Skip to comments.Creationist Bill Signed by Jindal
Posted on 06/27/2008 2:04:21 PM PDT by EveningStar
Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has signed a stealth creationist bill into law, and American educational standards take a huge step backward: Science law could set tone for Jindal.
The creationist front group called the Discovery Institute is quietly crowing, and maintaining the fiction that the bill is not religiously-based.
(Excerpt) Read more at littlegreenfootballs.com ...
It isn’t like students are learning science anyway.
Academic freedom. The horror.
(CUE the high priests of Darwin with their usual measured, rational, winsome, NEVER knee-jerk meditations on the subject)
These dramatic statements make me laugh. Since he signed the bill, do 5+2 no longer =7? Are a,e,i,o,and u (and sometimes y) no longer vowels? Did George Washington not command the Colonial troops? Are Atoms no longer made of Protons, Neitrons, and Electrons? Sheesh!
Is Jindal one of them or does he not know the history and got conned by this group?
What a way to slander scientific debate
Did the bill explain how dinosaurs are actually less than 10,000 yrs old? (sarcasm off)
The censorship-driven evolutionists are not going to like this.
Why should the Darwinsim be taught as truth?
Oh, come on, you know the evo-atheists are smarter than anyone else, if you don’t believe it, just ask them.
(ever met a humble atheist?)
Leftists and darwinists agree: Stifle the Dissent! Silence the critics! Critical thought and disagreements be damned!
It doesn’t matter that most of the greatest scientific discoveries have been by believers in God. No we are far too educated these days.
Sounds perfectly objective to me, if you are either anti God, Marxist or demonic. The great god science is under attack. Bring out the sarcasm and elitism.
Ever seen the South Park episode on atheism?
Cartman goes into the future and they are fighting over the correct name for atheist groups,
instead of fighting over religions.
Good question: not yet.
They’ll learn science if they study Intelligent design
Didn't you get the memo? Evos quit using that tactic, when it was determined that the date can't be determined...
Easy way to solve this issue. Bring on the nationally televised debate between the evo’s and intelligent designer’s and let’s see who can support their case.
Mr. Bill Buckley and his ID scientist cohorts did, they did not lose.
It shouldn't because science doesn't deal with "truth." It should be taught as the current state of scientific knowledge on the subject, as all science should be. One day maybe another scientific theory will come along and supplant evolution, but until then evolution is what should be taught in science courses.
Jindal's nobody's fool.
Nobody conned him and I'm sure he knows who the Discovery Institute is.
Since honest disagreement with the priests of philosophical naturalism is declared to be impossible by those same priests, now what?
The year was 1999:
GORE WAFFLING IN DEBATE OVER TEACHING OF CREATIONISM?
Web Posted: August 29, 1999
Does he or doesn’t he? That’s the question that academics and reporters are asking today, following a flurry of quotes, news wire reports and clarifications on what Vice President Al Gore’s stand might over the hot-button topic of teaching creationism in public schools. The controversy began early last evening with a Reuters news service article by political correspondent Alan Eisner headlined: “Gore shocks scientists with creationism statement.” According to this account, vice presidential spokesman Alejandro Cabrera declared, “The vice president favors the teaching of evolution in public schools. Obviously, that decision should and will be made at the local level and localities should be free to decide to teach creationism as well.”
According to Eisner, “Several hours” after the initial statement, Cabrera called Reuters again to insist “the vice president supports the right of school boards to teach creationism within the context of religious courses and not science courses.” The story took on a life of its own after that; Reuters sent the dispatch out on its international wire, and over at the Washington Post the gaffe was soon picked up by Hanna Rosin for a piece headlined: “Gore avoids stance against creationism.”
Educators and scientists reacted strongly to the original statement released by the Gore office. “My God, that’s appalling!” declared Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. ...” [snip] click link for lots more.
Presidential candidates weigh in on evolution debate
By Bruce Morton/CNN
August 27, 1999
Web posted at: 6:52 p.m. EDT (2252 GMT)
WASHINGTON — Is evolution a political issue?
Should presidential candidates be arguing over whether the planet is 4 billion years old, or whether was it made in six days 10,000 years ago, or if men and dinosaurs coexisted?
It all started when a spokesman for Vice President Al Gore announced that the vice president “favors the teaching of evolution in the public schools,” adding the decision should be local and “localities should be free to teach creationism as well.”
But Louisiana passed a law to give creationism equal teaching time and the Supreme Court struck it down as endorsing religion.
The Gore spokesman then said Gore supported teaching creationism in certain contexts, such as in a religion class, which has not been ruled unconstitutional.
Gore’s boss, President Bill Clinton, agrees that local control of schools is proper.
“I think the president believes the curriculum is by law and by all common practice left to local school boards,” White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart said. “I think the president believes, that the local school boards, though, are bound by the law of the land and the Supreme Court has spoken very clearly on this issue.”
What do the Republican presidential hopefuls say about evolution?
Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP front-runner, believes both evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects.
“He believes it is a question for states and local school boards to decide but believes both ought to be taught,” a spokeswoman said.
Former Red Cross Chair Elizabeth Dole and Arizona Sen. John McCain expressed no preference, simply saying the decision should be local.
Publisher Steve Forbes agreed, and called textbook illustrations about evolution “a massive fraud.”
Gary Bauer, head of the Family Research Council, said he does not teach his children that they are “descendant from apes.”
Evolutionists don’t say that either, of course. They say todays apes and humans have a common ancestor, a species called australopithecus.
Bauer said he does not accept a theory that claims no divine intelligence was involved in man’s origination and alleges that life arose spontaneously.
Pope John Paul II announced last year that the Roman Catholic church would not oppose evolution — it seems to be mostly fundamentalist Protestants who oppose the theory.
But it remains to be seen whether this argument, which never seems to fall completely out of the public discourse, will play a major role in the still-evolving 2000 presidential election landscape.
Geeze ... what an awful Bill - can't have people asking questions...
It passed 94 to 3 in the Louisiana House, and 36-0 in the State Senate ...
How terrible that Mr. Jindal didn't call out the State Troopers to squish this Bill, since its obviously against the best interest of the people...
Kudos to the state of Louisiana (we'll never see a bill like this in California)...
Bye bye, Bobby. You weren’t really in the running for VP anyway, but now thank God you’re gone.
Oh well in that case I’ll just go and assume that the T Rex died out right around the time of the founding of Athens. BTW, how old is the moon?
Uh, sorry. In order for a theory to be 'scientific' it must be completely naturalistic because science is based on the philosophy of naturalism.
The only thing that could supplant evolution is panspermia directed by intelligent aliens that somehow 'evolved' elsewhere unobserved. This only begs the question further than science does now.
Instead of calling them 'science' classes, they should be called 'philosophical naturalism' classes. At least that would be accurate.
The creationists usually win in the audience's opinion because while the "evo" is trying to talk science the creationist is running circles around him with crowd-pleasing rhetoric and off-topic logical fallacies. This is why Kent Hovind, while loving free-form public debates with his opponents, refuses highly structured or written debates.
Maybe they can have Creationists school board members teach it in Science class like they had to in Dover. Science instructors usually prefer to teach actual Science.
I love the criminal language in this tripe. A Stealth bill (not so stealth if we know about it). Front group for Creationists. Lovely. Bookem Dan-o. They actually have the audacity to believe that the evidence points in another direction!
Might as well. Any date is as good as another when you are assuming.
"BTW, how old is the moon?"
Just pick a date. Any date is as good as another when you are assuming.
Just don't pick one that is less than what the mob believes or the mob will think you are stoopid. There's safety in numbers on this one. :-)
You got it. Teleology in science is the ultimate logical fallacy. Very like predestination. If it happens, it was God's will. Why? Because it happened!
You mean philosophical naturalism instructors prefer to teach philosophical naturalism?
Here's to hoping that the 'evos' keep telling each other that (and believing it).
That’s it for Jindal as VP then...next!...magritte
Places to teach creationism / ID:
Parochial schools: YES
Public schools: NO
There is no teleology in philosophical naturalism.
This is all random and purposeless.
That was never an assertion of the Discovery Institute and the silly charge that they are a front group for “creationists”, whoever that is, is getting old and tiresome.
Your absurdity is duly noted in the previous pic! Of course, you have also defined yourself to a T...
Gary Bauer, head of the Family Research Council, said he does not teach his children that they are descendant from apes.
Evolutionists dont say that either, of course. They say todays apes and humans have a common ancestor, a species called Australopithecus.
OMG!!!! Australopithecus is NOT and has NEVER been proposed to be an ancestor of modern apes.
First chemical castration for child rapists, now academic freedom in government schools. What mischief will he think of next,... lowering taxes?
Places to teach philosophical naturalism:
Darwin Festival: YES
Public schools: NO
I have found that abandoning the empirical method that Science is based upon will lead one to ridiculous assertions about geocentricity and other such nonsense.
So open discussions of these subjects are not allowed?
In one way, I do agree with you - we should not allow these discussions in public schools. But my reason is that these 'government/public schools' should go the way of the dinosaurs. They have become institutions to support the school unions and to promote brain-washing.
But acknowledging that government/public schools are going to exist, why shouldn't we promote open analysis and discussions of these subjects?
What is philosophical naturalism?
I'm more interested in the consequences of explaining that Yucca Mountain hasn't really been extinct for millions of years, and we're actually burying our nuclear waste inside a supervolcano that's been active within the last 4-6,000 years.
Actually, the way the bill is written it covers all subjects. Teachers who bring in alternative materials for any subject will be protected. Doesn't matter which side they push.
Only if you want to be honest about it.
"I have found that abandoning the empirical method that Science is based upon will lead one to ridiculous assertions about geocentricity and other such nonsense."
I have found that abandoning the empirical method that philosophical naturalism is based on will lead to ridiculous assertions like abiogenesis, the Big Bang, evolution and the motion of the earth despite the lack of evidence for any of these.
Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? [ ] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the earth moves or the sun moves and the earth is at rest would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is right and the Ptolemaic theory wrong in any meaningful physical sense.
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations, Ellis argues. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. Ellis has published a paper on this. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
God established the laws by which the universe operates.
Kent Hovind was not one that I had in mind, there are many others that are much more qualified.
Two evo’s set out to determine what the statistical probability of spontaneous generation of life and then develop into the life we have today, it was 1x10 to 140th power, not good odds.
Recently on PBS there was a discussion that life came from space rocks that hit earth. I thought they were so cocksure it came from primordial slime.
Evolution as has been portrayed has serious problems at best.
Maybe we are a virtual reality game by a very intelligent being and the plug is about to be pulled for lack of interest.
I do not understand why we just don’t bring on the debate that gives both sides adequate and fair opportunity to present their case.
I don’t recall big outrage over Pi having a different value in Indiana or there being history text books that devote all of one page to President Lincoln.
There are agendas in education and science all across this land. But one issue takes top priority over all other educational issues.
Why aren’t people fighting as hard against the mythology of man made global climate change?