Posted on 07/11/2008 11:11:46 AM PDT by Kevmo
New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US New Scientist ^ | 7/9/2008 | Amanda Gefter
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2008 4:06:06 AM by Soliton
Louisiana is another story. A hub of creationist activism since the early 1980s, it was Louisiana that enacted the Balanced Treatment Act, which required that creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools. In a landmark 1987 case known as Edwards vs Aguillard, the US Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, effectively closing the door on teaching "creation science" in public schools. ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
There is likely to be some learning curve experiences while crevo participants adjust to being civil with each other.
We'll follow your lead.
Here’s another thread on the same subject. Now we can have civil discussions on this topic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043957/posts
Just the facts: LA law protects teachers who bring scientific evidence against Darwinism. . .
WORLD ^ | July 12, 2008 | Mark Bergin
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2008 8:06:50 AM 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.
There is now a parallel ecumenical thread in place to discuss this topic on a more polite level.
You realize that Occam's razor cuts both ways, don't you?
Intelligent design is going to be butchered like never before under this law. And just you watch! Some folks will squeal about religious persecution when it's done!
This sounds good on the surface and I am for the text itself. Critical analysis is a foundation of good science and should be promoted. Unfortunately, the the Discovery Institute is behind it so I know there's an underlying agenda to replace science with theology despite the text of the law.
It looks like the ACLU is already rearing its head.
“Marjorie Esman, director of the local ACLU chapter, reminded supporters: “We’re known for suing school boards.”
Yeah, but those other threads invariably give one opportunity to add new entries to his Big List O' Epithets.
Intelligent design is going to be butchered like never before under this law.
***I think ID can handle the pressure. It will be better off as a result of this criticism, much like the textual criticisms aimed at the bible in the 19th century. After that little exercise, the new testament documents were stronger in their historicity than any other contemporary set of documents. The same will happen with ID.
Unfortunately, the the Discovery Institute is behind it so I know there’s an underlying agenda to replace science with theology despite the text of the law.
***Arguing against something because of who is for it or behind it is ad hominem argumentation, invalid.
Thanks for the link. Such a thread would have had even post #1 thrown out by the ecumenical rules.
Yeah, but those other threads invariably give one opportunity to add new entries to his Big List O’ Epithets.
***I don’t understand what you’re saying.
The problem you will run into is that ID is neither good science nor good religion.
As science it is a failure; it was cooked up to try to replace creation "science" and it has no more real science behind it than creation "science" ever did. The few attempts to patch some science into ID (such as irreducible complexity) have failed miserably.
As religion it is the belief that dare not speak its name.
The problem you will run into is that ID is neither good science nor good religion.
***Then it gets tossed. We shall see. From the discussions on crevo threads that I’ve seen, the IDers seem to be good scientists. I myself have had people who like to defend science tell me that the science behind the historicity of Jesus’ death is unreliable. These people obviously haven’t examined the evidence, so it’s proof enough to me that they work on an agenda and their thinking is skewed.
As religion it is the belief that dare not speak its name.
***That’s great. I love it, because those of us on this other thread went round & round on the scientism religion that dare not speak its name.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038869/posts
The discussions tend to degenerate rapidly into ad hominem volleys of epithets. In many cases, that’s about all they’re good for: a lot of heat, little light.
That’s exactly why I opened the same discussions under a different set of rules. More light, less heat.
And its entirely appropriate to discuss intelligent design in the Religion Forum! ; - )
And its entirely appropriate to discuss intelligent design in the Religion Forum! ; - )
***I agree. It’s also entirely appropriate to discuss nascientism in the Religion Forum! ; - )
What exactly is "nascientism"?
What exactly is “nascientism”?
***I got the idea for the term from you
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=442#442
The Discovery Institute has as a stated strategy to replace science with theology. This strategy, in a document marked "Top Secret," was leaked by a third party. The document was confirmed authentic by the DI. This law is part of the strategy, as is being ready to defend it against any lawsuits that come from it. The Dover incident was also part of that strategy, but they learned from their loss and adapted.
Thus, while I like the text of the law, I disagree with what will likely be done with it given the stated motives and agenda of those who pushed it. Thus it is not ad hominem, but mistrust based on a known agenda. Phillip Johnson, a founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the ID-proponent arm of the DI, said:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."Thus when the DI is behind it then the law, especially the part about no religious indoctrination, is suspect.
And someone from the back of the room yelled “we know where you live Marjore”
Neither "nascentism" or "nascientism" seem to exist in the English lexicon.
Thats what you say, but you have never demonstrated that to any degree other than declaring it a failure and linking into talk-orgins (Everyone’s favorite evolution propaganda site)
Neither “nascentism” or “nascientism” seem to exist in the English lexicon.
***We covered this item on the other thread. Please re-read post #1 and post whatever issue you have with the terminology on that other thread.
Do you have something germane to discuss with respect to this current subject, “New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US”?
I'd like to discuss what this "nascientism" is. Since you brought it up, I assumed it was appropriate to the discussion.
Thus it is not ad hominem, but mistrust based on a known agenda.
***It strikes me as ad hominem. Let’s allow the religious moderator to weigh in on that. What do you say, RM? Is it an ad hominem argument? Is it a form of antagonism? What are the criteria for determining it so that we don’t have to bug you about such things?
Then, like post #1 says, let’s bring that item over to the other thread. No reason to clutter this thread.
If any freeper has issues or discussion about using the ecumenical thread concept, post questions on this following thread dedicated to that purpose: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038869/posts
It's not being discussed over there. It only appears on this thread. It's just a request for clarification of an unfamiliar term. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
If the request doesn’t seem unreasonable then you’ll have no trouble with pulling it over to the other thread, lest such tactics begin to be viewed as an antagonist attempt to hijack the thread from its original purpose. So... take it over there.
By other thread, I intially assumed you meant the “open” version of this thread. I’ll take it “over there”.
Thanks for participating. I don’t understand what your post meant.
a red blotch where a picture ought to be... that’s about what I thought it meant
If the PETA were behind a law supporting slaughterhouses, would you trust the law even if you didn’t see anything bad in the text of it? Wouldn’t you think there must be something you’re missing given the PETA’s agenda against eating meat? Would you call your mistrust ad hominem or just well-founded mistrust based on your knowledge of the organization and its known agendas?
If the PETA were behind a law supporting slaughterhouses, would you trust the law even if you didn’t see anything bad in the text of it?
***If I didn’t see anything bad in the text of it, then what PETA has to say about it has about as much weight before (for me) as it does now: zero.
Wouldn’t you think there must be something you’re missing given the PETA’s agenda against eating meat?
***I don’t proceed with your set of assumptions. PETA=Ethical Treatment of Animals, and probably not all PETArds believe eating meat is wrong, they just would want to see the animals treated “ethically”. So, your “given” is a false premise, an invalid argument.
Would you call your mistrust ad hominem or just well-founded mistrust based on your knowledge of the organization and its known agendas?
***It’s okay to mistrust them, but to base your reasoning on that is invalid. For instance, if the Communist Party was smart, they’d endorse John McCain, right? Then all the folks who think like you would never vote for the republican, and their agenda would be furthered.
If PETA as the organization is behind it, you know it cannot be for the eating of meat. If the Discovery Institute is behind it, you know it cannot be about the advancement of methodological science because that is 180 degrees from their goals.
For instance, if the Communist Party was smart, they’d endorse John McCain, right?
Bringing it closer to the topic, what if the Communist Party were behind McCain's rise to power? I just did some more research. Apparently the DI is not so directly involved. The Louisiana Family Forum was behind the bill's drafting. They directly support creationism and oppose evolution. I had the right principle, possibly the wrong target.
I said possibly because the Discovery Institute often lends consulting services to those people who are considering attacks on evolution/proponency of Intelligent Design. We know the Discovery Institute was behind the school board's decision in Dover (the board didn't make the decision until receiving legal advice from the Discovery Institute and a promise to defend them against lawsuits from the Thomas More Law Center). They analyzed every mistake they made in Dover and likely taught those lessons learned to the LFF. Thus we have a law that looks benign.
If PETA as the organization is behind it, you know
***I don’t necessarily KNOW that.
it cannot be for the eating of meat. If the Discovery Institute is behind it, you know it cannot be about the advancement of methodological science because that is 180 degrees from their goals.
***That is a conclusion, and your ad hominem reasoning proceeded from your own conclusion, creating a vicious circular reasoning pattern. It’s a form of antagonism, which is not allowed on ecumenical threads — as far as I know.
It would be highly irrational to think that PETA suddenly supported eating meat when veganism is part of their core platform. It would be highly irrational to think that the DI suddenly supports methodological science when a theistic form of discovery is part of their core platform.
That is a conclusion, and your ad hominem reasoning proceeded from your own conclusion
It is a conclusion derived from the Discovery Institute's clear statements opposing "materialistic science" a.k.a., the science that is taught in schools. An organization that is opposed to something cannot be honestly trying to make it better, only trying to destroy and replace it. It's all in the Wedge Document.
It’s a form of antagonism
Isn't calling all debate "ad hominem" and accusing me of creating a "vicious circular reasoning pattern" even when accompanied by clear evidence and argument a form of antagonism in itself? Isn't being obtuse in positing that the PETA would support the eating of meat antagonism?
All I have been presenting is logical argument and evidence. I expect such in return on an ecumenical thread instead of off-hand dismissal. So far the only difference I have seen between you and a creationist on a regular crevo thread is that this hasn't devolved into harsh personal attacks yet.
I expected more, which is why I posted here.
It would be highly irrational to think that PETA suddenly supported eating meat when veganism is part of their core platform.
***But since I don’t know what their core platform is, I don’t necessarily KNOW that. You wrote that I knew it. I know, I know, it’s a bit of teasing fun at your expense, but the example is pretty lame to begin with.
It would be highly irrational to think that the DI suddenly supports methodological science when a theistic form of discovery is part of their core platform.
***I don’t know what DI’s core platform is either. So if I were you and I wanted to introduce it as evidence in ecumenical debates, I’d post it to the religion moderator and get it cleared as an established fact. It would probably save all of us a bundle of time.
It is a conclusion
***Then, very simply, you don’t deny that it’s a conclusion.
derived from the Discovery Institute’s clear statements opposing “materialistic science” a.k.a., the science that is taught in schools. An organization that is opposed to something cannot be honestly trying to make it better, only trying to destroy and replace it. It’s all in the Wedge Document.
***Again if I were you, I’d post the wedge document and have the RM look it over to see if it’s considered inflammatory.
Isn’t calling all debate “ad hominem” and accusing me of creating a “vicious circular reasoning pattern” even when accompanied by clear evidence and argument a form of antagonism in itself?
***No, because you admitted that your reasoning was based upon a conclusion that you drew. Your “clear” reasoning pattern is based on invalid assumptions and classic fallacies.
Isn’t being obtuse in positing that the PETA would support the eating of meat antagonism?
***No. In an earlier thread, someone took me to task because I didn’t know that the KKK used the term “grand wizard” or something like that, so you can see I don’t care what terms the KKK uses nor what PETA’s platform is. However, calling my preferred level of awareness “obtuse” is probably antagonistic. I think I’m going to like these ecumenical threads.
All I have been presenting is logical argument and evidence.
***And your logic has been shredded due to your use of some classic fallacies.
I expect such in return on an ecumenical thread instead of off-hand dismissal. So far the only difference I have seen between you and a creationist on a regular crevo thread is that this hasn’t devolved into harsh personal attacks yet.
***And it won’t devolve. The reasoning process is still what counts here.
I expected more, which is why I posted here.
***I’m glad you did post here.
Such games don't belong here. Go to peta.org and check out their position on eating meat, or circuses, or any animal-related topic if you honestly don't know. FTR, they promote veganism.
*I don’t know what DI’s core platform is either. So if I were you and I wanted to introduce it as evidence in ecumenical debates, I’d post it to the religion moderator and get it cleared as an established fact.
Here is where they admit authorship. In this document (which includes the Wedge Document) they try to backpedal and reinterpret the obvious meaning of the document. However, there is ample proof of the agenda in spite of this, the least of which is the general truism that you can trust the honesty of an organization's secret internal communications more than you can trust its public press releases (which will be spun).
In any case, back to the thread, the organization that sponsored the bill was pro-creationist and anti-evolution. The motive is obvious.
Go to peta.org and check out their position on eating meat, or circuses, or any animal-related topic if you honestly don’t know. FTR, they promote veganism.
***I have no desire to do so.
Here is where they admit authorship. In this document (which includes the Wedge Document) they try to backpedal and reinterpret the obvious meaning of the document.
***Religion Moderator, we’re going to need your feedback on the use of this document. Is it inflammatory? Is it accepted by both sides of the debate? Is it allowable in an ecumenical thread? There is a high likelihood that this subject in itself needs its own thread.
However, there is ample proof of the agenda in spite of this, the least of which is the general truism that you can trust the honesty of an organization’s secret internal communications more than you can trust its public press releases (which will be spun).
In any case, back to the thread, the organization that sponsored the bill was pro-creationist and anti-evolution. The motive is obvious.
OOPS, the stuff left over was what I intended to discuss in the next post.
However, there is ample proof of the agenda in spite of this, the least of which is the general truism that you can trust the honesty of an organization’s secret internal communications more than you can trust its public press releases (which will be spun).
***You’ve introduced some big topics that need to be discussed in their own right. The purpose of this particular thread is not to determine the legitimacy of that document nor the proper use of it. I doubt that on ecumenical threads you’re allowed to say such things that it’ll be spun, that you can trust internal sources above external ones (the mormon threads have probably covered that stuff), and the like.
In any case, back to the thread, the organization that sponsored the bill was pro-creationist and anti-evolution. The motive is obvious.
***The organizations that are sponsoring the mortgage bailout bill are the mortgage companies. It doesn’t mean it’s good law nor bad law. One makes a determination based upon what the proposed text says, which you said yourself appears innocuous when it comes to the teaching law. One of the considerations is the organizations sponsoring it, but your original post was based entirely upon this consideration, and that is a classic fallacy. Furthermore, your continued argumentation from that basis has been an ongoing ad hominem argument.
Post #47 was intended to be pinged to you.
I see the religion posters are just as sweet as always.
Beep! fl
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.