Michigan Votes

2008 House Bill 6027 (Mandate no administrative interference in science-teacher lessons )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. John Moolenaar on April 30, 2008, to require public school boards and administrators to “endeavor to create an environment that encourages pupils to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, human impact of climate change, and human cloning.” The bill would also prohibit school authorities from prohibiting a teacher from “helping a pupil to understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught”.
    • Referred to the House Education Committee on April 30, 2008.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. John Moolenaar on April 30, 2008. New Comment

1) Movie "Expelled" [by inform4 on May 12, 2008]
It seems like there are some in this Michigan Votes commentary who have not seen Ben Steins documentary "Expelled." I highly recommend that when it comes out in the video stores that you rent it.

There have been many of Darwin's theories that have been debunked. I found Steins documentary very enlightening and also very frightening that many professors and educators have lost their positions because they dared to even mention "Intelligent Design."

What has to happen next? Does another trial have to take place in order to discuss "Intelligent Design" in our schools. If any of you know any of our past history than you know that a trial took place -- Scopes (Monkey) Trial in order for Darwin's theory to be taught in our schools.

I am sick and tired of the "Politically Correct" dictating what can and cannot be discussed, studied or debated.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Expelled Exposed [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
I have seen the movie Expelled. I don't think I've ever seen a more ridiculous documentary (and I've seen most of Michael Moore's). The movie is full of lies, mischaracterizations, and ridiculous claims. Many (perhaps all) of the claims of improper treatment are unsubstantiated or untrue. See the website www.expelledexposed.com for more evidence.
Expelled goes so far as to claim that darwinianism is responsible for the holocaust. What a dispicable case of Holocaust revisionism for political gain. It is disturbing and disgusting that the makers of this film would use 6,000,000 innocent deaths to promote their unrelated political agenda. The Anti-Defamation League has denounced this inappropriate film and so should all thinking people.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) I'm sick and tired [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
of people who have no background in science and are naive as to how science works demanding that their religious views be considered as an alternative to science
Reply New Comment

Line

4) OK [by Anonymous Citizen on May 12, 2008]

Here's the scenario: A high school science teacher incorporates a unit on Creationism/Intelligent Design. The unit accurately the outlines the "theory" of how life on Earth came to be according to Creationism/intelligent Design, and in the end completely debunks the proposition because it fails to conform to established scientific process.

The question is, should administrators step in and demand that the orthodox view of Creationism/Intelligent Design -- "orthodox" as defined by its inventors and avid supporters -- be taught instead of the science teacher's reasoned approach to it?
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Academic Standards [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
The opposition to this bill is not opposition to free speech or academic freedom, it is about academic standards. There are a myriad of reasons to not "teach both theories." Here are a couple I find particularly important:
Firstly, "Intelligent Design" is not an established scientific theory; simply because a few dozen people have conspired to write a book and found an institute does not merit that their beliefs are worth mentioning in a classroom. There is a great deal of more important information that needs to be taught and learned and time should not be spend teaching non-science.
Secondly, quality and enthusiasm of instruction is as important as content for students to decide what is true and what is not. A situation where teachers are not required to teach an established curriculum allows for teachers who deny evolution to teach ID like established theory and mention evolution in passing. That is the situation this legislation seeks to create. (Moolenaar has a track record of introducing anti-evolution bills.)
Reply New Comment

Line

6) A Theory Is [by Anonymous Citizen on May 12, 2008]
just an idea. It is not a proven fact. Darwin is no more fact than I.D. or whatever you prefer to call it. So why not teach both theories?
Answer...Because if the libs admit I.D. is a viable theory then the kids might just start to believe that yes Virginia, there is a right and wrong and if you live your life by the "if it feels good do it" mantra there might just be hell to pay. I just wish the darwinians would be truthfull and quit blowing smoke up everybodies skirt. To keep living a totally imoral life you have to believe that we are just glorified monkeys and there is nothing after this.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Not All "Theories" Are Created Equal [by Anonymous Citizen on May 12, 2008]

The distinction -- the very important difference -- between a theory as "just an idea" and a scientific theory has been very well and accurately described elsewhere in this thread.

The evolutionary theory has been tested and passes muster as a scientific theory; the scientific community does not likewise endorse Creationism/Intelligent Design as meeting the standards of a true scientific theory, and is "just an idea."

I don't believe this bill should pass, because I think school administrators should have the authority to supervise teachers and ensure adherence to adopted and prescribed curricula.

What we do not need is a shield over teachers who "freelance" in the area of curriculum and deviate substantially from prescribed content standards, in any area of the curriculum.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) intelligent design does [by Anonymous Citizen on May 12, 2008]
as well. ask any quantum physicist, they'll tell you.

they'll even do the math for you.


Reply New Comment

Line

9) You mean [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
your preacher.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) the physics [by Anonymous Citizen on May 12, 2008]
community is falling in line behind intelligent design. their figures don't show any other explanation for the creation of the universe.

go figure.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) What? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Name one.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) What? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Name one.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) What? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Name one.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) What? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]
Name one.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) quality and enthusiasm ?? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
"quality and enthusiasm of instruction is as important as content for students to decide what is true and what is not."

You are wrong on that one. You sound like a teachers union rep. Since you guys have been on this enthusiam and self esteem kick our kids are getting dumber by the minute. Now put down the kool aid and think for yourself, time to fall out of lockstep with the nea or public education as you guys have invented will cease to exist. The parents are starting to wake up to the fact that we aren't getting our moneys worth and we are ready for, as the cocialist running for pres says We Need Change. Hehehe
Reply New Comment

Line

16) ???? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
I thought this forum might be a good place to exchage or debate ideas in an intelligent and mature manner. But I guess (hehehe?) not.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Re: ???? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
I guess that because we don't agree with your lib/socialist agenda then we can't be as "intelligent" as you.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) ???? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
The topic of this forum involves how science is taught. none of the pro-id/creationist posts have issued a specific hypothesis as an alternative to evolution by natural selection.
Care to try?
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Your Theory vs. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
Our Theory. Why don't you want to expose the kids to both? Maybe if they started to understand the other "theory" it would start to chip away at the "anything goes because we are just glorified apes" mentality of today.
That is what scares you relativists and your agenda. Must be tough going through life knowing that if you are wrong you might have to answer for all that if it feels good do it crap....
Reply New Comment

Line

20) ???? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
What specifically is your theory?
Reply New Comment

Line

21) I.D. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
:-)
Reply New Comment

Line

22) ???? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
And id says?
Reply New Comment

Line

23) My Turn ??? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
Do you have a theory or facts?
Reply New Comment

Line

24) ???? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
Ah silence, it's a beautiful thing.

Yesterday I posted as Not Afraid and Still Not Afraid. Please read below.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Not Science [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
Intelligent design, or more correctly, creationism, is not science. Neither has ever proposed a scientific hypothesis that has been successfully tested or can be tested.
This is a issue that should be considered in another setting, such as a civics or
religion class. If Michigan is to successfully transition into a knowledge-based
economy, we need to keep religion out of our science curriculum.


Reply New Comment

Line

26) So I Guess That [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
You will be the gatekeeper and decide what is taught and not taught according to your agenda?
Teach all theories and let the kids learn. Why are you so afraid?

Reply New Comment

Line

27) Not afraid [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
Unfortunately, i.d.er’s like to blur the distinction between a
regular theory and a scientific theory. Scientific theories
describe coherent framework into which observable data fit.
Predictions can be made and tested based on this theory.
Try that with i.d. Without this distinction, i.d. will end up
in the scientific dustbin, where it belongs.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) UzPjCOjFOZGzVjRX [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
tickets_5.txt;2;2
Reply New Comment

Line

29) YUulNRXxkV [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
tickets_4.txt;2;2
Reply New Comment

Line

30) fOciubWoFIhwH [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
tickets_3.txt;2;2
Reply New Comment

Line

31) fOciubWoFIhwH [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
tickets_3.txt;2;2
Reply New Comment

Line

32) mona [by Anonymous Citizen on May 19, 2008]
nice work man 10x
Reply New Comment

Line

33) joseph [by Anonymous Citizen on May 19, 2008]
see this thanks
Reply New Comment

Line

34) DbiZQjcWnW [by Anonymous Citizen on May 19, 2008]
SZHS8X
Reply New Comment

Line

35) If You're Not Afraid [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
then why are you so against letting folks know that there are two theories? Nothing darwin said has ever been proven. The other side has a history book explaining it all.
Reply New Comment

Line

36) PslEOUGDcEWeY [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
tickets_5.txt;2;2
Reply New Comment

Line

37) sqZzUESltsTWTfg [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
tickets_4.txt;2;2
Reply New Comment

Line

38) xcJbTwrfC [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
tickets_4.txt;2;2
Reply New Comment

Line

39) qAyYtpHsCtb [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
tickets_3.txt;2;2
Reply New Comment

Line

40) lola [by Anonymous Citizen on May 19, 2008]
hi great site 10x
Reply New Comment

Line

41) ben [by Anonymous Citizen on May 19, 2008]
interesting post thx
Reply New Comment

Line

42) uWxEthKyfhJ [by Anonymous Citizen on May 19, 2008]
Y0sjCh
Reply New Comment

Line

43) If Your Are Saying That [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]

Intelligent Design has a history book supporting it, what is the title of that history book, and who is the author, etc?

Reply New Comment

Line

44) the bible... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
the author: God.


Reply New Comment

Line

45) The Bible [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]

(And especially the Old Testament) is primarily allegory, not history, written by humans.

Reply New Comment

Line

46) what's the difference? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
the accounts of our history are allegory, that's why it's called HIS STORY.

usually told by the winner.


Reply New Comment

Line

47) Show Me [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
a book that is corroborated by hundreds that proves your theory.
Reply New Comment

Line

48) the most popular [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
religion in the country corroborates it.

why don't you?

what are you afraid of? would teaching BOTH strain your high paid teaching staff to it's limits? or would it just offend your liberal sensibilities?


Reply New Comment

Line

49) corroborates what? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]

inquiring minds want to know.
Reply New Comment

Line

50) i'd like you to prove [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
that we came from apes.

as, according to d.n.a. research, we have more d.n.a. in common with a housefly than a chimp.

or haven't you been 'keeping up'?
Reply New Comment

Line

51) i'd like you to prove [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]

all the various forms of life emerged on the earth in one big plop in exactly the form they have today or exactly as they were before going extinct.

Reply New Comment

Line

52) you were asked first. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
the ball is in YOUR court. there is NO DIRECT D.N.A. link between us and apes.

in fact, there is MORE of a direct D.N.A. link between us and the housefly, we share more D.N.A. in common.

so, your 'proof' should be pretty conclusive.

let's hear it.


Reply New Comment

Line

53) OK [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes?

Obviously there is a lot more to genomic evolution than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting evolutionary genetic questions.

Once you recognize that there are easily identifiable differences genetically between humans and chimpanzees – the presence of terminal heterochromatin is 100% diagnostic – you can begin to see that the pattern of relationships between the species is actually the same genetically as anatomically. Humans and chimps are simply very similar to, yet diagnosably different from, one another.

The last point concerns the one way in which one could say with some legitimacy that "we are apes" – as, for example, gene enthusiast Richard Dawkins does. That is, phylogenetically. We fall within a clade that incorporates chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans. That is a great ape clade, it subsumes us as well, and therefore, we are great apes too.
Reply New Comment

Line

54) or maybe... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
apes are all human.

but no... they are the superior creature, as they have more d.n.a. than we do.

how can an ancestor have more d.n.a. than the grandchildren?


Reply New Comment

Line

55) OK [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
If I am descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?
Reply New Comment

Line

56) OK [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
More isn't always better and evolution is not necessarily about progress. It’s not an inexorable march toward some gleaming future. It’s about change, regardless of direction or result.
Reply New Comment

Line

57) how can a predecessor [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
not pass on ALL of it's genetic information?

how can WE have less D.N.A. than our ancestors????

d.n.a. don't work like dat.
Reply New Comment

Line

58) hmm-m-m-m [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]

maybe DNA does in fact work exactly that way.

that makes it a question to be explored.

which marks the real difference between true science and intelligent design (creationism) pseudo-science.

true science humbly seeks unknown answers to puzzling questions. i.d. (creationism) smugly pretends to have the answers already.

Reply New Comment

Line

59) Not Afraid [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
It is said the the United States is the most religiously fundimental non-Muslim state in the world. After participating in this forum, I believe it. At least Islam gave us algebra.
Reply New Comment

Line

60) Still not afraid [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
You said it: History book. I have no problem
with i.d. being discussed in a non-science class.

Not only has Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection been proven, we live within its
laws every day.
Reply New Comment

Line

61) Proven??? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
If you are evolved from an ape why are apes still here?
Reply New Comment

Line

62) Still not afraid [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
Modern humans did not descend from modern apes. Modern humans and modern apes had a common ancestor species that has since gone extinct.
Speciation does not demand or even require that every member of a parent population be changed or go extinct. Speciation generally occurs in a subpopulation that becomes reproductively isolated from the main group. Therefore, both the parent species and the daughter species can exist simultaneously.

Reply New Comment

Line

63) OK ... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]

Who created the Creator?
Reply New Comment

Line

64) the creator always was [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
and always will be.

he IS the beginning. he WILL BE the end.
Reply New Comment

Line

65) Who [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]

created the Creator?

no circular reasoning, please.
Reply New Comment

Line

66) creationism [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
I forget. Is this Moolenaar's third of fourth attempt to add Creationism to the public school science curriculum? This time he's proposed it using such permissive language that the flat earth "theory" could be taught as science. How does that benefit our kids? He just wants Jesus in the schools. Period. Why can't he be honest about it?
Reply New Comment

Line

67) Creator [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
Before there was Tao there was Tao.
Reply New Comment

Line

68) What are you afraid of? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
"He just wants Jesus in the schools."

You are wrong but why this would be terrible, Why? What are you so afraid of?
Why do you only want to teach the children one viewpoint?
Do you think it makes kids smarter when they only hear one side of a story?
Don't forget that your beloved darwins theory
is still, after all this time just a theory and there lots of things to dispute it.
Reply New Comment

Line

69) Brilliant! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]

"Only those who loath true freedom want politicians and governments to define it."
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Politicians [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]

Should keep their grubby hands off and their noses out of school curricula.

That is the only way to guarantee academic freedom -- the freedom to inquire, investigate, examine, discuss the broadest possible range of ideas and bodies of information.

Only those who loath true freedom want politicians and governments to define it.
Reply New Comment

Line

71) Re: Politicians [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
"Should keep their grubby hands off and their noses out of school curricula."

Exactly! If they would have done that then they wouldn't need to do this. i think this may be a plan of theirs, pass stupid laws and then pass other laws to get rid of the first one. Sometimes they can even charge you a fee to get out of obeying the first one.

Reply New Comment

Line

72) Excellent! [by inform4 on May 6, 2008]
The ability to research all idea's and opinions is tantamount to have a well rounded education. Whether weighing Darwin's evolution theory or studying Intelligent Design all theories should be studied, discussed and evaluated.

After watching the documentary "Expelled" it seems like we are the only free country that denies the ability to teach "Intelligent Design" and treat it as if it is some voodo theory.

A trial took place dubbed the "Monkey Trial" over the theory of evolution. Do we have to have another trial take place in order to teach "Intelligent Design?'

This country was founded on freedom and liberty for all individuals, not just a select few. Our young have to have the ability to question, research and look into all possibilities. That is how discoveries are made.
Reply New Comment

Line

73) History [by Anonymous Citizen on May 13, 2008]

A poster writes:

>A trial took place dubbed the "Monkey Trial" over the theory of evolution. Do we have to have another trial take place in order to teach "Intelligent Design?'<

We did. Intelligent design pseudo-science lost.

Reply New Comment

Line

74) Re: This country was founded on freedom [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
"After watching the documentary "Expelled" it seems like we are the only free country that denies the ability to teach "Intelligent Design" and treat it as if it is some voodo theory."

That's because anything that might give credence to religion is like kryptonite to libs, after all, if there really is right and wrong and not just some big gray mush then most of the tenets of the liberal religion fall apart. it's real hard to kill your baby when you believe it just may be wrong.


"Our young have to have the ability to question, research and look into all possibilities. That is how discoveries are made."

It's also how some of the bright ones may figure out that global warming is actually just a facade for total control over your life by a select few that think they are smarter than the rest. The global warmists are really the anarchists from yesterday, agenda is still the same...destroy the U.S.
Knowledge scares the crap out of these control freaks.



Reply New Comment

Line

75) This Is Another [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]

Pass by the legislature at micro-managing school curricula.

Keep the authority over curricula where it belongs -- with qualified educators and academics, administrators and local boards -- and keep the politicians' noses out of it.

Bad bill. Put it in the trash bin.
Reply New Comment

Line

76) Re: This Is Another [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
Wrong control freak lib. This bill keeps them from "micromanaging" the curriculm. Why are you libs/socialists so afraid of different viewpoints? How about teaching kids that algore invented global warming, not the internet? How about teaching them that we have been coming out of an ice age since the mid 1800'snd thousands of actual scientists think what algore and him climate control freaks are doing is criminal?
Man, you libs aren't very tolerant, are you?
Reply New Comment

Line

77) stealth creationism [by jmangan on May 6, 2008]
This bill sounds like a sneaky way to introduce creationism, also called intelligent design, into our school curriculum. If parents want their children to learn this unscientific religion based teaching, church is the proper place, not our public schools. We have plenty of problems in this state for the legislature to deal with without creating(no pun intended)a new one.
Reply New Comment

Line

78) Re: stealth creationism [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
What are you so afraid of? I thought learning was about exploring all the ideas.
Reply New Comment

Line

79) Thin skins [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
It is very interesting to note that some folks are so thin-skinned that they object to efforts to encourage pupils to explore scientific questions with open minds. There is too much indoctrination taking place in education, leading people to uncritical acceptance of things where they should be thinking about the outcomes and how they might impact their lives and those of others.
Reply New Comment

Line

80) National Level [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
Lets get this at the National level also. this is definetly "freedom of choice" Freedom to hear etc.
Reply New Comment

Line

81) Bravo! It's about time! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
This legislation is very important to uphold liberty, freedom of speech and to allow our childrend to understand that new discoveries are still possible. There was a time that everyone believed the world was flat. We still hold assumptions, unchallenged, like that today (though we don't know it now any more than those "flat worlders" knew it then.) Our children will grow and become scientific leaders IF they are taught the principles of scientific inquiry without propoganda and interferance. Thank you for introducing this!
Reply New Comment

Line

82) "Academic Freedom Act" [by Anonymous Citizen on May 1, 2008]
What a pile of fluff! This is what you waste time in writing and debating? We already have a science curriculum that outlines what topics to teach. We don't need this fluff piece of legislation.
Reply New Comment

Line

83) Your Mommy Is Calling [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
Better get back under the bed, you'll be safe from those scary opposing ideas there.
Pathetic
Do this country wide today!
Reply New Comment

Line

84) Piece of fluff? Hardly! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 6, 2008]
Perhaps you like your food pre-chewed, but most of us find that distasteful. Think about what this protects: the right to speak freely about science, the right to go somewhere new when we get new information. If you're so satisfied with the past, just hop into your buggy and go home and churn the butter, baby, cause that's where comments like yours will have left us.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

A free public service of Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

Search legislation: