
> 9 performance objectives. The core academic curriculum may vary
> 10 from the model core academic curriculum content standards recom-
> 11 mended by the state board pursuant to subsection (2).
> 12 (b) After consulting with teachers and school building
> 13 administrators, determine the aligned instructional program for
> 14 delivering the core academic curriculum and identify the courses
> 15 and programs in which the core academic curriculum will be
> 16 taught.
> 17 (4) The board may supplement the core academic curriculum by
> 18 providing instruction through additional classes and programs.
> 19 (5) For all pupils, the subjects or courses, and the deliv-
> 20 ery of those including special assistance, that constitute the
> 21 curriculum the pupils engage in shall assure the pupils have a
> 22 realistic opportunity to learn all subjects and courses required
> 23 by the district's core academic curriculum in order to give all
> 24 pupils a reasonable opportunity to attain a state-endorsed
> 25 diploma STATE ENDORSEMENT UNDER SECTION 1279. A subject or
> 26 course required by the core academic curriculum pursuant to
> 27 subsection (3) shall be provided to all pupils in the school
> 03317'01[ 4 ]
>
> 1 district by a school district, a consortium of school districts,
> 2 or a consortium of 1 or more school districts and 1 or more
> 3 intermediate school districts.
> 4 (6) To the extent practicable, the state board may adopt or
> 5 develop academic objective-oriented high standards for knowledge
> 6 and life skills, and a recommended core academic curriculum, for
> 7 special education pupils for whom it may not be realistic or
> 8 desirable to expect achievement of novice level or initial mas-
> 9 tery of the state board recommended model core academic content
> 10 standards objectives or of a high school diploma.
> 11 (7) The state board shall make available to all nonpublic
> 12 schools in this state, as a resource for their consideration, the
> 13 model core academic curriculum content standards developed for
> 14 public schools pursuant to subsection (2) for the purpose of
> 15 assisting the governing body of a nonpublic school in developing
> 16 its core academic curriculum.
> 17 (8) Excluding special education pupils, pupils having a
> 18 learning disability, and pupils with extenuating circumstances as
> 19 determined by school officials, a pupil who does not score satis-
> 20 factorily on the 4th or 7th grade Michigan educational assessment
> 21 program reading test shall be provided special assistance reason-
> 22 ably expected to enable the pupil to bring his or her reading
> 23 skills to grade level within 12 months.
> 24 (9) Any course that would have been considered a nonessen-
> 25 tial elective course under Snyder v Charlotte School Dist, 421
> 26 Mich 517 (1984), on April 13, 1990 shall continue to be offered
> 27 to resident pupils of nonpublic schools on a shared time basis.
> 03317'01[ 5 ]
>
> 1 (10) AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
> 2 SUBSECTION, THE STATE BOARD SHALL REVISE THE RECOMMENDED MODEL
> 3 CORE ACADEMIC CURRICULUM CONTENT STANDARDS UNDER SUBSECTION (2)
> 4 AS FOLLOWS:
> 5 (A) IN THE SCIENCE STANDARDS, ALL REFERENCES TO "EVOLUTION"
> 6 AND "HOW SPECIES CHANGE THROUGH TIME" SHALL BE MODIFIED TO INDI-
> 7 CATE THAT THIS IS AN UNPROVEN THEORY BY ADDING THE PHRASE "ALL
> 8 STUDENTS WILL EXPLAIN THE COMPETING THEORIES OF EVOLUTION AND
> 9 NATURAL SELECTION BASED ON RANDOM MUTATION AND THE THEORY THAT
> 10 LIFE IS THE RESULT OF THE PURPOSEFUL, INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF A
> 11 CREATOR.".
> 12 (B) IN THE SCIENCE STANDARDS FOR MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL, ALL
> 13 REFERENCES TO "EVOLUTION" AND "NATURAL SELECTION" SHALL BE MODI-
> 14 FIED TO INDICATE THAT THESE ARE UNPROVEN THEORIES BY ADDING THE
> 15 PHRASE "DESCRIBE HOW LIFE MAY BE THE RESULT OF THE PURPOSEFUL,
> 16 INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF A CREATOR.".
> 17 (C) IN THE SCIENCE STANDARDS FOR MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL, ALL
> 18 REFERENCES TO "EVOLUTION" AND "NATURAL SELECTION" SHALL BE MODI-
> 19 FIED TO INDICATE THAT THESE ARE UNPROVEN THEORIES BY ADDING THE
> 20 PHRASE "EXPLAIN THE COMPETING THEORIES OF EVOLUTION AND NATURAL
> 21 SELECTION BASED ON RANDOM MUTATION AND THE THEORY THAT LIFE IS
> 22 THE RESULT OF THE PURPOSEFUL, INTELLIGENT DESIGN OF A CREATOR.".
> 03317'01[ Final page ]TAV

Malagasy Rain

I want to vomit. I hope they don't pass that misinterpreted and biased garbage.

Unbeliever

Perhaps the words "intent another" should be reversed? Or simply say "another agenda".

Albion

Any indication why the previous version of the bill didn't pass?

Rhaedas

I think the science course should begin with a discussion of the definitions of hypothesis, theory, and the scientific usage of "proof". Will all science texts be modified to make this same point, such as for the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity?

How does one compare one theory which has overwhelming evidence to another which has none?

How can a law such as this be passed that demands something be taught, but doesn't go into the specifics? Intelligent design "experts" can't even agree on much besides wanting to be in the classroom...and certainly don't have much to present if they made it there.

It's like passing a law to begin teaching a sport called "blah-ball"...but not mentioning where one might find the rules of the game...

emotional

They've passed yet another bill, with the offending word "Creator" taken out:

Rhaedas

At least they're calling a hypothesis now, but still there's no data to support it.

And looking at the terminology:

(a) "Design hypothesis" means the theory that life and its diversity result from a combination of chance, necessity, and design.
(b) "Methodological naturalism hypothesis" means the theory that nature is all there is and that all phenomena, including living systems, result only from chance and necessity.

It'd be real nice if the politicians would be much clearer in course descriptions...those ar much too vague (on purpose I realise).

How about this...get the design hypothesis backed up with some evidence, submitted to a science journel, and then we can discuss introducing it to kids as a viable theory. That's the method every other scientific theory has to go through...why must this one be pushed through a back door by legislation?

emotional

Let's assume special creationism is true - an intelligent entity really did design every creature specially. Now, what can you write about it? "An intelligent entity designed every creature specially". And that's all. Can you really write anything beyond that? Can you fill page upon page of Nature or Scientific American magazines with that hypothesis? You can't, anymore than "John Smith made this machine" can fill pages.

So in all fairness, the design hypothesis may be true, but you just can't do research and fill pages with it. If it's true then it's just a brute fact that cannot be explained any further. It may be true but it can't be scientific.

enigma555

Is there a list somewhere on the web of anti-science bills which have been either struck down or passed in the US?

I did a quick search on talkorigins and google, but most of my hits were for "laws of thermodynamics", etc.

I'm interrested to find out demographic make-ups of the nit-wits who are proposing or supporting these bills.

Rhaedas

I submit that if it's a fact, then by definition there's evidence of that fact. And any fact can be researched...the question is, are there any facts to be had?

All I ask for is the data to support that fact. So far the best I've seen is the god of the gaps fallacy, which is a fancy way of saying we don't know how it happened yet.

Order and functionality do not default to design by something external. Evolution works without guidance, and abiogenesis, while still in its infancy, has quite a few possible paths to explore and research.

Let me ask this...say we get ID into the classroom, and by your statement (that I agree with), all we can really say is that some believe that some external force outside natural causes influenced life creation and evolution. So when the kids ask, "how do we know that?"...what the hell do you tell them? I wouldn't know either, I'm asking the same thing, what basis does ID have to be taught, especially in a beginning biology class? What data supports it? Any?

Then why bother bringing up something without reason.