Bad News, LA - Jindal Hops on Creationist Bandwagon

The bill would look a lot different if the examples of scientific theories would have been changed into:
Section 1. R.S. 17:285.1 is hereby enacted to read as follows:
§285.1. Science education; development of critical thinking skills
A. This Section shall be known and may be cited as the "Louisiana
Science Education Act."
B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon
request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and
assist teachers, principals, and other school 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, The Holocaust, The Apollo Moon Landings, The 9-11 Events and The Monster of Loch Ness.

Getting out my pirate regalia right away.

Tip of the iceberg.

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled as of yesterday that people who are injured in the course of exorcisms can't sue — even if the exorcism was performed against their will. Even if they were physically restrained and falsely imprisoned.

America seriously needs to reconsider whether it was such a good idea to keep the southern states in the union back in the 19th century. There's just something wrong with a lot of people down there. Jindal needs those people to vote for him.

We're worried about science education in places that are effectively still holding witch trials. Maybe those places ought to be their own country. We can build a big fence along the border or something.

I'm very surprised that Jindal signed it, if only because, AIUI, he could have just done nothing and it would have passed. Had he done that there would still some uncertainty as to how much he actually supports pseudoscience, as opposed to just supporting the right of local boards to decide.

Now the microscope is (or ought to be) on John McCain. While he has defended "teach the controversy," unlike Jindal, who seems to be clued in on ID's evasion tactics, McCain has admitted accepting evolution. Given Jindal's biology degree, I would guess that he privately accepts it too. But he obviously has a prior commitment to having the masses think otherwise.

If McCain chooses Jindal, he might gain votes from the fundamentalist far right, where he is weakest, but lose votes from pro-science conservatives who don't want taxpayer-funded pseudoscience in science class. Either way, current polls show him with a big uphill battle.

Here is a copy of the Louisiana Science Education Act for anyone who has not yet read it for themselves.

http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=498719

Governor Jindal has done the right thing, btw. Promoting "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories" will only improve, not impair, science education.

FL :)

Eddie... wrote:

"...but not limited to, The Holocaust, The Apollo Moon Landings, The 9-11 Events and The Monster of Loch Ness."

You forgot to include the JFK assassination, Tooth Fairies and Coulter's book "Godless."

Oh yes, what FL said.

Why, there are so many alternative theories explaining the origins of biological diversity these days! One of the best has recently been put forward by Oklahoman John Sparacio. If anything, his brilliant new theory is even better supported by the evidence than anything else proposed as an alternate explanation. I'm certain that it will be put before students in Louisiana classrooms in no time at all.

There's so much garbage to choose from! There's hardly room for teaching anything resembling biology... and really, who needs it?

Once again we hear from a school board member (David Tate) who has no expertise in a subject, say how that subject should be taught. And he adds the utterly foolish mantra, "teach both sides and let the student decide." If I tried to decide for myself topics in history class (such as who won the Civil War, how the Vikings conquered the Incas, and the Babylonians' use of steam engines), I suspect those same idiots would object.

Jindal is just pandering to his base. The bill passed both houses by overwhelming majorities. He had to either sign it, or grow a backbone and find a real job as something other than a politician. Given his attitudes, he probably isn't going to be putting his Brown biology degree to work.

Louisiana has sent a clear message to the world that they just want to knock about in the basement of civilization forever. I've heard from Louisiana natives that companies tend to avoid setting up in that state. They have a hard time getting educated, skilled workers.

Another National Sacrifice Area but at least it is a voluntary one. Oil and gas drilling and the infrastructure for shipping facilities and refineries can be environmentally destructive to the point where states like Florida and California prohibit off shore drilling. Louisiana encourages it and my car thanks them for it.

And now we don't have to feel quite as guilty for not fixing their wrecked main city.

Governor Jindal has done the right thing, btw. Promoting “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories” will only improve, not impair, science education.

— FL

The bill probably won't make much difference. From various reports, schools in Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida just teach creationism anyway. It ratifies the status quo more than anything.

Might just as well start preparing for the inevitable court case.

Frank J said: I'm very surprised that Jindal signed it...

FL said: Governor Jindal has done the right thing, btw. Promoting "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories" will only improve, not impair, science education. FL :)

The most remarkable feature of the so-called Louisiana Science Education Act is its internal contradiction. Although it claims to "promote critical thinking skills and open discussion," it forbids critical thinking and open discussion about the motivation behind the bill when it proclaims by fiat that the act does not "promote any religious doctrine."

FL said: Governor Jindal has done the right thing, btw.

It would be interesting if a courageous teacher actually took advantage of the law to teach evolution actually based on the available data. Do you think such a teacher would be fire-bombed or lynched?

Hands up those who think that the title of a piece of legislation must be a concise statement of its real intended effect?

That many, huh? Well, now, as it happens, I have right here in my pocket the attested deeds to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and I am instructed by my principals to let it go for a song....

He did the right thing for his career.

FL said: Governor Jindal has done the right thing, btw. Promoting "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories" will only improve, not impair, science education.

Mike O'Risal said: America seriously needs to reconsider whether it was such a good idea to keep the southern states in the union back in the 19th century. There's just something wrong with a lot of people down there. Jindal needs those people to vote for him. We're worried about science education in places that are effectively still holding witch trials. Maybe those places ought to be their own country. We can build a big fence along the border or something.

Ben Abbott said: Any time spent on such alternatives will not improve a students grasp of knowledge and understanding of natural phenomena that we collectively refer to as "science".

John,

You're not going to reach Creationists. Not going to happen. Forget about it. If it were going to happen, it would have happened already.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with insoluble, multi-generational ignorance that has been ingrained as a cultural icon. YOu are looking at part of southern identity when you're looking at people like Donna Callaway, Bobby Jindal, David Gibbs, etc. It isn't going to change.

The most productive thing that can be done with people who identify in this way is to give them what they want. They want a theocracy. Fine. They should have one, but it shouldn't be part of the United States. They should have been let go 145 years ago.

As Mr Kwok points out, abandoning/dismissing/jettisoning/relegating to the styxs states/populations/people from this or other countries simply because they conflate their ignorance with piety, and wish to force others to do the same is obviously (at least it should be obvious) NOT AN OPTION. We must expose the self-destructive foolishness of these fools before they can achieve enough power to destroy everything. To exorcise these fools from our perceived social group is about as productive as saying, "I don't like this malignant carcinoma that's on my hand, I'll pretend it doesn't exist."

Stanton,

And how is your comment not bigotry in the eyes of those you think you're going to save from their "foolishness?" Do you still not understand that your "foolishness" is their core belief, part of what they consider their identity, and for that very reason the more of this "foolishness" you expose the more that you give them cause to celebrate the very leadership from which you're attempting to remove influence?

And enough of this nonsense about bigotry and trying to apply this to some supposed opinion I have about people of other ethnicities or nationalities. My partner of many years was born and raised in the Middle East. I certainly made no effort to dissuade her when she decided to become a US citizen.

I have yet to see any evidence that "exposing their foolishness" has any productive effect whatsoever. Time and time again on this very blog I see scientists complaining that Creationists keep saying the same things over and over again, make the same mischaracterizations for years and years, that they don't care about the evidence and that they ignore the repeated debunking of all of this... and yet you're going to reach them by positing one logical argument after another, referring to the same evidence time and again?

News flash, folks. The governor of Louisiana just signed an "academic freedom" creationism bill into law because he believes in it himself, because his state is dominated by people who agree with its aim of slipping The Wedge into science classrooms and he needs their votes, or both.

The Texas Supreme Court just stated that churches who injure people in the course of exorcisms can't be held civilly liable.

Florida's "academic freedom" bill died because it started too late in the legislative session, not because it doesn't enjoy broad support in that state. It will likely be back early in the next session and it will likely become law.

South Carolina's government is issuing religious-themed "I Believe" license plates.

I don't see where "exposing the foolishness" is having much of an effect on the ground, frankly.

This is not about "exorcising" a group, it's about giving people the right of self-determination. If that's what they want, they should have it. Your analogy of a malignancy is an apt one in one sense, however. You can't reason with a cancer, either. From where I sit, it looks like this cancer is spreading and becoming more established, not less.

Perhaps piety is precisely a product of ignorance in this case. Your wishing to convince others to renounce their ignorance, in that case, is exactly the same thing as demanding that they give up their piety. To such people, your attempts to educate are nothing more than attempts to get them to convert to your religion. In which case, reason is the enemy. It cannot be used to change the situation and, indeed, all evidence points to that being the case.

Mike O'Risal said: Stanton, And how is your comment not bigotry in the eyes of those you think you're going to save from their "foolishness?" Do you still not understand that your "foolishness" is their core belief, part of what they consider their identity, and for that very reason the more of this "foolishness" you expose the more that you give them cause to celebrate the very leadership from which you're attempting to remove influence? And enough of this nonsense about bigotry and trying to apply this to some supposed opinion I have about people of other ethnicities or nationalities. My partner of many years was born and raised in the Middle East. I certainly made no effort to dissuade her when she decided to become a US citizen. I have yet to see any evidence that "exposing their foolishness" has any productive effect whatsoever. Time and time again on this very blog I see scientists complaining that Creationists keep saying the same things over and over again, make the same mischaracterizations for years and years, that they don't care about the evidence and that they ignore the repeated debunking of all of this... and yet you're going to reach them by positing one logical argument after another, referring to the same evidence time and again?

I don't see where "exposing the foolishness" is having much of an effect on the ground, frankly. This is not about "exorcising" a group, it's about giving people the right of self-determination. If that's what they want, they should have it. Your analogy of a malignancy is an apt one in one sense, however. You can't reason with a cancer, either. From where I sit, it looks like this cancer is spreading and becoming more established, not less. Perhaps piety is precisely a product of ignorance in this case. Your wishing to convince others to renounce their ignorance, in that case, is exactly the same thing as demanding that they give up their piety. To such people, your attempts to educate are nothing more than attempts to get them to convert to your religion. In which case, reason is the enemy. It cannot be used to change the situation and, indeed, all evidence points to that being the case.

Mike O'Risal said: Stanton, And how is your comment not bigotry in the eyes of those you think you're going to save from their "foolishness?" Do you still not understand that your "foolishness" is their core belief, part of what they consider their identity, and for that very reason the more of this "foolishness" you expose the more that you give them cause to celebrate the very leadership from which you're attempting to remove influence?

So, then, please explain why it is pointless to appeal to the reason and or piety to those who do not conflate piety with ignorance? Why should we give up hope so easily then?

So then, what do you suggest we do about this? Exile all the creationists and their cronies to the South and secede from the Union? Round them all up on barges and noyade them all?

Also, please explain why my thinking of wanting to educate people, even on a person-to-person basis, about matters of evolutionary biology with the expressed purpose of dispelling preconceived misconceptions is bigotry. Please explain to me why going up to a creationist, and looking him deep into his pupils while asking him "Why do you hate to learn so much?" bigotry.

Mike O'Risal said: You know, when some preacher starts shouting verses about saving your soul, he thinks he's exposing your foolishness, too.

And did it ever occur to you that not all creationists are rabid, hellfire pulpit bullies who slaver over destroying and or converting their opponents? Did it ever occur to you that some are actually reasonable people who wound up listening to the wrong authority figures?

Mike O'Risal said: What I said was that they perceive it as such... because you're presuming to tell them that you're "educating" them in the first place. You're stating right here that they "hate to learn." That's bigotry, because you're telling them what it's worthwhile to learn about.

Who are you, exactly, to make that decision for them?

As far as they're concerned, they're learning all they need to know by studying the Bible and taking it literally. You're presuming to tell them that they're wrong. But that's part of their culture, and so what they're hearing is, "Your culture is wrong. You're learning the wrong things. Let me straighten you out."

Mike O'Risal said: The really nice ones will even pray for you.

Mike O'Risal said: Tip of the iceberg. The Texas Supreme Court has ruled as of yesterday that people who are injured in the course of exorcisms can't sue — even if the exorcism was performed against their will. Even if they were physically restrained and falsely imprisoned. America seriously needs to reconsider whether it was such a good idea to keep the southern states in the union back in the 19th century. There's just something wrong with a lot of people down there. Jindal needs those people to vote for him. We're worried about science education in places that are effectively still holding witch trials. Maybe those places ought to be their own country. We can build a big fence along the border or something.

You have to realize that you can not work to solve a problem if you are forbidden from talking about or even stating it.

So, in other words, I should keep my big fat mouth shut when I get the urge to point out that their culture really is wrong when they preach that scientists are lying, wishy-washy cultists, while simultaneously expecting the local scientific community to remain on the cutting edge in order to reap the benefits?

So, in other words, we should just give up on them, and hope that they kill themselves off sooner instead of later?

Does the term "a lot of those people down there" also refer to the good people of the jury who initially sided with Schubert and her family? Well, teach, I don't know. You tell me. Does the term "a lot" mean the same thing as "all?"

Does the term "a lot of those people down there" also refer to the good people of the jury who initially sided with Schubert and her family?

You’re not going to reach Creationists. Not going to happen. Forget about it. If it were going to happen, it would have happened already.

— Mike O'Risal

raven said: Jindal is just pandering to his base.

Frank J said: there is a ~25% segment of hopeless fundamentalists that will not concede evolution under any circumstances - plus a small % of activists who may privately accept it but will never admit it. But there's another ~25% that doubts evolution (or what they think is evolution) simply because they have been fed nothing but misleading feel-good sound bites. And another ~20% that accepts evolution (or what they think is evolution) but still falls for "its fair to teach the controversy."

As a felllow conservative Republican, I enjoyed hearing your views on “Face The Nation” last week. However, I strongly disagree with your support of the Louisiana Science Education Act (SB 733) and urge you to veto it immediately

Mike O'Risal said:

You have to realize that you can not work to solve a problem if you are forbidden from talking about or even stating it.

Where did I suggest that anyone should be forbidden from talking about anything?

harold said: The Republican party is broken, and although science-deniers are a big part of the reason, they're also ensconced in the internal power base. Why don't you stop using the name of a corrupt, broken party as a self-identifier?

"appeak to veto" should be "appeal to veto"

Where do your percentages come from? Polls consistently show that over 60% of all Americans, not just fundamentalists, favor teaching creationism either instead of or alongside evolution.

— tomh

Maybe he’s trying to redeem it?

harold said: John Kwok said -

As a felllow conservative Republican, I enjoyed hearing your views on “Face The Nation” last week. However, I strongly disagree with your support of the Louisiana Science Education Act (SB 733) and urge you to veto it immediately

Translation - "As a person who loves to hit myself in the head with a hammer, I strongly disagree with the headaches and lumps, and urge that I be able to hit myself with the same hammer over and over again, yet not suffer these effects". Sorry, John, you can't have it. The "conservative Republican" default is to deny climate change, restrict access to birth control, and shut down stem cell research in all cases, and to welcome those who deny evolution, seek to push creationism into public schools, and deny HIV into the fold. Almost all of those who do any of this self-identify as "conservative Republicans". By the way, a fair number of them also deny that cigarette smoking is related to disease. Of course there are people like you who call yourself "conservative Republican" and yet don't do any of this. It's just that all the many people who do all of this are also "conservative Republicans", so you're in a very small boat with a large number of them, and when you support them, you support the achievement of their objectives. A friend of mine describes people like you with the phrase "anything for a flat tax". I understand that it's hard to find a good old-fashioned "social Darwinist", "laissez-faire" party these days that doesn't also support crazy hypocritical authoritarian theocracy. Sorry John, but those things tend to travel together. The "social liberal" who wants to to impose harsh economic policies is compartively rare. Comparitively rare, but not non-existent. There are others like you. Bob Barr is running as a Libertarian. I don't know what his views on evolution are, but Barr has consistently surprised me with coherent support of constitutional rights in the past, despite his behavior during the Clinton years. He may very well be okay on science. And of course, there's also the fact that even if we pretend, purely for the sake of argument, that the ill-defined goals of "small government" (how small?), "lower taxes" (is there any level that's too low?), and "less regulation" (doesn't regulation often actually exist because of a former problem that was worse than the regulation?), not to mention "elimination of entitlements" (why never the entitlements that you yourselves benefit from?) have merit, the current Republican party actually does worse than its opposition by even those standards. The Republican party is broken, and although science-deniers are a big part of the reason, they're also ensconced in the internal power base. Why don't you stop using the name of a corrupt, broken party as a self-identifier?

Evolution is supposed to be a scientific idea, and shouldn't be connected to political beliefs, but judging from the people posting here, there seems to be a correlation. I think it's because the less you have in common with religious conservatives who reject evolution, the more visceral your reaction. It only serves to confirm suspicions that evolution IS connected to ideology, even though logic says otherwise.

I think the issue of evolution education is heading toward its logical conclusion. Inclusion of Creationism/intelligent design cannot be mandated because of the clear religious intent. However, the authority of local school boards to decide on ciriculum now takes center stage. Personally, I think local school boards should have a fair amount of autonomy. I see this as a pretty libertarian position that de-emphasizs the power of the state, and it fits well with American political tradition.

Most people here are probably very liberal, and want the state to mandate education, especially since it's the kind of education that you would want for your kids. What would you do if you felt the state was mandating too much, or requiring the use of ineffective practices? You would fight back, that's what you would do. You would want your local school board to have more control.

wallyk said: Inclusion of Creationism/intelligent design cannot be mandated because of the clear religious intent.

Personally, I think local school boards should have a fair amount of autonomy.

wallyk said: Evolution is supposed to be a scientific idea, and shouldn’t be connected to political beliefs, but judging from the people posting here, there seems to be a correlation.

Personally, I think local school boards should have a fair amount of autonomy.

Waterloo in the Bayou.

Stanton said:

Mike O'Risal said: You know, when some preacher starts shouting verses about saving your soul, he thinks he's exposing your foolishness, too.

And did it ever occur to you that not all creationists are rabid, hellfire pulpit bullies who slaver over destroying and or converting their opponents? Did it ever occur to you that some are actually reasonable people who wound up listening to the wrong authority figures?

wallyk said: Evolution is supposed to be a scientific idea, and shouldn't be connected to political beliefs, but judging from the people posting here, there seems to be a correlation. I think it's because the less you have in common with religious conservatives who reject evolution, the more visceral your reaction. It only serves to confirm suspicions that evolution IS connected to ideology, even though logic says otherwise.

Most people here are probably very liberal, and want the state to mandate education, especially since it's the kind of education that you would want for your kids. What would you do if you felt the state was mandating too much, or requiring the use of ineffective practices? You would fight back, that's what you would do. You would want your local school board to have more control.

promote critical thinking skills

Most people here are probably very liberal, and want the state to mandate education.

— wallyk

I don't know. I went onto youtube to plumb the depths, and those depths contain monsters. There's more lies and misinformation being peddled by these loons than anyone can cope with. What was it Terry Pratchett said, something about a lie getting half-way 'round the world before truth can get its boots on?

To understand why, you only have to read the comments on some of these videos. The most appalling ignorance, credulity and rank superstition passes as normal conversation, and unchallenged. Take a look at it, if you can stand to. I got sidetracked reading the wackaloon comments about the "Ica Stones", and it's like eating candy. It was fun for a while, but soon I started to feel ill. These are people who have jobs, pay taxes, vote, raise kids, serve on juries, make decisions - and they live in a mental world that has no correspondence with reality. They have no concept - none - of what constitutes evidence, or argument, or logical structure. Forget about a scientific education. Forget about an education of any kind. A sizeable moiety commenting on Youtube are profoundly and triumphantly irrational. Their world is formed of unreason, and they are quite happy that it should be. And if Youtube isn't a fair sample of technologically involved humanity, it'll do until one comes along.

It's enough to turn a person off democracy, that's what it is. How can the right of these people to free speech and freedom of religion be reconciled with the desperate necessity of keeping their hands off the levers of political power? Because if ever they gain either direct control of the State, or, what is more likely, a cabal of theocrats uses them to that end, it will be as if the enlightenment didn't happen, and it will be back to the Dark Ages.

Lenin's question occurs: what is to be done?

wallyk Making Stuff Up: Evolution is supposed to be a scientific idea, and shouldn’t be connected to political beliefs, but judging from the people posting here, there seems to be a correlation.

Until recently I thought that fears that ID/creationism would lead to a theocracy were overblown.

If anybody has any charitable thoughts toward Piyush "Bobby" (not his real name) Jindal, they will be dispelled in this story http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/79029/The-Power-of-Christ-Compels-Him.htm which details the exorcism he participated in and wrote about in 1994.

Jindal will make a most excellent Vice-Presidential candidate - I'm sure all the creationists will be very proud of him.

Dear France,

Please buy us back.

Laissez les bon temps roule!

Richiyaado
New Orleans, LA

Mike,

Creationism isn't restricted to Texas or the South. I spent the last 4 years in rural Pennsylvania. A majority of those good people are as rabidly anti-evolution as anyone you can find in Mississippi. Also, not everyone in Texas is irrational. We elected Rick Perry, but we also elected Ann Richards. We spent a lot of time reading Molly Ivins in Texas; some of that rationality took.

RW said: Creationism isn't restricted to Texas or the South. I spent the last 4 years in rural Pennsylvania. A majority of those good people are as rabidly anti-evolution as anyone you can find in Mississippi.

I still think liberals outnumber conservatives here. Is this relevant? Yes, when we are trying to argue that evolution is a scientific idea and not tied to any particular ideology. When people here frequently include evolution education on a long list of conservatives political issues with which they disagree, it reinforces the mistaken notion that evolution acceptance is connected to ideology. Would the moderator of these forums be interested in conducting a poll? That would be fine with me.

The issue of the authority of local school boards is a difficult one. I agree that people on school boards are not versed in technical subjects, and should probably defer to experts. However, state boards can be affected by politics, and can yield too much power.

Let's take the "new math". I've heard from many parents that this approach does not work very well and mostly confuses students. But state education boards often have strong proponents of "new" educational theories. Why shouldn't local school boards have the power to teach math in a way that works?

Evolution education is a different matter. It is not a method of education, it is a subject matter, and I agree that school board members are not qualified to evaluate it scientifically. Yet, they might feel the state board is politically motivated, or hostile to their religious concerns.

There is no easy solution. In the long run, I think school boards have to be educated about evolution. Local biology teachers will have to sit down and explain the basic concepts of evolution, and address the erroneous claims made by the ID movement, like "irreducible complexity". I think it's going to take awhile.

However, I strongly believe in the principles of the Republican Party (promoting freedom around the globe, limited government, etc.)

and know that they do not have to conflict with my understanding and acceptance of scientific fact, which, I admit, is contrary to what many so-called “conservative” Republicans subscribe to (e. g. recognition of global warming, support open access to birth control, and support vigorous stem cell scientific research).

As for Barr, I don’t know, but I do recall reading that Ron Paul was in favor of Intelligent Design as an “alternative” to evolution, which, of course, I am strongly opposed to, not merely because of my scientific training in evolutionary biology, but frankly, because simple common sense tells me to oppose anything that reeks of pseudoscientific religious nonsense and is also mendacious intellectual pornography.

I still think liberals outnumber conservatives here. Is this relevant?

Yes, when we are trying to argue that evolution is a scientific idea and not tied to any particular ideology.

When people here frequently include evolution education on a long list of conservatives political issues with which they disagree, it reinforces the mistaken notion that evolution acceptance is connected to ideology.

Would the moderator of these forums be interested in conducting a poll? That would be fine with me.

Evolution has been attacked by Marxists in the USSR...

wallyk said: I still think liberals outnumber conservatives here.

raven said: Lysenko set Soviet biology and agriculture back by decades and they eventually gave it up out of necessity.

wallyk said: I still think liberals outnumber conservatives here. Is this relevant? Yes, when we are trying to argue that evolution is a scientific idea and not tied to any particular ideology. When people here frequently include evolution education on a long list of conservatives political issues with which they disagree, it reinforces the mistaken notion that evolution acceptance is connected to ideology. Would the moderator of these forums be interested in conducting a poll? That would be fine with me.

Interesting that exorcism has come up in the comments here.

Some took hope knowing Gov. Jindal studied Biology at Brown.

As it turns out, though, it would have been more predictive to consider his history as an exorcist !!! See

http://curricublog.org/2008/06/29/exorcist-governor/

38 Utah -6.30 33 -5 44 Louisiana -10.95 45 1 1 Vermont 18.57 1 0

There is no easy solution. In the long run, I think school boards have to be educated about evolution. Local biology teachers will have to sit down and explain the basic concepts of evolution, and address the erroneous claims made by the ID movement, like “irreducible complexity”. I think it’s going to take awhile.

raven said: Louisiana ranked #44 nationwide in secondary school educational achievement. I doubt if they care all that much.

Another poster at PT by the name of Mark Hausam, from whom FL took many of his cues, also argued in this manner.

....There is a very good chance that the current Supreme Court will uphold this Act if it comes to that.

"How sweeeeeeeet it is!!"

harold said: More importantly, Mark Hausam said something that led me to believe that he was hinting that Biblical punishments like stoning to death for adultery should be the law of the land. I challenged him, and refused to give an answer, on the grounds that we would consider him "barbaric" if he did so. If he does advocate such punishments, it isn't merely distasteful, it's open contempt for the US constitution, the Eighth Amendment of which clearly forbids such punishments. I frankly doubt if they were used much by the Ancient Hebrews themselves. [original emphasis]

There are some authoritarian movements with some values that overlap with mine. Communism rejects racism and sexism; so do I, but that doesn't make me join the communists in supporting a totalitarian government in charge of a total command economy. [...]

A final point. Wallk claim that posters here complain about a "list of conservative issues" or some such thing. That claim was false. The only reason that politics comes up here is that ID/creationism is a political activity. Creationists make science political. Scientists just try to do science, whatever their politics.

FL said: You are correct.

harold said: The only reason that politics comes up here is that ID/creationism is a political activity. Creationists make science political. Scientists just try to do science, whatever their politics.

But that discussion is not what this thread is for, and so I have no further response to Mike on that issue. For now, the issue on the table is the Louisiana Science Education Act.

FL Can can shout Red is Blue all you wish. Blue will always be Blue.

iml8 said: However, for them to introduce such doctrines into public science education is a different matter. If there is no scientific merit to the doctrines, then the attempt to teach them in science classes is an attempt to push an ideological viewpoint on the rest of the citizenry and is obviously unconstitutional ...

Thanks for the post linking to Flint's rather nicely put comments on the general delusion of the FL brand.

But, I don't agree that the bible is irrelevant. It's actually detrimental. As long as scientifically illiterate types like FL continue to flail about in their black holes of stupidity, their
bible continues to support their ignorance and encourages them to press on against rationality. The bible is a thick book full of superstition, myths, pornography, violence, bronze age myths intertwined with two thousand year old savior myths, and it has been a tool used repeatedly by the religious to hold western civilization in thrall.

I wish the damned thing was irrelevant. It certainly has nothing to contribute to our knowledge of our world and our place in it.

Now that the good burghers of Louisiana have opened the door to biblical creation myths in the science classroom, one can be sure that Louisiana will continue to hover at the bottom of the heap in terms of the educational level of its students.

tomh said: For anyone interested, there is a very readable law review article analysing the current situation, Evolution and the Holy Ghost of Scopes: Can Science Lose the Next Round?, available here.

But Flint summed it up eloquently on that previous discussion. I can’t add anything to that.

"This Section shall not be construed 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."

But you know, all that rejection of the Bible doesn’t mean anything for this particular thread.

FL said: Besides, as the LSEA itself points out:

"This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine..."

Such wording seems more than clear enough...

I can only say, after checking this with a friend who teaches science at a private religious secondary school, that this approach would not fly in Australia. There is an abolute prohibition here on teaching creationism in science class at all, in any school. The school that did it, private or not, would have its licence pulled and could no longer operate. Its operators would be dragged into court and fined out the wazoo.

Home-schoolers (they're rare here, but not unknown, especially in remote areas) must conform to State curricula, and these do, most emphatically, include science standards which require understanding of the theory of evolution, and do not allow creationism in any form to be taught as science. "Scripture", "catechism", "religious studies" or "(insert name of holy book here) study" may be taught at private schools as a non-assessed subject, but the State science curriculum must be met, and any school must offer an approved science stream, or make arrangements for students to attend a campus that does. Science is a mandatory subject until Grade 10, and after that at least one science subject is required for college entrance.

My friend, who is a devout and active Quaker, expressed surprise that it is actually possible in the USA even for a private school not to teach the theory of evolution as known fact, and was boggled by the suggestion that creationism could be smuggled into US public schools by the back door. She remarked that in any public school here, the parents would be up in arms over such a thing.

In her school she had come across parents who were fundamentalists, and had once had to explain to one family that teaching the theory of evolution was not negotiable. The school principal, in whose office this interview took place, backed her to the hilt. She supposes that in some of the more extreme (and small) "Christian colleges" - usually Baptist - there might be more of a nod and wink approach, and some soft-pedalling of evolution. But you either teach it or you go out of the school business, here. And in State schools - that is, public schools - the question simply does not arise.

On the other hand, no school, state or private, is prohibited from celebrating religious holidays. So we have Christmas, Holi, Buddha's Birthday, End of Ramadan, Yom Kippur, and whatever, marked at assemblies. I imagine that this could not happen in an American public school, given the Constitutional prohibition. Or am I wrong?

harold said: John Kwok said -

As a felllow conservative Republican, I enjoyed hearing your views on “Face The Nation” last week. However, I strongly disagree with your support of the Louisiana Science Education Act (SB 733) and urge you to veto it immediately

Translation - "As a person who loves to hit myself in the head with a hammer, I strongly disagree with the headaches and lumps, and urge that I be able to hit myself with the same hammer over and over again, yet not suffer these effects". Sorry, John, you can't have it. The "conservative Republican" default is to deny climate change, restrict access to birth control, and shut down stem cell research in all cases, and to welcome those who deny evolution, seek to push creationism into public schools, and deny HIV into the fold. Almost all of those who do any of this self-identify as "conservative Republicans". By the way, a fair number of them also deny that cigarette smoking is related to disease. Of course there are people like you who call yourself "conservative Republican" and yet don't do any of this. It's just that all the many people who do all of this are also "conservative Republicans", so you're in a very small boat with a large number of them, and when you support them, you support the achievement of their objectives. A friend of mine describes people like you with the phrase "anything for a flat tax". I understand that it's hard to find a good old-fashioned "social Darwinist", "laissez-faire" party these days that doesn't also support crazy hypocritical authoritarian theocracy. Sorry John, but those things tend to travel together. The "social liberal" who wants to to impose harsh economic policies is compartively rare. Comparitively rare, but not non-existent. There are others like you. Bob Barr is running as a Libertarian. I don't know what his views on evolution are, but Barr has consistently surprised me with coherent support of constitutional rights in the past, despite his behavior during the Clinton years. He may very well be okay on science. And of course, there's also the fact that even if we pretend, purely for the sake of argument, that the ill-defined goals of "small government" (how small?), "lower taxes" (is there any level that's too low?), and "less regulation" (doesn't regulation often actually exist because of a former problem that was worse than the regulation?), not to mention "elimination of entitlements" (why never the entitlements that you yourselves benefit from?) have merit, the current Republican party actually does worse than its opposition by even those standards. The Republican party is broken, and although science-deniers are a big part of the reason, they're also ensconced in the internal power base. Why don't you stop using the name of a corrupt, broken party as a self-identifier?

What difference does it make? If it comes back 95% “conservative” or 95% “liberal”, it is a FACT that attacks on the teaching of evolution are associated, in the contemporary US, with “conservative Republicans”. That may change, but right now it’s the way it is. Deal with it.

— harold

Dave Luckett said: I can only say, after checking this with a friend who teaches science at a private religious secondary school, that this approach would not fly in Australia. There is an abolute prohibition here on teaching creationism in science class at all, in any school. The school that did it, private or not, would have its licence pulled and could no longer operate. Its operators would be dragged into court and fined out the wazoo.

Torbjörn larsson, OM said: Pretty much the same over here AFAIU. IIRC a religious private school tried teaching creationism instead of biology around 2005-6, but the school inspection thwarted them.

harold said: Naturally I favor non-violent "promoting freedom around the globe". Who wouldn't?

harold said: I understand that it's hard to find a good old-fashioned "social Darwinist", "laissez-faire" party these days that doesn't also support crazy hypocritical authoritarian theocracy. Sorry John, but those things tend to travel together. The "social liberal" who wants to to impose harsh economic policies is compartively rare. Comparitively rare, but not non-existent. There are others like you. Bob Barr is running as a Libertarian. I don't know what his views on evolution are, but Barr has consistently surprised me with coherent support of constitutional rights in the past, despite his behavior during the Clinton years. He may very well be okay on science.

iml8 said: That is not the case in the USA. You can teach what you like in your own schools or home schooling. There is the slight problem of being *accredited* when a student goes on to advanced education in the mainstream, but this can be addressed (at least to a degree) by entrance exams.

iml8 said: I personally defend the right of groups to teach whatever they like to their kids in their own schools as long as it doesn't cross the line into encouraging violence or the like. It is disagreeable for parents to teach their kids pseudoscience, but if the alternative is to infringe on the rights of groups to believe and raise their kids as they see fit, it is the much lesser of evils.

FL said: But you know, all that rejection of the Bible doesn't mean anything for this particular thread.

Besides, as the LSEA itself points out:

"This Section shall not be construed 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."

Such wording seems more than clear enough

Such wording seems more than clear enough

the bill was drafted and redrafted with the goal of preserving its religious objectives while trying to make it litigation-proof.

Eric said: The Mormons have been doing legitimate new world archaeology for decades, because their religious books tell them there should be new world precolombian Jewish settlements. They haven't found any, but they do legit science as they search.

Every time I now read something by keith, I envision a pissed-off cockroach who can't find a place to hide. :-)

Mike Elzinga said: Every time I now read something by keith, I envision a pissed-off cockroach who can't find a place to hide. :-)

Mike Elzinga said: Every time I now read something by keith, I envision a pissed-off cockroach who can't find a place to hide. :-)

Dave Thomas said:

Mike Elzinga said: Every time I now read something by keith, I envision a pissed-off cockroach who can't find a place to hide. :-)

AFAICT, Keith hasn't posted on this thread. Perhaps a different one? Dave

iml8 said:

Eric said: The Mormons have been doing legitimate new world archaeology for decades, because their religious books tell them there should be new world precolombian Jewish settlements. They haven't found any, but they do legit science as they search.

I wasn't aware of that, but I can believe it. If you want to get real geneological expertise, the Mormons are the place to go -- they have some of the world's best geneological infosystems in place. I believe this relates to the notion of retroactive baptism, where you can have your deceased ancestors baptized so they can get out of the slammer and through the gates of heaven. However, I asked a Mormon acquaintance about this one time and he genially dodged the question ... I think Mormons have a tradition from their time of persecution of not going out of their way to discuss the more unorthodox of their doctrines with the gentiles. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html

That's ok mikey, another dumb move on your part is hardly surprising.

keith said: That's ok mikey, another dumb move on your part is hardly surprising.