Missouri Madness: A 2nd Creationism Bill for 2012

It was only yesterday that we wrote Missouri Madness: New Creationism Bill for 2012. Now, as we learn from the ever-vigilant National Center for Science Education (NCSE), there’s A second antievolution bill in Missouri.

This one is HOUSE BILL NO. 1276, sponsored by Andrew Koenig. He’s the owner of a paint company. In addition, he’s licensed to sell health and life insurance. Not only that, he received a B.A. in Business Administration from Lindenwood University in 2005. Impressive credentials!


As you recall, Brattin is the sponsor of the bill about which we wrote yesterday, and Koenig, Allen and Pollock were co-sponsors. It’s rather sweet that Koenig is co-sponsoring Brattin’s bill, and Brattin is a co-sponsor of Koenig’s.

Also, Missouri’s failed creationism bill in 2010 had among its co-sponsors Funderburk and Davis, and now they’re attached their names to Koenig’s bill. The same clowns keep promoting the same nonsense, year after year.

Okay, let’s take a look at Koenig’s bill. It’s rather short, and if passed it would become a new section of an existing statute. Here’s the whole thing, with bold font added by us:

1. The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, superintendents of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

2. Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent of schools, or school system administrator, nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught within the course curriculum schedule.

3. This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and this section shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. Scientific information includes physical evidence and logical inferences based upon evidence.

4. No later than the start of the 2013-2014 school year, the department of elementary and secondary education shall notify all public school superintendents of the provisions of this section. Each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within his or her school system a copy of this section.

Does that look familiar? It should, because it’s not only a typical “strengths and [alleged] weaknesses” bill, with a “shall not be construed” clause attempting to tell the courts that it isn’t what it obviously is, but it’s virtually the same thing several of those geniuses tried to get passed in 2010. See Missouri Creationism: New Bill for 2010.

So there you are. Missouri has been called the “Show me” state, but if this foolishness continues they’ll soon be known as the “I’m an idiot!” state.

Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

7 responses to “Missouri Madness: A 2nd Creationism Bill for 2012

  1. What is “chemical evolution”?

  2. @SciGuy

    Chemical evolution involves chemicals which reproduce, occasionally mutate into other chemicals, and are subject to natural selection. Only those chemicals most adapted to their environment live to pass on their atomic number to the next generation.

    Everyone knows that! Sheesh.

  3. The same clowns keep promoting the same nonsense, year after year.

    They’re on a mission from the Intelligent Designer. I assume they think they get God points or Witnessing extra-credit or something for doing this over and over again. That’s it’s an election year might also have something to do with it.

    This second bill is more in line with the DI’s post-Dover strategy, such as it is — “develop critical thinking skills…about controversial issues”, “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses”, etc.

    Not that they’re fooling anyone, but it apparently doesn’t use terms like “intelligent design”, “intelligent agent”, etc.

    I guess this is the backup bill. After the other one goes down in flames they can keep flying this one. This is probably the one they have the highest hopes for.

  4. It doesn’t matter how many bills they pass. They can even pass a Teach Creationism Today bill and it won’t matter.

    The bottom line will be the science teachers who will balk at teaching this nonsense just as they did in Dover. Remember, it wasn’t the science teachers who introduced ID in the classroom, it was the school administration. They’re the ones who slammed the district with a $2 million lawsuit.

    The science teachers quoted their ethical obligation not to teach lies and nonsense and refused point blank to follow the school district’s directive.

    The same will happen in Missouri if push comes to shove, but it’s a guarantee that any school or district foolish enough to fall for this propaganda will end up in federal court and lose.

  5. Ed quips, “Only those chemicals most adapted to their environment live to pass on their atomic number to the next generation.”

    Thanks, Ed! I never knew! Are these the elements that now populate the Idiotic Table?

    Actually, I was serious with my question. Is “chemical evolution” some kind of creationist code word?

  6. @ReitiredScienceGuy

    Is “chemical evolution” some kind of creationist code word?

    It’s their way of disingenuously connecting “evolution” to abiogenesis.

    In their special dictionary, in the narrow sense “chemical evolution” is abiogenesis. In the broader sense all science from the Big Bang to DNA posits (Godless) “chemical evolution”.


  7. Thanks, Jack. Guess it’s related then to when couples say they “have good chemistry together.”