Posted on 07/11/2008 8:06:50 AM PDT by rhema
A bill protecting the critical analysis of evolution by Louisiana public school teachers outraged committed Darwinists last month when it cruised through both houses of the state legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support. Not a single state senator voted against the Science Education Act and just three of 97 state representatives opposed it—this despite strong public relations campaigns condemning the legislation from several high-profile organizations and individuals.
In the wake of that crushing defeat, the rhetoric of the bill's opponents morphed into threats of costly lawsuits. The Louisiana Coalition for Science called the development an "embarrassment" and warned that it would attract "unflattering national attention." Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "Louisiana taxpayers should not have their money squandered on this losing effort." Marjorie Esman, director of the local ACLU chapter, reminded supporters: "We're known for suing school boards."
What's all the fuss about? The Louisiana Science Education Act, which mirrors legislation receiving serious consideration in a handful of other states, protects the right of teachers and administrators "to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
In other words, the bill supports a more thorough examination of controversial topics, complete with scientific explanations as to why such areas of study spark controversy. Anticipating suspicions of ulterior motives, the legislation also includes a proscription against its misuse "to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
Nevertheless, a New York Times editorial labeled the bill an "assault on Darwin" and compared it to the Louisiana legislature's effort to force biblical creationism into public classrooms in the 1980s. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, called the legislation "a creationist bill written in creationist code language."
When WORLD reached Forrest by phone, she declined to comment. She stated in a press release that the bill's authors are creationists "using the same old tricks, but with new labels."
Darwinists have long sought to dismiss intelligent design (ID), an alternate theory of origins, as repackaged creationism. That strategy proved successful in a landmark court decision against a Dover, Pa., school board in 2005, when a federal judge declared ID inherently religious and its inclusion in the classroom therefore unconstitutional. But categorically dismissing critical analysis of evolution as equally unconstitutional is a far tougher sell—no doubt explaining why numerous states with critical analysis of Darwinism in their official science standards have yet to face legal challenge.
John West of the Discovery Institute, which advocates teaching the evidence for and against Darwinism, says the Louisiana Science Education Act and other similar bills stand on firmer legal ground than the unchallenged proscriptions for critical analysis in several states' science standards: "This bill does nothing to help a teacher promote religion in the classroom," he said. "Why is it unconstitutional for a teacher to point out that mutations are almost always harmful and in just a few cases neutral, which poses a huge problem if you believe all the major innovations in life were driven by a blind process of natural selection and random mutations? That answer is, it's not unconstitutional."
Some Darwinists recognize that. In a column for the American Chronicle, self-described atheist Jason Streitfeld urges support for the bill, which he says promotes "exactly what American students need: encouragement to think critically about controversial topics." Streitfeld further argues that "by reacting negatively to this bill, atheists and supporters of Darwinian evolutionary theory are proving their opponents right: they are acting like reason and the facts are not on their side."
West says the propensity of Darwinists to threaten lawsuits and scare teachers or districts out of critically analyzing evolution stems from an unwillingness to engage on scientific merits and betrays their vulnerability. The Science Education Act, which Democratic Sen. Ben Nevers originally proposed under the title Academic Freedom Act, signals teachers and districts that the state will back them should they choose to undertake a more thorough handling of controversial topics.
Opinion polls show large public majorities in many states favor teaching the evidence for and against Darwinism. Among science teachers, that support dips but remains significant enough to suggest the Louisiana Science Education Act and other bills like it will have a considerable impact on how students encounter evolution.
ACLU director Esman admits that if the law "works as it should, it shouldn't be a problem." But she worries that it may leave room "for things to get sneaked into the classroom that shouldn't be there." That suspicion is shared among many of the bill's detractors, who point out the religious motivation of such supportive groups as the Louisiana Family Forum, an evangelical organization with strong ties to Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.
But supporters counter that many of the bill's opponents maintain strong atheistic commitments, a correlation given far less publicity or credence in major media reporting. Indeed, much of the public campaigning and calls to arms against the legislation played out on evolutionary biologist and popular science author Richard Dawkins' pro-atheist website. West contends that all such religious motivations for passing new laws are irrelevant in assessing the legality and value of the policy: "Should we repeal all the civil rights laws because lots of American Christians supported them? That's a preposterous argument. The most important thing is what the law actually says."
Letter of the law: Key elements of the Louisiana Science Education Act
Requires the state board of education to support the wishes of a local school board if it requests assistance in helping teachers and administrators promote critical analysis and open scientific discussion of theories related to evolution, origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
Requires that such assistance from the state board include guidance for teachers in developing effective methods to help students analyze and critique scientific theories.
Requires that a teacher first present material in the school system's standard textbook before bringing in additional resources for further analysis and scientific critique.
Prohibits any promotion of religious doctrine or discrimination for or against religious beliefs, religion, or nonreligion.
And the Evolutionists are upset? That's rich.
No such thing exists. Darwinism cannot be challenged, and it is utterly unfalsifiable. Anything claiming to be against Darwinism is automatically unscientific.
/sarc
Why is it that the will of the people is always attacked with lawsuits?
Can’t win the hearst and minds of the people with logic common sense compromise etc.? No problem, Sue them into submission.....
Our court system has become a sick joke on the people....
And the Evolutionists are upset? That's rich.
If anyone believes that this law was passed to promote science they are deluding themselves and lying to us.
This law was passed to promote religion, and more specifically, a narrow fundamentalist view of religion.
But what happens when the much vaunted "critical analysis" is applied to the claims of intelligent design, creation "science" and all the rest of the disguises under which fundamentalists have tried to promote their beliefs?
Teachers will be free to expose these efforts for the dishonest propaganda devices they really are, without fear of reprisals!
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
This law was passed to promote religion, and more specifically, a narrow fundamentalist view of religion.
Thats bull. Prove it.
Someone, or a group of someones, will get carried away and step over the line in regards to what they are allowed to preach in class.
Then there will be a lawsuit, someone(s) will get fired, and the taxpayer will have pay for it all.
I'd be happy if just this part was enforced, regardless of the teaching of evo or ID.
Too much Secular Humanism and Atheism being taught in schools these days under the guise of "science".
What interests me is that the same individuals who are worried that things might be sneaked into the classroom that shouldn’t be there seem to have no problem with homosexual activism or liberal climate propaganda in the classroom. Kids in public schools are drafted to be nuisances to their parents and community and save the world through light bulbs. Let teachers teach what is there. The evidence is hardly complete and the last word on the development of life on Earth as not been said. The conclusion of undirected design is not a scientific one it is a matter of belief. It can not be demonstrated in a laboratory. There is no harm in the belief in a higher order driving the development of life. It did not stop Newton, Galileo, Copernicus or any of the other great scientific minds who were also religious some radically so by today’s standards.
Informed scientific dispute is the province of informed scientists (by definition). Since when do teachers fall into that group? This is just another bullshit attempt to inject religious nonsense into the school system.
If you want to see the truth of what I said in my first post just think of how a bill to teach atheism would affair among supporters of this legislation.
Perhaps you missed this summation:
protects the right of teachers and administrators "to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories
And perhaps you also missed the proviso specially stating that religion was not to be discussed as a result of this law.
You also said:"Teachers will be free to expose these efforts for the dishonest propaganda devices they really are, without fear of reprisals!"
A primary reason why school teachers do not discuss criticisms of Evolution is because people tend to find the criticisms quite convincing. When the pros and cons are both discussed, Evolution loses. Now, you can say that's because people are fools and do not understand the wonders of science, but when scientists lay out their theory and cannot explain the theory in a convincing way, it says something about the theory.
Richard Feynman said that if science is well understood, then it can be explained to a child. But he was talking about Physics. That's real science. Evolution is not in the same league as Physics.
Sooner or later somebody might develop a machine for viewing past events, and it might show God actually creating the world in seven days, 6000 years ago. My guess is that, IF that were to happen, these same “science” groups would be in court trying to ban the machine and pass laws forbidding anybody to show it to students.
Sooner or later somebody might develop a machine for viewing past events, and it might show God actually creating the world in seven days, 6000 years ago. My guess is that, IF that were to happen, these same “science” groups would be in court trying to ban the machine and pass laws forbidding anybody to show it to students.
The Great State of Louisiana just told you what you can do with your "so-called" science.
And I applaud them for it.
Good for Louisiana! (at least till some judge decides evolution is more important than democracy!)
Evolution has long ago morphed into an ideology, totally hostile to the idea of a creator and is often hostile to science itself, when any research challenges its’ dogma!
Modern day evolutionists are like a bunch of Communists/Fascists refusing to debate democracy because they contend democracy is “not a political system” (somehow they get to define the terms). Likewise they want to define the terms of “science” to fit their NARROW understanding, thus eliminating having to defend the weaknesses of their precious quasi-religious Darwin theory.
‘This law was passed to promote religion, and more specifically, a narrow fundamentalist view of religion.’
Your opinion.
There are many non-fundamentalists who welcome discussion and the free exchange of ideas...I’m one of them.
The promotion of critical discussions of controversial topics is a good thing.
This guy Jindal might have something to do with it. Louisiana appears to have turned some sort of a corner or something.
“This is just another b****t attempt to inject religious nonsense into the school system.”
Like I just asked coyoteman...prove it.
I’ve also heard a description that nails the mindset of the atheists really well:
If there were a huge thunderclap,
and the earth shook and rippled,
and the sky opened up and everyone looked up simultaneously
to see an enormous Michaelangelo inspired bearded figure
pointing His finger down on a specific atheist,
and a booming voice declared
“[insert name here], STOP THE NONSENSE, I _DO_ EXIST”
said atheist would attempt to explain it away as some sequence of natural events.
Such is the nature of the unwillingness to believe.
Hmm. Don't teachers do that now? And what's a 'fundamentalist' in your mind?
“This guy Jindal might have something to do with it. Louisiana appears to have turned some sort of a corner or something.”
He does and he’s taking serious flak for promoting, (gasp), the concept of introducing controversial material for serious discussion in the classroom.
No, Louisiana was always this way. They’ve been fighting the one-sided indoctrination of evolution in the classroom since day one.
Religious nonsense? Have more respect for those who believe (you just alluded that those who do are foolish...they might say the same about you in reverse). It takes MUCH more faith to believe in Darwinism than scripture and the evidences in nature. The Bible backs itself up so many times that the odds against it being false are astronomical. Darwinism cannot say the same.
*Their* view is just an attempt introduce nonsensical Darwinism into the school system.
The law requires that evidence must be supported by science. Since federal courts have ruled creationism and intelligent design are not science, this law only protects teachers who teach evolution as understood by mainstream science.
Unintended consequences. Teachers in rural areas who have been afraid to teach evolution now have a free hand, protected by law.
“They’ve been fighting the one-sided indoctrination of evolution in the classroom since day one.”
One-sided indoctrination of evolution. That sums things up nicely...we’re seeing anti-Intelligent design zealots coming out of the woodwork on this one. So much for the notion of free exchange of information and ideas....
Amen to that Brother Jason. LOL
Just the facts PING!
So, a teacher should say on any science subject “Be quiet and don’t question this, Kayla. We’re not informed scientists.”? Really?
Intelligent Design is a deliberate fraud. It is just creationism in disguise and has been proven as such in a court of law directed by a church-going Republican judge.
here is the smoking gun that proved that the Discovery Institute is a pack of Liars For God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI
If you're not an informed scientist but are teaching science your reservations and doubts do not belong in the classroom.
Thats bull. Prove it.
Two items:
--“cdesign proponentsists." The leading book promoting intelligent design, Of Pandas and People was originally a creation "science" text. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1987 which outlawed creation "science" in schools the authors of that book did a cut-and-paste job to change "creationists" and similar words to "design proponents" and similar words. But they missed one! As if this wasn't enough, due to a poor edit job in one place "creationists" became “cdesign proponentsists" --giving the whole sordid scheme away.I think I have made my case. If you disagree, you have to show how that law was "designed" to promote real science.--Intelligent design is promoted largely by the Discovery Institute, and they are the ones who wrote the model bill that the Louisiana law was based on. They are trying to hide it, but they are promoting religion in the disguise of intelligent design. You can see this in The Evolution of the Discovery Institute's Website Rhetoric. You can also see it in their Wedge Strategy.
Here is a quotation from that document:
"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Here is one of their goals:
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Actually, I do have a great deal of respect for sincerely religious people, far more than I do for agressive athiests. But bullshit is bullshit.
Any particular reason you didn’t answer my question?
You've made no case except the case that takes power from the people and places it in the hands of unelected old folks in black robes.
If you want to make a case then you have to quote from the Louisiana law the relevant parts that countenance an "establishment of religion" in their public schools.
Failing that you simply affirm the statement by the atheist fellow in the article.
Would you be so kind as to post the relevant passages "allowing" violation of the "establishment clause'?
Would you support an amendment to the bill to allow the teaching atheism in the schools as an alternative to religious belief? Both, after all, can be nicely supported by evidence and reasoned argument. Why should kids be prisoners of their parents’ prejudice and superstition?
_____
I want that course taught in Sunday School. If the anti-science crowd wants religion taught in science class, I cannot be satisfied until atheism is taught in church.
Or maybe, we could just leave science for science class, and religion for church or religion class.
When you're teaching a scientific subject it's your job to present the currently accepted theories and the evidence which supports them...and to make clear to students the nature and limitations of the scientific method.
That's hard enough.
Confusing them by claiming your religious alternatives to currently accepted theories are of equal weight should get you fired.
That's why scientismists (people who hold to scientism philosophically and ideologically), as opposed to scientists (people who practice the methodology known as "science"), don't want anyone explaining the pros and cons. That's why people like Coyoteman and Soliton are so afraid of anybody presenting evidences against evolution - even though falsifiability is ostensibly an integral part to scientific methodology.
What question? I just reread the posts. I couldn’t find it?
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
The Letter of this Law:
Letter of the law: Key elements of the Louisiana Science Education Act
Requires the state board of education to support the wishes of a local school board if it requests assistance in helping teachers and administrators promote critical analysis and open scientific discussion of theories related to evolution, origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
Requires that such assistance from the state board include guidance for teachers in developing effective methods to help students analyze and critique scientific theories.
Requires that a teacher first present material in the school system's standard textbook before bringing in additional resources for further analysis and scientific critique.
Prohibits any promotion of religious doctrine or discrimination for or against religious beliefs, religion, or non-religion.
“If you disagree, you have to show how that law was “designed” to promote real science.”. I do disagree with you. By (your) definition, “which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations” ...this Law complies with the scrutiny of teaching an alternative hypothesis to TOE. Is it your stance that TOE should never be scrutinized? That doesn't seem “scientific” to me.....
The last paragraph of the law as stated above negates your notion that, “This law was passed to promote religion, and more specifically, a narrow fundamentalist view of religion”. It specifically states that the will be no promotion of “religious doctrine” in the classroom.
To: liberallarry
“This is just another b****t attempt to inject religious nonsense into the school system.”
Like I just asked coyoteman...prove it.
20 posted on July 11, 2008 8:29:55 AM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse
The "establishment of religion" clause? That's no problem.
Fundamentalists simply claim that intelligent design is science and not religion and as such it is allowed to be taught. Of course that's a lie, but its for a good cause and all.
Do you really expect me to believe that this law was passed to promote better teaching of science? It is there to promote challenges to the theory of evolution and nothing else.
Both sides are in error.
Science is like chess. Either you play by the rules, or you are not playing chess. Either you follow the scientific method, or you are not engaged in science.
Science has long been in error for permitting unscientific and non-reproducible theories and data, and unproven extrapolation and interpolation, and to base conclusions on these things. When a scientific experiment has been conducted by the rules, all that has been achieved is a scientific experiment. The results are not science, they just lay the groundwork for the next theory based on those results.
Otherwise, legitimate research can be done, but it is a study, not science. Social studies include history, psychology, philosophy, etc., and while each may have small elements that are scientific, such as statistics, their results remain studies, despite putting on airs of being scientific.
This is done because science has credibility, because when its experiments can be verified over and over again, trust is built that when they are performed again, the same or similar results will happen, unless new variables have been introduced.
A major component, arguable, about science, is that an experiment, any experiment, can be limited to known variables. That is, that all constants and variables of an experiment are known ahead of time, and that the scientist minimizes or ideally avoids influencing the experiment with their own prejudices and biases.
Again, a strong argument can be made that this is impossible, but practically speaking, it is reflected in reality, again because experiments are reproducible, but prejudices and biases are less so.
Which brings us to the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, and why there is no place for it there. It is not because intelligent design does not exist, but because there is no possible way to integrate it into the scientific method. It cannot be verified, it cannot be tested experimentally, it is non-reproducible, it cannot be measured, nor can it be eliminated as an experimental variable.
Thus, it is a football sitting on the chess board. It may be perfectly valid as a football, but it has no place in chess.
And this is the problem with advocating the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom. Like bad science, it wants to assume the mantle of credibility that exists for science. But like bad science, it cannot be scientific. It is not an acceptable scientific theory because it *cannot be* an acceptable scientific theory.
It is in contention not with science, as well, but with bad science. It demands equal time because it argues with unscientific extrapolations and interpretations that are being taught, but shouldn’t be, because they are not scientific either.
Finally, it should be pointed out that what is called Darwinism, is not just a single theory, but several, some of which are neutral in character and uncontested, even by advocates of Intelligent Design.
For example, almost nobody contests that dinosaur bones exist. They can and have been evaluated experimentally and tested many times. The problem is not in the static evidence that can and is tested, but the non-scientific studies based on theories surrounding the origins of such bones.
That is, studies, not science, about how the bones came to be in relation to each other and the world. But that is not, and cannot be a science, because the theory is not experimental, but circular reasoning.
This does not mean that these studies are invalid. And within the ground rules of studies, but not science, they are accurate. But classrooms should be very clear that these are studies, and not science.
So the bottom line is that both studies and Intelligent Design should be excluded from science classes. If taught, they should be taught together as studies, and left up to the students to decide.
Who are you trying to fool? Who do you think is going to believe such nonsense other than people who already have their heads in the sand and their butts exposed?
Nonsense. The many claims of creationists regarding the theory of evolution have been presented and debunked to often they have been numbered!
Check out the Index to Creationist Claims and you'll see how well the creationists' "evidences against evolution" have fared.
And thus the real agenda of the public school system is revealed.
I'll try to find the quote, but it was by a professor stating pretty much the same thing - they target the children of "fundamentalist" parents and hammer their indoctrination at them until they "come around".
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.