Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creationism “Creep” in Louisiana
Eagleye Blog ^ | March 17, 2013 | Bethany Stotts

Posted on 03/17/2013 12:11:01 PM PDT by eagleye85

Intelligent design is just another form of creationism, creationism is profoundly unscientific, and such unscientific views do not belong in public classrooms. This, in a nutshell, is the argument of activist Zack Kopplin, a student at Rice University who began his battle against a Louisiana academic freedom law (the Louisiana Science Education Act) while in high school. He is the 2012 winner of the “Troublemaker of the Year Award.”

“Well, this law allows supplemental materials into our school biology classrooms to ‘critique controversial theories like evolution and climate change,’” said Kopplin in a March interview on the Bill Moyers show. “Now, evolution and climate change aren’t scientifically controversial, but they are controversial to Louisiana legislators, and, basically, everyone who looked at this law knew it was just a back door to sneak creationism into public school science classes,” he continues (emphasis added).

As discussed in a previous blog entry, the media likes to condemn as right-wing and fundamentalist the crowd that prefers creationism to evolution. Through the course of an article by the UK’s The Guardian we learn that such laws as those proposed in Colorado, Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma are the product of a religious lobby, further the creationist agenda, and would be a feather in the caps of these two interest groups if these laws were to pass. Readers also learn that these states could be boycotted for their creationist educational laws. Kopplin, of course, is cited in the article for his opposition to the Louisiana law mentioned above. “It can be embarrassing to be from a state which has become a laughing stock in this area,” asserted Kopplin to the UK Guardian this January.

This month the media celebrates Kopplin’s “anti-creationism” activism with a full interview on the Bill Moyers show and an interview for the Washington Post. “Today’s fundamentalists, with political support from the Right-wing, are more aggressive than ever in crusading to challenge evolution with the dogma of creationism,” asserted Moyers in his introduction. “But they didn’t reckon on Zack Kopplin.”

“Going to college is tough enough without leading a campaign to stop creationism from being taught in school as an alternative to evolution, but that’s what Zach Kopplin, 19, has been doing for several years,” praises Valerie Strauss in her March 17 article.

“Evolution is, of course, the central principle around which all of the biological sciences revolve, and creationism is not a scientific alternative,” writes Strauss. “But religious fundamentalists continue to push for creationism to be taught in schools,” she continues (emphasis added.)

In the interview with Moyers, Kopplin rejects several forms of creationism, saying that “Intelligent design specifically rejects evolution, especially on a large scale.”

“Creationists like to break it up into micro/macro evolution. That’s not a legitimate thing,” he asserts. As for creationism, “Essentially, it’s a denial of evolution mainly based off a literal interpretation of Genesis.” Kopplin’s latest vendetta? Voucher programs. ““And so it’s become pretty clear: if you create a voucher program, you’re just going to be funding creationism through the back door,” he said to Moyers. You can real the CATO Institute’s Neal McCluskey’s response to Kopplin here.

“No, potentially serious, negative, unintended consequences could accompany freezing people out of religiously based education,” writes McCluskey. “For instance, traditional Christian morality calls for married, two-parent families, and one of the few things in social science that one would call pretty firmly established is that coming from such a family gives a child a significant leg up. Religious people also tend to have much greater stocks of social capital than the nonreligious, also generally a plus.”

“In light of those things, would it be worth undermining religion because you think creationism is nonsense?”


TOPICS: Education; Politics; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: creationism; evolution; publiceducation; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last

1 posted on 03/17/2013 12:11:01 PM PDT by eagleye85
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: eagleye85

Poor deluded moron. Pure reason and logic cannot be used as the foundation of society. It was tried once in the past, the French Revolution and it resulted in the Reign of Terror in which thousands of innocent people were killed simply because they did not hold the beliefs of the rulers.

Wish this kid would learn from history, but he is incapable of it.


2 posted on 03/17/2013 12:18:46 PM PDT by txnativegop (Fed up with zealots)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85

This kid sounds like a pipsqueak. States and parents should be able to decide what kind of different theories are presented to children. Creationism was taught to children in Western Civilization for centuries, and did society collapse? No. People all over the world have different views, among religious groups, as well as among different scientists, as to how the world came about, and those views have a right to be represented, however much this moron doesn’t like it.

This is also one of those studies which has ZERO impact on people’s lives. Is the question of evolution, or allegorical interpretation of Genesis, or literal interpretation of Genesis, going to have any effect on daily life? Typically not. It has no practical purpose, so I guess you could argue there’s not much point teaching either in school, and instead letting parents and churches inform children about things like this.

As for global warming, there is A MOUNTAIN of evidence against that garbage. It’s scientific BS, and we have the emails to prove that it was a made-up crisis.


3 posted on 03/17/2013 12:21:57 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85

academic nazi.


4 posted on 03/17/2013 12:23:58 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85

“Zack Kopplin” is the nasty sound some make as evolution is being shoved down your throat..


5 posted on 03/17/2013 12:25:18 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85
"Evolution is, of course, the central principle around which all of the biological sciences revolve,---"

Possibly true at lower grade levels (not too sure since its well over fifty years since I was in those "lower levels"), but not so much when you get to specific scientific disciplines. The "medical sciences" (biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, microbiology, pharmacology) will spend some time talking about comparative species similarities and differences, but they do not "revolve around evolution".

6 posted on 03/17/2013 12:33:55 PM PDT by FairWitness (Everything is easy, once you've done it once)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85
“Now, evolution and climate change aren’t scientifically controversial

Sez who?

7 posted on 03/17/2013 12:35:10 PM PDT by Malone LaVeigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85

I have yet to hear an alternative explanation as to how the universe was created. You would think that by now the anti-God bigots would have been able to come up with a viable explanation that does not include God. But that has not been the case.


8 posted on 03/17/2013 12:37:40 PM PDT by Hoodat (I stand with Rand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85

Teachers can choose what they want to teach. That’s been the Supreme Court ruling time after time.

If a teacher wants to teach the Bible, that’s her 1st amendment right.

If a teacher wants to teach you evolved from poop, that’s her 1st amendment right.

Creationism and the Bible is not banned from schools, never has been. It can’t be mandated at the district/state level, that’s all. The ACLU will tell you different, of course.


9 posted on 03/17/2013 12:38:28 PM PDT by chuck_the_tv_out
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85

Well worth repeating: “Intelligent design is just another form of creationism, creationism is profoundly unscientific, and such unscientific views do not belong in public classrooms.”


10 posted on 03/17/2013 12:39:22 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

What does that have to do with the Theory of Evolution?


11 posted on 03/17/2013 12:41:00 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chuck_the_tv_out

“If a teacher wants to teach the Bible, that’s her 1st amendment right.”

I don’t know what country you live in, but it clearly isn’t the United States.


12 posted on 03/17/2013 12:42:15 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85
...creationism is profoundly unscientific, and such unscientific views do not belong in public classrooms.

...because, as we are well aware, scientists know everything and would never lie.

13 posted on 03/17/2013 12:43:01 PM PDT by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85
"Intelligent design is just another form of creationism, creationism is profoundly unscientific,"

No, what's profoundly unscientific is refusing to test a hypothesis, and prohibiting others from doing so, just because you are afraid it might be true.

14 posted on 03/17/2013 12:44:26 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
No, what's profoundly unscientific is refusing to test a hypothesis, and prohibiting others from doing so, just because you are afraid it might be true.

This is interesting. What is the test, and how do you prevent someone from doing it?

15 posted on 03/17/2013 12:52:10 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stormer

Evolution is a framework through which scientific data is filtered and interpreted. Creationism is a framework through which scientific data is filtered and interpreted. The data fits the creation framework AT LEAST as well as it fits the evolution framework.


16 posted on 03/17/2013 12:57:56 PM PDT by Gil4 (Progressives - Trying to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand since 1848)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85

Of course for Kopplin, evolution and AGW are not dogma...rather they are only things that are so well established as fact that to question them is offensive, and to fail to teach them as established fact to children is morally wrong...which is different than “dogma”...somehow...


17 posted on 03/17/2013 12:59:24 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
This is interesting. What is the test, and how do you prevent someone from doing it?

Well testing C14 levels in dinosaur bones. No matter what the result, it didn't happen and won't be published.

18 posted on 03/17/2013 1:03:20 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

One can test the probabilities that varying degrees of complexity found in nature would or could ever occur spontaneously or randomly and the way you prevent someone from doing it is to fire them from your faculty in order to send a message to anyone else thinking about doing said tests. Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” covered the entire subject contained in both your questions in great detail.


19 posted on 03/17/2013 1:05:25 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
No, what's profoundly unscientific is refusing to test a hypothesis, and prohibiting others from doing so, just because you are afraid it might be true.

Who is preventing you or prohibiting anyone else from testing the Intelligent Design hypothesis?

20 posted on 03/17/2013 1:06:32 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gil4

The Theory of Evolution is the model that most adequately explains the (unfiltered) data. Creationism is a pseudoscience designed to compel the scientifically illiterate by making religiously based arguments regarding biological processes.


21 posted on 03/17/2013 1:06:59 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
"Who is preventing you or prohibiting anyone else from testing the Intelligent Design hypothesis?"

Many academic institutions have shut down any such research and it is virtually impossible to get any grant money to explore the subject. Ben Stein covered the subject extensively in the movie "Expelled."

22 posted on 03/17/2013 1:08:56 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stormer
"The Theory of Evolution is the model that most adequately explains the (unfiltered) data."

Except the actual evidence doesn't support it. Which is why evolutionary guru Stephen Gould of Harvard had to come up with his "syncopated equilibrium" theory - another elegant construct without a shred of evidence to support it.

23 posted on 03/17/2013 1:11:11 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

C14 is worthless for items older than about 60,000 years. Do you think dinosaurs were around back then?


24 posted on 03/17/2013 1:11:18 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Well testing C14 levels in dinosaur bones. No matter what the result, it didn't happen and won't be published.

I didn't think there were any "dinosaur bones" to test. There are fossils of bones, but there's no bone there any more.

25 posted on 03/17/2013 1:13:24 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
One can test the probabilities that varying degrees of complexity found in nature would or could ever occur spontaneously or randomly and the way you prevent someone from doing it is to fire them from your faculty in order to send a message to anyone else thinking about doing said tests. Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” covered the entire subject contained in both your questions in great detail.

If they were fired for doing the test then the test got done. But any such test is an exercise in trying to prove a negative which is a logically flawed enterprise from the outset.

26 posted on 03/17/2013 1:17:58 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
You may want to research evolution a bit more before commenting further. I believe the term you are struggling for is “punctuated equilibrium”, and it explains the consequence of abiotic change in an otherwise biologically static environment. As far as evidence, you may want to review the work on cladistics and genetic consequence of external selection processes on populations. Feel free to get back to me then.
27 posted on 03/17/2013 1:18:44 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Darwinism ignores the creation. It takes a convenient point beyond the creation of matter, beyond the creation of the universe, beyond the creation of earth, and beyond the creation of the first living species, and uses that point as its starting point.

Oh, and for the record, Darwinism has yet to be proven either. The evidence simply does not exist.

28 posted on 03/17/2013 1:22:03 PM PDT by Hoodat (I stand with Rand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"If they were fired for doing the test then the test got done. But any such test is an exercise in trying to prove a negative which is a logically flawed enterprise from the outset."

No, they were fired for proposing to do the research. And no, it's not unreasonable to investigate a negative. Like all science, we investigate probabilities in order to ascertain predictability. .

29 posted on 03/17/2013 1:22:40 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: stormer
"Feel free to get back to me then."

Sure, I'll get back to you as soon as you show me someone who has observed this happen and measured and recorded it. Science is based on observation and measurement. Not internally consistent speculation.

30 posted on 03/17/2013 1:24:33 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Everything you wrote is correct, with the exception of your last sentence. And since we're “on the record”, let me state that NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVEN; that is not how it works. Science is about observations, hypothesis, and testing. The point is not to prove - it is to make accurate assumptions about likelihoods.
31 posted on 03/17/2013 1:26:26 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85

Evolutionists believe that we evolved from something akin to paramecia. And they call folks who believe in ID “unscientific”? LOL Good thing I finished my Big Gulp before I read this. Bob


32 posted on 03/17/2013 1:28:27 PM PDT by alstewartfan ("You've found your faith, but lost your soul." Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
Many academic institutions have shut down any such research and it is virtually impossible to get any grant money to explore the subject.

So it's not that anyone is preventing you from testing the hypothesis, it's that nobody is willing to fund your work. Maybe that alone says something?

33 posted on 03/17/2013 1:28:36 PM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O
"Maybe that alone says something?"

Yeah, It says a whole lot. I think that's the entire point.

34 posted on 03/17/2013 1:32:00 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
No, they were fired for proposing to do the research. And no, it's not unreasonable to investigate a negative.

Any idea what the probability is of successfully modeling the universe to account for all the possible variables in order to be able to say you have actually calculated the probabilities of a particular event happening?

35 posted on 03/17/2013 1:33:20 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gil4
The data fits the creation framework AT LEAST as well as it fits the evolution framework.

Well, sure. What data would not fit the creation framework? No matter what you observed, you could always say "God made it that way."

But what's the predictive ability of the creation framework? The evolution framework gives scientists a basis for making predictions--the classic example is why we need new flu shots every year and how they decide what to put in the ones we get. What prediction can you make based on "God made it that way"?

36 posted on 03/17/2013 1:40:42 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stormer
There is no unfiltered data. Even as the data is being created, they are asking "how does this fit into the theory?"

As for the "pseudoscience" charge, that's just name-calling by people with weak arguements who want to silence dissent. It's what liberals do.

If you would like to honestly address the dissent, here are 15 Questions for Evolutionists to get you started.

37 posted on 03/17/2013 1:42:35 PM PDT by Gil4 (Progressives - Trying to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand since 1848)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"Any idea what the probability is of successfully modeling the universe to account for all the possible variables in order to be able to say you have actually calculated the probabilities of a particular event happening?"

We've been working on it since the day man first recognized cause and effect and we'll continue to do so until there is nobody left.

38 posted on 03/17/2013 1:47:44 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
We've been working on it since the day man first recognized cause and effect and we'll continue to do so until there is nobody left.

Proposing to calculate the probability of intelligent design implies that we're done, and ready to apply that model to a given problem.

39 posted on 03/17/2013 1:51:37 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

No, it’s merely investigating a hypothesis. A piece at a time. The same as all investigation.


40 posted on 03/17/2013 1:55:38 PM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Science is about observations, hypothesis, and testing. The point is not to prove - it is to make accurate assumptions about likelihoods.

The average biologist who has bought Darwinism has almost no ability in mathematics. He can, at best, make irrelevant statements about likelihoods in hope that enough of his colleagues will agree and that consensus becomes the basis for the dissemination of the agreed-upon ignorance.

41 posted on 03/17/2013 2:23:33 PM PDT by dartuser (My firearm is not illegal ... its undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: eagleye85
and such unscientific views do not belong in public classrooms

really/ do they teach science in art class? literature class only uses 100% true stories?

42 posted on 03/17/2013 2:46:20 PM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gil4
Evolution is a framework through which scientific data is filtered and interpreted. Creationism is a framework through which scientific data is filtered and interpreted. The Qur'an is a framework through which scientific data is filtered and interpreted.
43 posted on 03/17/2013 3:07:52 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (I think, therefore I am what I yam, and that's all I yam - "Popeye" Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I didn't think there were any "dinosaur bones" to test

If you classify birds as dinosaurs...:^)

44 posted on 03/17/2013 3:11:33 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (I think, therefore I am what I yam, and that's all I yam - "Popeye" Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
I guess I don't know any “average” biologists, cause all the ones I know have taken at least a year of calculus and a slew of statistics courses. Of course that doesn't include classes in scientific methods, chemistry, physics, and quantitative methods. No siree Bob - no math there... Oh, and that's just undergrad.
45 posted on 03/17/2013 3:27:51 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Gil4
Why would I want to wade through a bunch of cherry picking by a guy whose explicit goal is to find out that “god did it”. It’s not science and that author knows better.
46 posted on 03/17/2013 3:36:21 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I didn't think there were any "dinosaur bones" to test. There are fossils of bones, but there's no bone there any more.

Most of the bones are fossilized, but some are not.

47 posted on 03/17/2013 4:21:42 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: stormer
C14 is worthless for items older than about 60,000 years. Do you think dinosaurs were around back then?

I think that when one finds a dinosaur bone that is not fossilized one should test it to see if it is younger than 60,000 years instead of assuming it is not based on the accepted dating methods of fossil records. After all fossil records did indicate the coelecanth had been extinct for 65 million years...however it turned out that they are not actually extinct. Now if that is because the methods of dating the fossils were no good, or because it just happened to have survived under the radar without us finding and dating any fossils for the last 65 million years...I don't know. But I do know, that one can't safely assume that a species is extinct based on such an approach, because it was wrong in this case.

At the very least, dinosaur bones that appear remarkably well preserved and not fossilized for being 70 million plus years old might be seen as a great opportunity to test the limits of how far back carbon dating can go on bones, by serving as an example of what no C14 other than what one might find due to error in measurement or ambient contamination...but somehow, those that perform such tests are ridiculed as anti-science by those who claim to be scientists.

Thus, I don't know for sure if any dinosaurs really lived as recently as mere thousands of years ago, but I am sure that it would embarrass a lot of "scientists" if they were, and they seem to use ridicule as a defense. And that is disgusting and hypocritical and cowardly and very much anti-scientific itself, and it undermines my faith in the integrity of all the related fields.

48 posted on 03/17/2013 4:38:34 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Several points:

People love to use the coelecanth as an example of a “living fossil”. While it is true that this family of fishes have not changes much over a long period of time, it is untrue that they were unknown. There live in areas that have been dominated by native fisheries and because they are inedible, they were thrown back.

There have been claims that soft tissues have been extracted from dino fossils, although confirmatory evidence is scarce. Mary Schweitzer is the primary researcher and despite her discovery and her adherence to Christianity, she has no doubt that the samples in question are in the range of 65 million years.

And again, C14 testing is such that items that may be substantially older than 60,000 years hit the at about that time frame. Happily there are other radiometric techniques that provide accurate data.

As far as some scientist hiding information that would place dinos in recent time, it is laughable. Scientists are extremely competitive and given the chance to show everyone wrong, would jump at the opportunity.

49 posted on 03/17/2013 5:41:40 PM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

The Qur’an doesn’t filter much on either side. It’s pretty vague on the subject of origins.


50 posted on 03/17/2013 5:43:02 PM PDT by Gil4 (Progressives - Trying to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand since 1848)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson