Springboro Update

Posted 6 August 2011 by Richard B. Hoppe

Kelly Kohls, the nutritionist and school board member in Springboro, Ohio, who advocated teaching creationism in that district, has revised her position. She now says that she

...wants parents of students in public schools to have options if they want their children to learn about theories like intelligent design.

and that

... parents should have the choice of using state funds to send their children to other schools if they want to learn about creationism and intelligent design.

A potential route, she thinks, is school vouchers, where state money is paid to parents to send their children to private, often sectarian, schools. Read more in the Dayton Daily News. One parent quoted there has exactly the right idea:

Tina Gangl, who has a daughter in Springboro elementary school and a son at the nearby Catholic Bishop Fenwick High School, said public schools should not teach religion. "We need to educate our children about science," Gangl said, "If I want to teach my religion to my kids I'll send them to a religious school. There is no place for it in public school."

171 Comments

Richard B. Hoppe · 6 August 2011

I should also mention that the Columbus Dispatch had a strong editorial on the topic this morning. A couple of excerpts:

Teaching “creation science” would imperil taxpayers, who would be dragged into a costly legal fight, as well as students, whose education would be hobbled by being taught theology as science. Teaching creationism does not further the understanding of biology any more than a horoscope explains astronomy.

and

Science seeks explanations. Creationism begins with the conclusion. C.A. Colson, a chemist and devout Christian, spoke to this point when, in the 1950s, he said, “When we come to the scientifically unknown, our correct position is not to rejoice because we have found God; it is to become better scientists.”

mrg · 6 August 2011

Kelly Kohls, the nutritionist and school board member in Springboro, Ohio, who advocated teaching creationism in that district, has revised her position.

I find that encouraging -- it means she's noticed the rising uproar and did so fairly quickly. I would suspect she will continue to revise her position until it becomes an ineffectual statement of aspirations with no trace of a plan.

anonatheist · 6 August 2011

The teabaggers with their school vouchers and homeschooling are insidious. It's going to cause us to have a generation of idiots.

Chris Lawson · 6 August 2011

Kohls is expressly advocating the use of school vouchers in order to teach creationism with public funding. Doesn't this nicely illustrate that tax or education vouchers can be used to violate separation of church and state? And doesn't this show the lie behind the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision in the Supreme Court?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm4J0GJl4h6ciTqHzQIbik93O8pkbplZuc · 6 August 2011

Here's a simple solution: How about interested churches set up a collection of creationist or ID books that members can borrow. They could call it their "church library". Motivated churchgoers could purchase and donate the books.

Why should taxpayer money be involved *at all*?

Most likely, the concern is that, gosh, this plan wouldn't reach the residents who don't go to a creationist church. Well, tough. Get cracking and convince people to start attending.

Dave Luckett · 6 August 2011

The position in this country is somewhat as Ms Kohls wishes it. The Government runs schools directly - these are called "State schools", because the expression "public school" is ambivalent - but it also subsidises private schools, which are mostly Church schools. In fact, the State system could not possibly accommodate all students. 35% of students attend private schools.

The subsidy to private schools covers a large part of their costs, but they still charge fees, the better equipped the school, the higher the fee. Somewhat like the "gap" fee for medical services. The top private schools - confusingly called "public schools" - can charge $12000 per year in tuition fees alone.

But the State subsidy - which in practice no school can do without - comes with a condition and a compulsion. The school must submit to inspection, and in both elementary and secondary education must offer a mandatory science program which must include at least the basics of the Theory of Evolution. It must teach these to the State standards, and its students must perform well enough in tests to satisfy this.

I was astonished to learn that my son's biology teacher was a closet creationist. Had I known at the time, I would seriously have considered withdrawing him from that school, which was a (liberal) Christian one. But it did not come to my attention. In the first place, my son did not opt for biology in years 11 and 12, taking physics and chemistry instead, in a math-heavy program, so he only did biology up to year 10. In the second, that teacher did a pretty reasonable job of teaching evolution, and as far as I can discover, never mentioned his fundamentalist beliefs in a science class. There was a Bible on the bookshelf in that classroom - there was one in all the classrooms. The English Literature teacher sometimes referred to it, because the class was studying Milton and Blake, and I have no problem with that at all.

I have no doubt that in the further wildernesses of the private Schools, out among those run by the kookier Christian sects, and possibly the Muslim ones, there are "biology" teachers who don't dissemble their creationism and only teach a wink-wink nudge-nudge version of biology. I also know from listening to a friend in the Education Department that the more 'way out there the sect is, the more carefully their school is inspected, and especially its science department. And it either teaches the State science curriculum to an acceptable standard, or the governing body doesn't get a licence to run a school.

Home schooling is a very rare option here - it's only allowed for some classes of special students and the very isolated in remote areas. But in theory at least, the very few home-schoolers must also meet the State curriculum standards, and their child is tested against them.

I realise of course that the vast majority of Americans attend what we would call "State schools" for their elementary and secondary education. But I wonder if the rise of "home-schooling" in the US could be addressed by such a system as described above. The content of "home-schooling", I understand, is widely various. Is it Constitutionally possible for the State to subsidise private schools that teach their own religious views, observances and practices, on condition that they also teach acceptable science? If so, would this deprive the whackos of oxygen?

Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2011

Dave Luckett said: I realise of course that the vast majority of Americans attend what we would call "State schools" for their elementary and secondary education. But I wonder if the rise of "home-schooling" in the US could be addressed by such a system as described above. The content of "home-schooling", I understand, is widely various. Is it Constitutionally possible for the State to subsidise private schools that teach their own religious views, observances and practices, on condition that they also teach acceptable science? If so, would this deprive the whackos of oxygen?

The community in which I live in the US is a mixture of essentially moderate and very conservative churches in the North. There are a number of Reformed type churches that draw their materials from the likes of Ken Ham. Many of these churches supported Duane Gish’s attempts to intimidate biology teachers when he lived and worked here. And every now and then, we have a flare-up in the stealth teaching of creationism in various schools in the surrounding districts. There was a messy and expensive incident here during the time that the trial was going on in Dover, PA. It is “officially” opposed here; but teachers who insist on including evolution as the backbone of their courses are routinely tag-team harassed by parents over many years as the children of these parents pass though these courses. And while there is nominal support from administrators, the teachers themselves frequently complain that dealing with such parents year after year after year begins to take its toll on their enthusiasm and dedication. Complaints like this come especially from teachers I know who teach in accelerated programs for gifted and talented high school students taking college level courses. So the “official” policies of the various school districts hide much of what is taking place beneath the surface and doesn’t come to the attention of the general public. The curriculum and the general success of the students do not reflect the routine harassment of teachers who actually teach evolution. I also know some people who home school their children. They use Beka Books apparently because the home schooling network around here pushes this stuff.

bigdakine · 7 August 2011

Chris Lawson said: Kohls is expressly advocating the use of school vouchers in order to teach creationism with public funding. Doesn't this nicely illustrate that tax or education vouchers can be used to violate separation of church and state? And doesn't this show the lie behind the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision in the Supreme Court?

There is something unsavory to me about a public school board member actually advocating that money actually be taken from public ed and given to private schools.

Ron Okimoto · 7 August 2011

Two other board members, Scott Anderson and Gentry Ellis, both agreed the debate was a distraction, but said they would support an elective class on world religions similar to courses taught at the college level that would allow students to explore other beliefs about creation. Kohls said she might support such a class. “If my board thinks that would increase the boundaries of the topic, I think so,” she said. “I think my board is very enlightened and has the children’s best interest at heart.”

This has been a viable option for creationism since Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) but no school districts that I know of have ever tried the honest and viable option. The problem is that the goal of most of the rabble rousers is to not educate their kids, but keep them as ignorant as possible. The last thing that they want is their kids exposed to other religious beliefs. They want only their religious beliefs to be covered in the public schools. These same people can't get the concept of separation of church and state. It is there to protect them as well as other people that do not share their religious beliefs. Kohl is also now claiming that intelligent design theory may be viable to teach. The same reason that no schools have tried the honest and viable option is the main reason that we have never seen an intelligent design lesson plan for the public schools written by the ID perps at the Discovery Institute. An honest lesson plan teaching the most scientific intelligent design science would tick off their most rabid creationist support base (and would still be laughable in the science department). Any IDiot that doesn't believe this, just has to try to get such a lesson plan from the ID perps, or make one up and submit it to the ID perps for evaluation and get back here with the results. Why is it that in all the years that the ID perps have been lying about the science of intelligent design that no IDiots ever question why no ID lesson plan has ever been put forward to demonstrate that there is any intelligent design science worth teaching? It should seem strange that none of the IDiot supporters wants to know exactly what would be taught and how it would be taught. Really, what is the purpose of the ID creationist scam? What is the best ID science available and how would it be taught?

Paul Burnett · 7 August 2011

Ron Okimoto said: The problem is that the goal of most of the rabble rousers is to not educate their kids, but keep them as ignorant as possible.

Didn't the goal used to be that parents wanted their kids to be better educated? How did that social value get turned around?

The last thing that they want is their kids exposed to other religious beliefs.

The fundagelicals seem to prefer that their kids don't know that there are alternatives - they don't want their kids exposed to the fact that there are other religious beliefs.

Ron Okimoto · 7 August 2011

Paul Burnett said:
Ron Okimoto said: The problem is that the goal of most of the rabble rousers is to not educate their kids, but keep them as ignorant as possible.
Didn't the goal used to be that parents wanted their kids to be better educated? How did that social value get turned around?
The last thing that they want is their kids exposed to other religious beliefs.
The fundagelicals seem to prefer that their kids don't know that there are alternatives - they don't want their kids exposed to the fact that there are other religious beliefs.

Just look at the "teach the controversy" ploy that the ID perps have had to use as the switch scam in the bait and switch because they don't have any ID science worth teaching? The only goal of the ploy is to blow enough smoke over the issue in order to keep the kids as ignorant ans possible. There is no positive reason for it. They can't mention that their religious beliefs have any place in any scientific explanation for these controversies. It is just whining to be whining. Just take the Ohio model lesson plan. What were the kids supposed to learn from the lesson and how were the teachers going to evaluate if they learned what they were supposed to have learned? Nay saying just to be nay saying is stupid and dishonest. http://www.ohioscience.org/lesson-plans.shtml They have the draft and the final version at this site. The draft version was pretty pathetic. They got caught including the lie about no moths on tree trunks straight out of Well's claptrap book. They also were stupid enough to put in creationist web links in a lesson that was supposed to be about the science. All mention of the Discovery Institute was deleted out of the final version. They didn't even cite Wells' book even though it was apparent that they still got the junk from the book. The book "Icons of Evolution" obviously needs a sticker in it to warn creationist rubes that the book is not suitable as a teaching resource for the public schools. The Ohio IDiots learned that the hard way. IDiots should try to figure out what the students were supposed to learn from this lesson. Remember this is what the ID perps feed the IDiots instead of giving them any ID science to teach. The bait and switch has been going down for over 9 years. It is a bogus scam that the ID perps are not running on the science side, but on their own creationist supporters. What do the IDiot rubes get from the ID perps instead of any ID science?

Frank J · 7 August 2011

They use Beka Books apparently because the home schooling network around here pushes this stuff.
— Mike Elzinga

The operative word is "pushes." Over the last 50 years I have noticed a distinct inverse correlation between the quality of a product/service and how hard the salesperson "pushes" it. The reason ought to be obvious: the less a product/service has going for it, the more one needs to resort to half-truths to "get it out the door." Thus without even considering the evidence, evolution must be a high quality item because there's no effort at all to hide any of its weaknnesses (the real ones, such as that it doesn't claim to explain how life originated). If anything, evolution is "undersold," yet manages to "sell itself" like the highest quality products and services usually do. On that note, one of my biggest complaints to fellow "Darwinists" is that when the subject of censorship comes up, invariably by anti-evolution activists accusing us of advocating it, the typical response is merely to show that that accusation is baseless. That the anti-evolution activists might the effective censors, is not even considered, even though it is demonstrably true. Every time they "push" their "alternative science" they deliberately censor the fatal lack of evidence and mutual contradictions that plague it, as well as the refutations of their constanly recycled misrepresentations of evolution and the nature of science.

Frank J · 7 August 2011

The book “Icons of Evolution” obviously needs a sticker in it to warn creationist rubes that the book is not suitable as a teaching resource for the public schools.
— Ron Okimoto

Yet it is a great resource for a non-science class, to show how peddlers of pseudoscience snake oil operate. Of course it would have to be accompanied by a point-by-point rebuttal by those who actually produce the results in those fields. If these scam artists truly wanted critical thinking, that's what they would demand. But of course they would not be caught dead demanding that. BTW, if the ID scammers really wanted to put their money where their mouths are with the "ID is not creationism" whine, all they have to do is put a sticker in books like "Icons," "Darwin's Black Box" etc., stating clearly that the book does not contain any evidence whatsoever in support of a young Earth, young life or independent origin of "kinds."

Frank J · 7 August 2011

[And elective class on world religions] has been a viable option for creationism since Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) but no school districts that I know of have ever tried the honest and viable option.
— Ron Okimoto

But they could (and probably do) defend their avoidance of that option using the same excuse that they use for their "science" class - that their "theory" is not religious. The excuse may be lame, but it sells to "fence-sitters," and that's all they need. But they don't have even a lame excuse for avoiding the option I suggested - a class on pseudoscience and how it fails.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/n2WhMtEQrvsReG10Z0oryyrwcalqfxDNMct2#93ec7 · 7 August 2011

There is no place for it in public school.”

I also disagree that there's no place for teaching religion in a public school. You just don't teach it in a science class, but you can teach it in some world religions class. You can learn that a minority of Christians endorse a literal 6-day creation 6000 years ago as well as learning the creation accounts (and beliefs) of other religions. I expect the public schools to provide a well-rounded education (art, music, science, world religions--I'd also like them to teach critical thinking skills, logical fallacies, and as long as I'm wishing, free unicorns for all).

John_S · 7 August 2011

Ron Okimoto said:
The problem is that the goal of most of the rabble rousers is to not educate their kids, but keep them as ignorant as possible.

Actually, I suspect the goal is not to educate their own kids, which they could easily do themselves, but to beat some ol' time religion into everyone else's godless, devil-spawned brats. Somehow, it's believed that making kids study the Bible and recite the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer each morning teaches them not to grow up into latte-sipping, Prius-driving queers, vegetarians or Democrats.

harold · 7 August 2011

Dave Luckett said -

The top private schools - confusingly called “public schools” - can charge $12000 per year in tuition fees alone.

The tuition and fees for top private schools in the US are at least double to triple that, likely quadruple or more in many cases. Many of the most prestigious are technically but loosely affiliated with a liberal Protestant denomination. Some have scholarship programs. Catholic schools have a tradition of relatively low tuition, although this is breaking down. I don't know what fundamentalist schools charge; one reason for the creationist obsession with public schools is that given the large number of sects, the rural location of many congregants and the large number of low income co-religionists, fundamentalist private schools aren't as widespread as other types of private schools. Paradoxically, the US public school system produces excellent results by international standards, except in very low income areas. The people who use expensive private schools are the same ones who have access to the best public schools. However, there are explanations for that, not necessarily directly related to academics. The function of the private schools is variable. A common theme of the very top ones is that they help get less gifted or more troublesome children of the elite through school and into the best possible university for the individual case; a large part of the implicit function is remedial/disciplinary. (Another, completely different, type of fancy private school is the type that provides "loosely structured" or very artistically enriched education; these tend to be laughed at but overall have an excellent track record; their secret may be that they use rigorous entry tests; they end up with motivated, gifted children from enriched environments to begin with.) Bigdakine said

There is something unsavory to me about a public school board member actually advocating that money actually be taken from public ed and given to private schools

Other than our disagreement about various peoples' political rhetoric, I've tended to agree with your comments. I am personally totally opposed to any government funding of private or religious schools whatsoever, and this story illustrates why. If a school in any way shape or form promotes ID/creationism, that is strong discrimination against non-fundamentalists and deception of fundamentalists. I support the right of private religious schools to teach mythology as fact. If this is done to the exclusion of science, their graduates may not qualify to take certain university courses without remedial material first, or may not qualify legally as high school graduates without remedial material. However, as long as the minimum mandatory education requirements are met (and no jurisdiction legally requires a high school diploma), I support their right to express their religious beliefs. But not with tax dollars. For example, I have no problem with teaching "about" ID/creationism in social studies class, EXCEPT that this could be and probably would be used as a ruse. "Your science teacher was 'required by the government' to teach evolution, but I just want to tell you that hundreds of scientists reject evolution and favor Intelligent Design, yuk, yuk, yuk". Inaccurate depiction of sectarian religious dogma as science in ANY class, in ANY school that receives ANY direct tax funding, is something I oppose. Kohls seems to openly propose using taxpayer-provided vouchers for schools that in some way or form teach creationism as science, whether directly, or through the use of a cheap trick like teaching evolution "by the book" in science class and then teaching that "maybe what you just learned in science class is wrong, wink, wink" in another class. That is religious discrimination and a waste of public resources, and should not be permitted.

Frank J · 7 August 2011

You can learn that a minority of Christians endorse a literal 6-day creation 6000 years ago...
— https...

Actually, I suspect the goal is not to educate their own kids, which they could easily do themselves, but to beat some ol’ time religion into everyone else’s godless, devil-spawned brats.
— John_S

You're both right, which it's why it's extremely important to be clear as to which demographic we are referring to, and to resist lumping them all under a wishy-washy "creationist" label - which alone only helps the scam artists prop up the big tent. Here are some numbers that I have obtained from many sources over the years: Approx % of adult Americans that: 1. Either has doubts of evolution or thinks it's fair to teach "both sides" in science class: 70. 2. Will not admit evolution under any circumstances: 25. 3. Believes that the Earth - not just its life - is less than 10,000 years old: 20. (note: 2 and 3 don't completely overlap, so the stereotypical hopeless YEC is maybe 15%) 4. Actively promote long-refuted arguments against evolution: less than 1. Group 4 almost exclusively home schools their kids or pays for a fundamentalist education. But they are on a mission to "save" others' children. On the taxpayers' dime. From what I can tell, most of group 4 does not think that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. But they are increasingly skilled at evading questions about what they think happened, and when, instead of "Darwinism."

Mike Elzinga · 7 August 2011

Ron Okimoto said: Why is it that in all the years that the ID perps have been lying about the science of intelligent design that no IDiots ever question why no ID lesson plan has ever been put forward to demonstrate that there is any intelligent design science worth teaching? It should seem strange that none of the IDiot supporters wants to know exactly what would be taught and how it would be taught. Really, what is the purpose of the ID creationist scam? What is the best ID science available and how would it be taught?

Just reading anything that Dembski writes can get us the answer to that question. There is so much irony-filled whining in ID/creationist screeds that I suspect even an inexperienced student can compare this kind of crap against what appears in a real science textbook and determine which one is full of crap. Dembski pathos is always good for a laugh; but why waste good class time to go wallow in creepy, maudlin whining?

mrg · 7 August 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Dembski pathos is always good for a laugh; but why waste good class time to go wallow in creepy, maudlin whining?

I tend to identify Dembski more with "snark". Behe doesn't seem to be such a bad sort personally -- get onto RATE MY PROFESSORS and his students seem to find him agreeable enough -- but calling Dembski a jerk is just a statement of fact, and given how determined he is to convince people he's a jerk, there's the outside chance that he finds it flattering.

John · 7 August 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Ron Okimoto said: Why is it that in all the years that the ID perps have been lying about the science of intelligent design that no IDiots ever question why no ID lesson plan has ever been put forward to demonstrate that there is any intelligent design science worth teaching? It should seem strange that none of the IDiot supporters wants to know exactly what would be taught and how it would be taught. Really, what is the purpose of the ID creationist scam? What is the best ID science available and how would it be taught?
Just reading anything that Dembski writes can get us the answer to that question. There is so much irony-filled whining in ID/creationist screeds that I suspect even an inexperienced student can compare this kind of crap against what appears in a real science textbook and determine which one is full of crap. Dembski pathos is always good for a laugh; but why waste good class time to go wallow in creepy, maudlin whining?

Dembski should be viewed as evil incarnate especially in light of his false accusation of eminent University ecologist Eric Pianka as a potential bioterrorist back in 2006 to the Federal Department of Homeland Security (Pianka was investigated.), for stealing the Harvard University cell animation video produced by the CT-based scientific animation firm XVIVO, and for other mendacious and larcenous acts. In stark contrast, Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe are near saints compared to Dembski.

John · 7 August 2011

https://me.yahoo.com/a/n2WhMtEQrvsReG10Z0oryyrwcalqfxDNMct2#93ec7 said:
There is no place for it in public school.”
I also disagree that there's no place for teaching religion in a public school. You just don't teach it in a science class, but you can teach it in some world religions class. You can learn that a minority of Christians endorse a literal 6-day creation 6000 years ago as well as learning the creation accounts (and beliefs) of other religions. I expect the public schools to provide a well-rounded education (art, music, science, world religions--I'd also like them to teach critical thinking skills, logical fallacies, and as long as I'm wishing, free unicorns for all).

Agreed, but a course on comparative religions would be most suitable, including not only Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism but also Pastafarian and Klingon Cosmology.

Ron Okimoto · 7 August 2011

John_S said:
Ron Okimoto said:
The problem is that the goal of most of the rabble rousers is to not educate their kids, but keep them as ignorant as possible.
Actually, I suspect the goal is not to educate their own kids, which they could easily do themselves, but to beat some ol' time religion into everyone else's godless, devil-spawned brats. Somehow, it's believed that making kids study the Bible and recite the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer each morning teaches them not to grow up into latte-sipping, Prius-driving queers, vegetarians or Democrats.

This may be true of the leaders of the ID scam (just read the wedge document). Guys like Johnson, Dembski and Behe likely aren't into the dishonest politics to keep their own kids as ignorant as possible. They likely have spent enough time brainwashing them on their own. These guys have lost their moral compass and seem to have the notion that the world will go to hell unless the unwashed masses can get their morals out of a book. The morals from the book obviously aren't meant to restrict their ID perp behavior, but it is necessary for those that need it to insure that the world that they want to live in is perpetuated. These guys literally want to take us back to the dark ages where they think that the church had the moral power that they see as slipping away. By Behe's own reckoning the 15th century would be about right, when you could still burn the trouble makers at the stake (ID is equivalent science to astrology of the 15th century). For most of the creationist cannon fodder that the ID perps feed on, Laurie Lebo probably had it right. Most of them do it out of fear for the ones that they love. They would rather lie to themselves and go into denial as deeply as needed in order to keep the ones that they care about from becoming a potential stray. This is their immortal souls that they want to save. Kind of sad, but those are likely your two basic types that are involved in the ID scam.

Atheistoclast · 7 August 2011

I think the Darwinists are terrified at the prospect of ID positions on irreducible complexity and specified information etc.. even being discussed in the classroom because they know students will realize that ID is good science and evolutionism is a fraud.

Frank J · 7 August 2011

Before anyone feeds, let's remind ourselves that the person who "invented" the IC = ID scam not only conceded ~4 billion years of common descent, but never truly ruled ot "RM + NS" (the real version or his caricarure) as the cause of evolution of humans and their closest living relatives from the common ancestors. And that would be the same Michael Behe who called reading the Bible as a science text "silly" and admitted under oath at the Dover trial that the designer he claims to have caught red handed might no longer exist.

John_S · 7 August 2011

Atheistoclast said: I think the Darwinists are terrified at the prospect of ID positions on irreducible complexity and specified information etc.. even being discussed in the classroom because they know students will realize that ID is good science and evolutionism is a fraud.

Not if they first explain what an "argument from ignorance" is.

Frank J · 7 August 2011

There is so much irony-filled whining in ID/creationist screeds that I suspect even an inexperienced student can compare this kind of crap against what appears in a real science textbook and determine which one is full of crap.
— Mike Elzinga

I have no doubt that, if scam artists aren't allowed to censor the refutations, that the only students who would fall for that scam would be the perps-in-training. And that group would be much smaller than the ~25% that heve been so brainwashed by their parents that they would not admit evolution under any circumstances. The truly hopeless Biblical literalist students (the rest of the ~25%) would reject the ID scam as conceding too much to "Darwinism."

fnxtr · 7 August 2011

Frank J said: Before anyone feeds, ...

Yeah, kinda hoping no-one takes the bait. Yawn.

apokryltaros · 7 August 2011

Atheistoclast said: I think the Darwinists are terrified at the prospect of ID positions on irreducible complexity and specified information etc.. even being discussed in the classroom because they know students will realize that ID is good science and evolutionism is a fraud.

Then why is it that Intelligent Design proponents, yourself included, consistently refuse to demonstrate this alleged "good science" of Intelligent Design? I mean, there is a reason why Phillip E Johnson said that Intelligent Design isn't a science, and there is a reason why Bill Dembski refused to testify on ID's behalf at Dover.

mrg · 7 August 2011

fnxtr said: Yeah, kinda hoping no-one takes the bait. Yawn.

Oh yeah -- that's gonna happen.

Richard B. Hoppe · 7 August 2011

Please DNFT[Atheistoclast]T. Thanks!

mrg · 7 August 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said: Please DNFT[Atheistoclast]T. Thanks!

A noble sentiment that I of course endorse, but (a) not gonna happen and (b) ATOC will keep posting whether anyone feeds him or not.

bigdakine · 7 August 2011

apokryltaros said:
Atheistoclast said: I think the Darwinists are terrified at the prospect of ID positions on irreducible complexity and specified information etc.. even being discussed in the classroom because they know students will realize that ID is good science and evolutionism is a fraud.
Then why is it that Intelligent Design proponents, yourself included, consistently refuse to demonstrate this alleged "good science" of Intelligent Design? I mean, there is a reason why Phillip E Johnson said that Intelligent Design isn't a science, and there is a reason why Bill Dembski refused to testify on ID's behalf at Dover.

Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.

Frank J · 7 August 2011

mrg said:
Richard B. Hoppe said: Please DNFT[Atheistoclast]T. Thanks!
A noble sentiment that I of course endorse, but (a) not gonna happen and (b) ATOC will keep posting whether anyone feeds him or not.

My experience is that they dread questions about their "theory," especially the simple "what happened when" variety. About 30% give an answer at first (often to the wrong question, such as giving me the age of the Earth when I ask for the age of life) but by the 3rd round they all escape looking for better feeders. So, sadly, (a) is the problem.

Richard B. Hoppe · 7 August 2011

bigdakine said:Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.

$200/hour for a claimed 100 hours--$20K for not testifying. See here.

apokryltaros · 7 August 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said:
bigdakine said:Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
$200/hour for a claimed 100 hours--$20K for not testifying. See here.

bigdakine said: Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.

I wonder what Dembski would have pocketed if he did testify at Dover...? Oh, wait...

bigdakine · 7 August 2011

Richard B. Hoppe said:
bigdakine said:Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
$200/hour for a claimed 100 hours--$20K for not testifying. See here. Yeah well, next time someone hires Dembski, they should withhold payment till after he testifies.

Atheistoclast · 7 August 2011

apokryltaros said: Then why is it that Intelligent Design proponents, yourself included, consistently refuse to demonstrate this alleged "good science" of Intelligent Design?

We do. Read some of our peer-reviewed papers: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 Indeed, intelligent design is actively used in evolutionary experiments such as protein engineering:Intelligent design: the de novo engineering of proteins with specified functions http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2006/DT/b514972j ID is the future of science.

Ron Okimoto · 7 August 2011

Frank J said: Before anyone feeds, let's remind ourselves that the person who "invented" the IC = ID scam not only conceded ~4 billion years of common descent, but never truly ruled ot "RM + NS" (the real version or his caricarure) as the cause of evolution of humans and their closest living relatives from the common ancestors. And that would be the same Michael Behe who called reading the Bible as a science text "silly" and admitted under oath at the Dover trial that the designer he claims to have caught red handed might no longer exist.

Who is Atheistoclast supposed to be? You aren't suggesting that the clown is Behe are you?

Ron Okimoto · 7 August 2011

apokryltaros said:
Richard B. Hoppe said:
bigdakine said:Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
$200/hour for a claimed 100 hours--$20K for not testifying. See here.

bigdakine said: Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
I wonder what Dembski would have pocketed if he did testify at Dover...? Oh, wait...

My guess is that once he found out what Forrest was going to testify about the Panda's and People fiasco he likely realized that book sales of the new Pandas was likely to be about zero if he testified. I don't know if he could have been asked about the book under oath. Can you plead the fifth in such a court case? I haven't heard much about the third edition of Pandas except that they were going to call it something else. My guess is that sales are probably a lot lower than if Dover had never happened. What would be the use of buying intelligent design books from that publisher?

bigdakine · 8 August 2011

Atheistoclast said:
apokryltaros said: Then why is it that Intelligent Design proponents, yourself included, consistently refuse to demonstrate this alleged "good science" of Intelligent Design?
ID is the future of science.

ID is not the future of science. It is the abdication of science.

Frank J · 8 August 2011

Ron Okimoto said:
Frank J said: Before anyone feeds, let's remind ourselves that the person who "invented" the IC = ID scam not only conceded ~4 billion years of common descent, but never truly ruled ot "RM + NS" (the real version or his caricarure) as the cause of evolution of humans and their closest living relatives from the common ancestors. And that would be the same Michael Behe who called reading the Bible as a science text "silly" and admitted under oath at the Dover trial that the designer he claims to have caught red handed might no longer exist.
Who is Atheistoclast supposed to be? You aren't suggesting that the clown is Behe are you?

No. I'm just saying that if anyone must feed any troll, not to pass up the goldern opportunity to ask if they agree with Behe's concessions to evolution and politically incorrect opinions on the Bible and the "designer." A skilled "big tent" troll will rave about Behe's IC = ID nonsense, but neither agree nor disagree with him on the specifics. But they would if their objection to "Darwinism" has anything to do with the science. I often wonder if some of these trolls are either paid by the DI or are doing it in hopes of someday being on the payroll. But I ass-u-me nothing, especially the common nonsesnse that if they whine about "Darwinism" they must be YECs.

Ron Okimoto · 8 August 2011

Frank J said:
Ron Okimoto said:
Frank J said: Before anyone feeds, let's remind ourselves that the person who "invented" the IC = ID scam not only conceded ~4 billion years of common descent, but never truly ruled ot "RM + NS" (the real version or his caricarure) as the cause of evolution of humans and their closest living relatives from the common ancestors. And that would be the same Michael Behe who called reading the Bible as a science text "silly" and admitted under oath at the Dover trial that the designer he claims to have caught red handed might no longer exist.
Who is Atheistoclast supposed to be? You aren't suggesting that the clown is Behe are you?
No. I'm just saying that if anyone must feed any troll, not to pass up the goldern opportunity to ask if they agree with Behe's concessions to evolution and politically incorrect opinions on the Bible and the "designer." A skilled "big tent" troll will rave about Behe's IC = ID nonsense, but neither agree nor disagree with him on the specifics. But they would if their objection to "Darwinism" has anything to do with the science. I often wonder if some of these trolls are either paid by the DI or are doing it in hopes of someday being on the payroll. But I ass-u-me nothing, especially the common nonsesnse that if they whine about "Darwinism" they must be YECs.

Well, that is pretty much standard. The only IDiots left that support the ID perps are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. The Discovery Institute has been running the bogus bait and switch scam on their own creationist supporters for over 9 years. Not a single one of their creationist supporters that has bought into the ID scam and wanted to teach the ID science in the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID perps. There can be no other types left that would support the ID scam. Maybe Athiestoclast can tell us why he isn't getting his local school board to teach the wonderful ID science? What just happened to Michele Bachmann when she claimed to support teaching the science of intelligent design? As far as employment at the Discovery Institute goes it could be a dream job for someone like Luskin. It is likely the only job for someone like Wells. Are there any legitimate jobs at the Discovery Institute since their traffic grant is over? They have a fairly large Russian division, but I've never heard of it. What is it like to have a legit job at the Discovery Institute? What is it like having an office next to Meyer or Luskin? I was looking at their other programs and their Bioethics division (Human exceptionalism) only has three fellows listed. You won't believe this, but Wells is one and West is another. Bogus science and dirty politics in bioethics. You can't make this junk up. About the only thing that could make it worse would be if Sternberg was a fellow in bioethics. Is Sternberg still with their creation science Biologic Institute? Does he actually work there, or is he still at the Smithsonian?

Kevin B · 8 August 2011

bigdakine said:
Atheistoclast said:
apokryltaros said: Then why is it that Intelligent Design proponents, yourself included, consistently refuse to demonstrate this alleged "good science" of Intelligent Design?
ID is the future of science.
ID is not the future of science. It is the abdication of science.

ID is the science of futures on bridges. (Give me the money now, and at some time in the future I'll give you title to the Brooklyn Bridge.....)

Paul Burnett · 8 August 2011

Ron Okimoto said: About the only thing that could make it worse would be if Sternberg was a fellow in bioethics. Is Sternberg still with their creation science Biologic Institute? Does he actually work there, or is he still at the Smithsonian?

Sternberg was never at the Smithsonian except in a geographic sense: He was an unpaid research associate there, but never an employee. Sternberg is a signer of the Dishonesty Institute's "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" petition, and has been on the editorial board of the "Baraminology Study Group" - a real scientist fer shure. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg

John · 8 August 2011

apokryltaros said:
Richard B. Hoppe said:
bigdakine said:Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
$200/hour for a claimed 100 hours--$20K for not testifying. See here.

bigdakine said: Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
I wonder what Dembski would have pocketed if he did testify at Dover...? Oh, wait...

IMHO Dembski committed legal larceny against the Dover board by refusing to testify and yet still contending to hold onto his "consultation fee".

John · 8 August 2011

Ron Okimoto said:
apokryltaros said:
Richard B. Hoppe said:
bigdakine said:Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
$200/hour for a claimed 100 hours--$20K for not testifying. See here.

bigdakine said: Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
I wonder what Dembski would have pocketed if he did testify at Dover...? Oh, wait...
My guess is that once he found out what Forrest was going to testify about the Panda's and People fiasco he likely realized that book sales of the new Pandas was likely to be about zero if he testified. I don't know if he could have been asked about the book under oath. Can you plead the fifth in such a court case? I haven't heard much about the third edition of Pandas except that they were going to call it something else. My guess is that sales are probably a lot lower than if Dover had never happened. What would be the use of buying intelligent design books from that publisher?

He claimed that his refusal stemmed from the fact that the Dover Board did not allow him or several others to have their own personal attorney as part of the Thomas More Center's legal team representing the defendants, oops I mean, then creotard-infested Dover Area School District board.

raven · 8 August 2011

We have a member of the public school board who is advocating that parents send their kids to private religious schools?

Sort of a conflict of interest here.

It's no secret that the right wing extremists and christofascists hate the public schools.

1. They don't control them. They can't use the public schools for brainwashing and mind control.

2. Children might actually learn something. Can't let the poor dears out of the hermetically sealed fundie echo chamber.

3. They cost money in taxes.

One of the school board members at Dover, Pennsylvania was the same way. She openly despised the public schools and sent her kids to a private school or homeschooled them (I don't remember which).

Cynthia Dunbar formerly of the Texas state textbook selection committee, is the same way. She even wrote a book on why the public schools should be abolished.

Sure the schools cost money. The cost of an ignorant and illiterae population is far more though. Really, if you want to live in a third world country-move, leave, rather than trying to turn the US into one.

raven · 8 August 2011

Didn’t the goal used to be that parents wanted their kids to be better educated? How did that social value get turned around?

That has never been the goal of fundie xians and the weirder xian sects. They want to brainwash them so they don't leave. Kids leaving weird and toxic cults is always a problem. For them, not for the kids. For children born into Jehovah's Witless families, over half will leave the cult. A lot of the cults also actively discourage going to college including the JW's. One of my minor complaints about fundies is; they set their children up to fail. Fundies score lower on the socioeconomic scale than the general population.

Frank J · 9 August 2011

The only IDiots left that support the ID perps are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.
— Ron Okimoto

See my comment of 8/7/11 12:09 on demographics. If you mean those in school boards, they're mostly in the less than 1% that I would consider "activists," and if not are deep in the ~25% that will not admit evolution under any circumstances. People like Buckingham and Bonsell who initially demanded "creationism" then bought into the ID scam trying (and failing) to cover up that they ever bought into the former scam. I'd be curious to know if people like that are going back to the YEC peddlers for help and avoiding the DI perps because they could not be counted on when needed most. While I'm curious of that, I'm not nearly as concerned about them, or about the ~25% of radical "fundies" as I am about the rest of the ~70% that has been fooled by various anti-evolution sound bites. Most of that group never heard of Ken Ham, much less William Dembski. But catchy anti-evolution sound bites have "trickled down" to those "masses," and unfortunately we're not doing much to stop it.

Ron Okimoto · 9 August 2011

John said:
Ron Okimoto said:
apokryltaros said:
Richard B. Hoppe said:
bigdakine said:Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
$200/hour for a claimed 100 hours--$20K for not testifying. See here.

bigdakine said: Of course Dembski pocketed a nice consulting fee for his efforts.
I wonder what Dembski would have pocketed if he did testify at Dover...? Oh, wait...
My guess is that once he found out what Forrest was going to testify about the Panda's and People fiasco he likely realized that book sales of the new Pandas was likely to be about zero if he testified. I don't know if he could have been asked about the book under oath. Can you plead the fifth in such a court case? I haven't heard much about the third edition of Pandas except that they were going to call it something else. My guess is that sales are probably a lot lower than if Dover had never happened. What would be the use of buying intelligent design books from that publisher?
He claimed that his refusal stemmed from the fact that the Dover Board did not allow him or several others to have their own personal attorney as part of the Thomas More Center's legal team representing the defendants, oops I mean, then creotard-infested Dover Area School District board.

I looked up the wiki and they discuss The Design of Life and how it fit into the Dover trial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

The FTE became involved in the Dover controversy when it became clear that Of Pandas and People would be a major focus of litigation. The foundation filed a motion to join the defending side in June 2005, arguing that a finding that intelligent design was religious would destroy FTE’s ability to market its textbooks within the district, and affect its ability to market the textbooks to any public school in the United States.[58] Had the motion been granted, the FTE would have become a co-defendant with the Dover Area School Board, and able to bring its own lawyers and expert witnesses to the case. However, William A. Dembski, co-author of the new Pandas edition, and the Discovery Institute withdrew from the case. The Judge told the defendants: "To me it looks like Mr. Dembski was dropped as an expert because he didn't want to produce, or because his employer didn't want to produce the manuscript [on subpoena to the court] of The Design of Life."[7]

Apparently the rendition of Pandas that Dembski was working on may have been the reason that he left the Dover trial. It sounds like he was dropped from the case by the creationists because he wanted his own lawyers and wouldn't produce the drafts of the book that were requested by the court. I guess that you can't take the fifth in a court case like this if you are an expert witness. There is a section on "The Design of Life" but the quote comes from the "2004–2005: Dover, Pennsylvania" section of the wiki article.

Ron Okimoto · 9 August 2011

Frank J said:
The only IDiots left that support the ID perps are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest.
— Ron Okimoto
See my comment of 8/7/11 12:09 on demographics. If you mean those in school boards, they're mostly in the less than 1% that I would consider "activists," and if not are deep in the ~25% that will not admit evolution under any circumstances. People like Buckingham and Bonsell who initially demanded "creationism" then bought into the ID scam trying (and failing) to cover up that they ever bought into the former scam. I'd be curious to know if people like that are going back to the YEC peddlers for help and avoiding the DI perps because they could not be counted on when needed most. While I'm curious of that, I'm not nearly as concerned about them, or about the ~25% of radical "fundies" as I am about the rest of the ~70% that has been fooled by various anti-evolution sound bites. Most of that group never heard of Ken Ham, much less William Dembski. But catchy anti-evolution sound bites have "trickled down" to those "masses," and unfortunately we're not doing much to stop it.

I agree that the majority of IDiots are like Michele Bachmann. They have heard the sound bites, but they are ignorant of just how bogus the ID scam has become. Another large segment are the willfully ignorant (which makes them incompetent and dishonest as well as ignorant) and the dishonest that understand what a scam ID is, but know that it is the only game in town so they are going with it anyway. The whole point of the ID scam is to claim that you are interested in the science and being honest and going back to calling it creationism just is not an option that the bogus pretenders are willing to go with. I had thought that Kohl may have been one in the category where they had dropped the ID scam and gone back to calling things what they are (creationism) instead of trying to lie about their intent, but as sad as it seems to be, she just didn't know any better and has to consider the intelligent design option. How sad is that? A rube that doesn't even understand the current creationist scams? This tells you why the ID perps can have been running the bait and switch on their own creationist support base for over 9 years and there are still IDiots like Bachmann that keep popping up and claiming to be able to teach the bogus junk. It is even sadder that the bait and switch has gone down on every such rube IDiot and there are still ID scam supporters. What has every such rube gotten to teach from the ID perps instead of any ID science? Why would any informed person support such a bogus scam?

Dave Luckett · 9 August 2011

I spend more time than I should monitoring the considerable sector of creationist videos on youtube. As a result I am fairly well convinced that most of them are put up by idiots who have not the faintest idea what falsehoods they are retailing. They receive all their information from the noise machine. They are taught to assume as a matter of course that scientists are engaged in a vast shadowy conspiracy to brainwash the populace, AND that the scientists are themselves brainwashed.

It's useless to point out to them the multiple overlapping layers of impossibility in this scenario. These are native English speakers who cannot write a correct sentence in that language. They have acquired immunity to reason, but in the opposite way one usually acquires immunity: they are immune to reason because they have never been exposed to it.

But these are amateurs. The professional creationists are a different set; but there are divisions even within the professional ranks. It's weird, but the real schlockmeisters of creationism are bottom-feeders below even the DI or Ham's mob. These are people like Don Patton or Carl Baugh, knowing, slick, cunning conmen. You can say that Behe or Dembski or Wells or Ham are ideologues who have made the decision to lie out of conviction. Patton and Baugh and others are in it for the money and the fame. They are convinced of nothing but that they're on to a good thing.

I can say, however, that it is the latter group's ludicrous misrepresentations that are vox populi on youtube. Wells, or Meyer, even Luskin, are way over the heads of the average punter there.

It makes me wonder. Is the average of youtube a general average? Is this where we are going?

Just Bob · 9 August 2011

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

-H. L. Mencken

FL · 9 August 2011

Long story short, Kohls needs to consider going with the proven, sure approach:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/text_of_louisiana_science_educ007391.html

The fact is that a LSEA-modeled science education policy, as written, works right now, and is Darwinist-proof, Dover-proof, ACLU-proof, even "Media"-proof, right here and now. Invincible at this time.

That's the reality on the ground right now. If Kohls wants to do more than merely generate headlines at this time, she will HAVE to adopt the LSEA approach in terms of advocating for public policy changes.

At the same time, she use her public position to encourage churches, students, and concerned citizens to take a stronger lead on ID education advocacy within their own spheres of influence.

apokryltaros · 9 August 2011

There is the troubling fact that Intelligent Design has been repeatedly demonstrated to be Creationism dressed up in a crummy labcoat.

So, FL, how does the LSEA help children learn science if it forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda, as well as pseudoscience, while not teaching any actual science? You've repeatedly neglected to state how this is possible, aside from obvious cherrypicking of phony numbers and lying.

apokryltaros · 9 August 2011

FL said: The fact is that a LSEA-modeled science education policy, as written, works right now, and is Darwinist-proof, Dover-proof, ACLU-proof, even "Media"-proof, right here and now. Invincible at this time.

The only problem is that the LSEA policy does not help, and never was designed to help children learn science in the first place at all. It seems strange that you, FL, of all people would want us to magically assume that you are an expert in science education, when you've also stated that science is really an evil rival religion to Christianity, and that science classrooms are really a kind of church. On top of, of course, your constant blatant lying, and stream of statements that betray a gross and grotesque refusal to learn even the most basic scientific concepts.

FL · 9 August 2011

So, FL, how does the LSEA help children learn science if it forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda,

Well, let's just start there. You have the LSEA text in my previous post. Please show me where it "forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda." FL

apokryltaros · 9 August 2011

FL said:
So, FL, how does the LSEA help children learn science if it forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda,
Well, let's just start there. You have the LSEA text in my previous post. Please show me where it "forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda." FL

The LSEA was designed by creationists and their political cronies to shoehorn Creationism and Intelligent Design into science education curricula. Only idiots and shysters would want anyone to believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not religious, anti-science propaganda and pseudoscience. No one, especially not creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have ever been able to demonstrate how or even why Creationism and Intelligent Design are supposed to be scientific. You, yourself, have never bothered to demonstrate how or why Creationism or Intelligent Design are supposed to be scientific, FL, other than numerous unsubtle hints that we're going to burn and be raped in Hell for all eternity for the unforgivable sin of doubting you. And then there is the problem of how the proponents of the LSEA also want to "teach the controversy" by unfairly promoting counterfactual, illogical and deliberately dishonest objections to evolution and other sciences as though they were legitimate.

eric · 9 August 2011

FL said: You have the LSEA text in my previous post. Please show me where it "forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda."

It doesn't. Which is why the NCSE and the ACLU are waiting until someone actually teaches creationism under it before bringing a court challenge to it. Up until now, the opposition has been predominantly political (i.e. trying to get legislators to repeal it) rather than legal. However it does not now and will never do what you want it to do, FL, which is make teaching creationism as science constitutional. Passing a law that says "it's okay to use alternate materials" does not make YOUR preferred alternate materials legal, any more than a law which says 'it's okay to use alternative medicine' makes heroin use legal. *** I would paraphrase the law like so: "We, Louisiana, will let you Districts choose some of your own materials._{Some of you will take this as a mandate to teach illegal stuff because some of us legislators support that, but when you do you will find that this state law will not protect you and we state-level politicians will hang you out to dry by pretending that's not what the law was for.}"

harold · 9 August 2011

Louisiana -

#47 in educational scores http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/september/state-education-ranking-shows-vermont-1-south-carolina-last/

Also #47 in income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

I feel that it would be suboptimal to regard Louisiana as a model state for educational policy.

mrg · 9 August 2011

eric said: "We, Louisiana, will let you Districts choose some of your own materials._{Some of you will take this as a mandate to teach illegal stuff because some of us legislators support that, but when you do you will find that this state law will not protect you and we state-level politicians will hang you out to dry by pretending that's not what the law was for.}"

"Our law establishes the right to douse yourself with a liquid and light a match. We never said anything about the liquid being lighter fluid."

eric · 9 August 2011

mrg said: "Our law establishes the right to douse yourself with a liquid and light a match. We never said anything about the liquid being lighter fluid."

Yeah, pretty much. At least Livingston parish was smarter than FL. They recognized that behind all the flowery words about freedom to choose, there was no real legal protection to teach creationism, design, "strengths and _creationistweaknesses_{debunked decades ago} of evolution," etc...

Mike Elzinga · 9 August 2011

FL said:
So, FL, how does the LSEA help children learn science if it forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda,
Well, let's just start there. You have the LSEA text in my previous post. Please show me where it "forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda." FL

It was only a matter of a week or so that FL’s addiction to taunting and bullshit would bring him back after he was thoroughly pounded into a pulp on the Bathroom Wall. I have a suggestion for FL. Since you are so sure that the Louisiana law is not about teaching sectarian pseudo-science, write down for us the learning objectives, the lesson plans, the evaluation criteria, and the grading criteria for the subjects of evolution and climate change. What “supplemental materials” are to be used in achieving these course objectives? I am sure you don’t know how to do this and that you have no idea what any of this means; but here is yet another golden opportunity to prove us wrong. I claim that you have no clue what you are talking about. I claim that you can’t do any better than you did on faith “healing,” entropy, and the statistical comparisons of Louisiana’s education system to those of the other states. Do you remember how you tried to fake it on those topics over on the Bathroom Wall? Do you always have to be reminded that you are a fraud and that we all know it? I can even predict what your evasive response will be; and I can guarantee that it will demonstrate as usual that you have no clue whatsoever. You can’t even admit why that law was written.

FL · 9 August 2011

However it does not now and will never do what you want it to do, FL, which is make teaching creationism as science constitutional.

Have I ever claimed, (even once, Eric,) that LSEA would "make teaching creationism as science constitutional"? FL

mrg · 9 August 2011

eric said: At least Livingston parish was smarter than FL.

Oh heavens, I would think it absolutely unconscionable to hand FL a can of lighter fluid and a book of matches. Not to mention -- in military terms, if the troops were issued live ammo, I'd be terrified to stand anywhere near him.

eric · 9 August 2011

FL said: Have I ever claimed, (even once, Eric,) that LSEA would "make teaching creationism as science constitutional"?

Okay, so what does a "LSEA-modeled science education policy" do for education that you think is valuable? Besides being, as you called it "ACLU-proof." After all, that alone is pointless. A law that does absolutely nothing is ACLU-proof.

FL · 9 August 2011

Well, let’s just start there. You have the LSEA text in my previous post. Please show me where it “forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda.”

Hey Stanton, your 'nanny' Mike, is trying to help you out on this one, but he forgot to answer the direct question on the table. Please advise him to try again. FL

FL · 9 August 2011

Okay, so what does a “LSEA-modeled science education policy” do for education that you think is valuable?

3 words: "Critical Thinking Skills." Unless, of course, you're one of those evolutionists who can't see a place for developing said skills in the scientific enterprise. Are you? FL

phantomreader42 · 9 August 2011

Foolish Liar, you are a worthless parasite. You claims to be doing the bidding of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god, but in reality you do nothing but lie, whine, taunt, and masturbate fantasizing about the torture and rape of the innocent. Though you claim to believe in the power of prayer, you refuse to even consider praying for people in pain. You know full well that nothing you've ever said here has the slightest basis in fact, and you'd sooner die than learn anything about real science.

Go fuck yourself, and quit polluting the internet with the vile bullshit of your monstrous death cult.

FL · 9 August 2011

Hmm. Apparently Phantomreader is interested in the following question:

You have the LSEA text in my previous post. Please show me where it “forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda.”

....but he doesn't know how to express himself well in rational civil conversation. Anybody want to help HIM out too? FL

eric · 9 August 2011

FL said:
Okay, so what does a “LSEA-modeled science education policy” do for education that you think is valuable?
3 words: "Critical Thinking Skills."

That was already in the Louisiana standards. You can look that up for yourself, for example, here. How about a direct quote from the standards for biology, under the section 'Understanding Scientific Inquiry' (the very heading speaks of the complete redundancy of your bill!): "11. Evaluate selected theories based on supporting scientific evidence (SI-H-B1)." So basically the LSEA is unnecessary and redundant, and if 'critical thinking' is what it was supposed to do, it does nothing, because the Louisiana standards already do that.

Unless, of course, you're one of those evolutionists who can't see a place for developing said skills in the scientific enterprise. Are you?

I think critical thinking skills are valuable. For example, without them, one might take the LSEA at face value and not realize that (i) the critical thinking parts of it are redundant with already existing standards, (ii) its propmotion by a creationist organization that publicly expressed disapproval of the passed version because it wasn't creationist enough might be a clue to it's real purpose. But thankfully both you and I have critical thinking skills. Using them allows us to put 2 and 2 together, and realize that if the given reason is already in Louisiana's standards, while the promoting group (LFF) is creationist, and if the bill resembles other creationist bills promoted in the past, then this is likely a creationist bill in disguise. THAT is an example of critical thinking. And I think it is very important, because it prevents smart students from falling for your baloney. But I do not think the LSEA is intended to promote such critical thinking.

FL · 9 August 2011

Okay, so we're looking at the different categories (Biology, Earth Science, Physics, etc etc) at the link Eric provided. Also, here is Eric's "Understanding Scientific Inquiry" section PLUS the "Science As Inquiry" section that precedes it:

Science as Inquiry The Abilities Necessary to Do Scientific Inquiry 1. Write a testable question or hypothesis when given a topic (SI-H-A1) 2. Describe how investigations can be observation, description, literature survey, classification, or experimentation (SI-H-A2) 3. Plan and record step-by-step procedures for a valid investigation, select equipment and materials, and identify variables and controls (SI-H-A2) 4. Conduct an investigation that includes multiple trials and record, organize, and display data appropriately (SI-H-A2) 5. Utilize mathematics, organizational tools, and graphing skills to solve problems (SIH- A3) 6. Use technology when appropriate to enhance laboratory investigations and presentations of findings (SI-H-A3) 7. Choose appropriate models to explain scientific knowledge or experimental results (e.g., objects, mathematical relationships, plans, schemes, examples, role-playing, computer simulations) (SI-H-A4) 8. Give an example of how new scientific data can cause an existing scientific explanation to be supported, revised, or rejected (SI-H-A5) 9. Write and defend a conclusion based on logical analysis of experimental data (SI-HA6) (SI-H-A2) 10. Given a description of an experiment, identify appropriate safety measures (SI-H-A7) Understanding Scientific Inquiry 11. Evaluate selected theories based on supporting scientific evidence (SI-H-B1) 12. Cite evidence that scientific investigations are conducted for many different reasons (SI-H-B2) 13. Identify scientific evidence that has caused modifications in previously accepted theories (SI-H-B2) 14. Cite examples of scientific advances and emerging technologies and how they affect society (e.g., MRI, DNA in forensics) (SI-H-B3) 15. Analyze the conclusion from an investigation by using data to determine its validity (SI-H-B4) 16. Use the following rules of evidence to examine experimental results: (a) Can an expert's technique or theory be tested, has it been tested, or is it simply a subjective, conclusive approach that cannot be reasonably assessed for reliability? (b) Has the technique or theory been subjected to peer review and publication? (c) What is the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied? (d) Were standards and controls applied and maintained? (e) Has the technique or theory been generally accepted in the scientific community?

So, Eric, where is the science students' learning of critical thinking skills even MENTIONED in your link? Exactly where in your link is the importance of said skills acknowledged in any scientific area? FL

phantomreader42 · 9 August 2011

Foolish Liar said: Hmm. Apparently Phantomreader is interested in the following question:
You have the LSEA text in my previous post. Please show me where it “forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda.”
....but he doesn't know how to express himself well in rational civil conversation. Anybody want to help HIM out too? FL

I have not the slightest interest in your idiotic apologia for your cult's indoctrination procedures. I'm just pointing out that you were offered the opportunity to demonstrate the power and glory of your imaginary god, and you fled in terror from it like the worthless coward you are. As a result, you are eternally unworthy of any credibility, you deserve nothing more than ridicule and derision. You are scum. You're full of shit, you know it, I know it, everyone here knows it.

eric · 9 August 2011

FL said: So, Eric, where is the science students' learning of critical thinking skills even MENTIONED in your link? Exactly where in your link is the importance of said skills acknowledged in any scientific area?

Seriously? If you can't see how critical thinking is taught as part of 11, 15, and 16 (at least), then you yourself are not doing any critical thinking. Critical thinking epic fail, as the lingo goes. I get the sense that you're simply treating the words 'critical thinking' as magic, and if they aren't there, it doesn't happen. You DO understand that critical thinking involves teaching the students how to perform actions and practices that might not have the verbatim mantra 'critical thinking' in their description, don't you?

phantomreader42 · 9 August 2011

eric said:
FL said: So, Eric, where is the science students' learning of critical thinking skills even MENTIONED in your link? Exactly where in your link is the importance of said skills acknowledged in any scientific area?
Seriously? If you can't see how critical thinking is taught as part of 11, 15, and 16 (at least), then you yourself are not doing any critical thinking. Critical thinking epic fail, as the lingo goes. I get the sense that you're simply treating the words 'critical thinking' as magic, and if they aren't there, it doesn't happen. You DO understand that critical thinking involves teaching the students how to perform actions and practices that might not have the verbatim mantra 'critical thinking' in their description, don't you?

To Foolish Liar, "critical thinking" means "mindless worship of the correct imaginary tyrant and lust for the torture of those who fail to show sufficient subservience to said tyrant".

phantomreader42 · 9 August 2011

Bottom line, everything that creationist organizations have turned out in the past has been a fraud aimed at stealing taxpayers' money to indoctrinate children into their cult. Why should we assume that, this time, they've suddenly decided to stop doing that? Why give the benefit of the doubt to people we already know, from decades of experience, are pathological liars?

FL · 9 August 2011

See, here's the deal Eric. As you were forced to tacitly admit (by your clear failure to show otherwise), critical thinking skills aren't even MENTIONED, nor PUBLICLY, CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED, in the previous LS standards (at your link), as having ANY role or ANY importance within science education and/or curriculum of public school science students.

That's not good enough, Eric. Not even halfway sir. A science teacher who teaches anything NOT expressly permitted and NOT expressly mentioned in the official state science education policy standards, is effectively risking loss of job and careers, if even ONE parent gets an angry attitude and goes to the media in accusation.

When controversy erupts, be it in Biology, English Lit, History, Afro-American Studies, Sociology or Goverment class, that teacher gotta be able to show the Principal that he or she was operating under the EXPRESSLY WRITTEN policies of the state and local education board.

If not, that person could be forced to accept a choice of "resign" or "reassignment" (to another less desirable school), just to calm the media down. (How do I know? I read the newspaper. Goes down just like that.)

One Kansas City science teacher said that several of her colleagues told her that they were afraid to deviate from the biology textbook AT ALL, even if they knew that some stuff was outdated or no longer scientifically true.

Why? You know why Eric. If it's not expressly written and expressly covered in the State Standards, your current job--and maybe your whole teaching career -- is toast. Your ONLY defense when the principal calls for a meeting in the office, is what's specifically explicity written in plain English black and white ink on both the local and state policy booklets.

phantomreader42 · 9 August 2011

And, as Foolish Liar was forced to tacitly admit (by his clear failure to show otherwise), prayer doesn't work, there are no miracles, there is no god, and Foolish Liar is a sociopath and a fraud.

Mike Elzinga · 9 August 2011

We have all seen FL’s notion of “critical thinking skills”:

(1) ALWAYS copy/paste the opinions of others.

(2) Pit “authority” against authority.

(3) Never get caught expressing a thought of your own.

(4) Get your proof from the TV programs like Unsolved Mysteries.

(5) Prove everything by making assertions that you know nobody can check out.

(6) Change the subject.

(7) Always dodge until the “enemy” provides an answer; then pounce with copy/paste.

(8) Keep interrupting so that a discussion in progress never gets to a conclusion.

(9) Taunt, dance around, flap arms, thumb nose, and moon.

(10) Never learn any science.

(11) Never learn concepts or even what a concept is.

(12) Always segue to sectarian apologetics.

(13) Word game everything to death.

(14) Argue interminably over etymology.

(15) Use “proper” (my sectarian) exegesis and hermeneutics.

(16) Show that it conflicts with “The Bible.”

(17) Show that it conflicts with “being a ‘Christian’”.

(18) Believe what you like.

(19) Evade, evade, evade; weasel, weasel, weasel.

(20) “Stay-in-the-game” by asking inane “questions” or by making inane “objections.”

Etc., etc, etc. …

Thousands of students have completed 4 years of college and graduate degrees in the time that FL has been taunting here. Yet, in all that time, FL has learned no science, has never had a thought of his own, and still doesn’t know how to think critically about anything.

Pretty ironic that he now attempts to pass himself off as an expert in critical thinking.

But that’s the game, isn’t it.

phantomreader42 · 9 August 2011

Also, Foolish Liar has admitted that the bible is a work of fiction, and that he's been lying to us all along, not that that's new info to anyone.

phantomreader42 said: And, as Foolish Liar was forced to tacitly admit (by his clear failure to show otherwise), prayer doesn't work, there are no miracles, there is no god, and Foolish Liar is a sociopath and a fraud.

SWT · 9 August 2011

I guess by FL's standards, a math curriculum that requires the study of limits, Riemann sums, differentiation, integration, boundary values, and solution of differential equations wouldn't include calculus unless the standards specifically said "calculus".

(Random off-topic observation: Firefox's spell checker recognizes "Riemann" ... way to go!)

Mike Elzinga · 9 August 2011

FL might like to think his latest screw-ups lie buried on the Bathroom Wall and that he can start this pretend-to-be-an-expert game all over again.

As long as he insists in playing his games, and just to make sure that nobody has forgotten, I will mention at least three recent examples of FL’s ideas of “critical thinking,”

(1) He used a TV program shown on Unsolved Mysteries as “proof” of faith healing.

(2) He used the ACT exam results for Louisiana as “evidence” that Louisiana public education is no worse than that of any other state.

(3) He kept copy/pasting quote-mines from some textbooks in order to pass himself off as an expert on entropy; and he did this right in the face of a clear example that disproved his own misconceptions.

I especially liked the lurker who retorted to a taunt from FL by informing him that he, the lurker, enjoyed watching an expert mopping the floor with FL. Lurkers aren’t as stupid as FL seems to think they are; so who is FL trying to impress?

We could also give other examples of his claims that he and Dembski are experts in the historical relationship between science and religion; and we could continue on with his repeated attempts to pass himself off as an expert on one thing or another. But let’s save it for now. His latest self-embarrassments are sufficient.

Is FL’s memory so bad that he doesn’t remember? Does he think nobody here remembers? Is he continuing to hone his skills at subduing rubes in his church? Does he see a looming opportunity to “make a good impression” and take over as leader of his cult? Who cares? No matter how one cuts it, it’s sick.

SWT · 9 August 2011

Mike Elzinga said: Is FL’s memory so bad that he doesn’t remember? Does he think nobody here remembers?

What makes you think he actually cares? I suspect he comes back periodically hoping he can slip something by and that he can influence a newbie lurker. I doubt he expects to convert you, but he might well believe that he is an effective witness simply by engaging the actual scientists who participate here.

Mike Elzinga · 9 August 2011

SWT said: I doubt he expects to convert you, but he might well believe that he is an effective witness simply by engaging the actual scientists who participate here.

And I suspect that this is fantasy martyrdom that is being used as “proof” of the cruelty of scientists. It is a way to effectively change the subject so that rubes never achieve a long enough or focused enough attention span to notice that their leaders know nothing.

FL · 9 August 2011

Goodness, let's just save some time. Why don't you amigos just admit that you're getting your primordial butts kicked on the specific question at hand?

You have the LSEA text in my previous post. Please show me where it “forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda.”

FL · 9 August 2011

He used the ACT exam results for Louisiana as “evidence” that Louisiana public education is no worse than that of any other state.

.…And afterwards requested that somebody provide ANY published evidence showing that the LSEA caused a quantifiable drop in science education performance within Louisiana public schools, within the three past years that the law has been in force. (Being careful, of course, to remind the readers that no such quantifiable published drop would be found within the Louisiana ACT “Science Category” test scores over those same three years.) Mikey was effectively sent back to his room on that one. Go figure. FL

Mike Elzinga · 9 August 2011

FL said: (Being careful, of course, to remind the readers that no such quantifiable published drop would be found within the Louisiana ACT “Science Category” test scores over those same three years.) FL

You forgot to mention that you immediately disappeared when I posted THIS and THIS. You can open your eyes now and look. Do you even know who takes the ACT or the SAT? You don’t even know what these are and what percentage of the students in each state take them. You obviously get some kind of pornographic thrill from taunting and getting slapped down for your taunts.

Rob · 9 August 2011

Looks like FLey needs a course in ethics.

FL has confirmed he believes that the god directed slaughter of children and selling of daughters as sex slaves as plainly described in the inerrant bible (see below) are examples of the unconditionally loving and ethical morals of FL's inerrant bible god (FL has no problem with these passages).

Ezekiel 9:5-6 ‘As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,…” ‘

Exodus 21:7-11 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son,…”

From a morals and rationality perspective, FL's ability to hold these positions should be considered when interpreting all of FL's posts.

Mike Elzinga · 9 August 2011

Rob said: Looks like FLey needs a course in ethics.

Well his ethics regarding critical thinking are certainly on display here. Just looking at his continued taunt about the ACT and how stupid it is when placed in context of the real data about Louisiana demonstrates how little he knows about critical thinking. Yet he passes himself off as an expert. There is more ethics in a pound of ground hamburger. I would add that, in FL’s case in particular, not only is he incapable of critical thinking –not even knowing what is involved in critical thinking – but he is blatantly dishonest about the entire process of learning. For some reason he takes enormous pride in his ignorance and loves to flaunt it. But he is a prime example of the kind of mentality driving these “laws” in Louisiana and in other states as well. He will not comprehend what those real mean; and he doesn’t care. He won’t even look at it unless he wants to start word-gaming it and misrepresenting it. He is just here to annoy people.

phantomreader42 · 9 August 2011

Why don't you just admit that miracles don't happen and prayer is a waste of time. Because if you actually believed that praying could heal the sick, as it says in the book of poorly-written mythology you claim to follow, then the only explanation for you refusing to pray for sick people to be healed is that you're a sociopathic monster without the slightest speck of compassion or empathy.

FL said: Goodness, let's just save some time. Why don't you amigos just admit that you're getting your primordial butts kicked on the specific question at hand?
You have the LSEA text in my previous post. Please show me where it “forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda.”
FL

Mike Elzinga · 9 August 2011

Rob said: From a morals and rationality perspective, FL's ability to hold these positions should be considered when interpreting all of FL's posts.

By the way; I have known literally thousands of good Christians over the years, many of whom are close friends, and none of them behave the way FL does. I can say unequivocally that FL is NOT a Christian; he doesn’t even come close.

phantomreader42 · 9 August 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Rob said: From a morals and rationality perspective, FL's ability to hold these positions should be considered when interpreting all of FL's posts.
By the way; I have known literally thousands of good Christians over the years, many of whom are close friends, and none of them behave the way FL does. I can say unequivocally that FL is NOT a Christian; he doesn’t even come close.

Judging by Foolish Liar's example as a self-proclaimed christian, either christianity is a sick, hateful cult that worships dishonesty, suffering, hatred, and death; or Foolish Liar is an absolutely shitty example of what constitutes a christian. In either case, he's clearly full of shit, a fraud, a bigot, and a nutcase.

Rob · 9 August 2011

Mike Elzinga said:
Rob said: From a morals and rationality perspective, FL's ability to hold these positions should be considered when interpreting all of FL's posts.
By the way; I have known literally thousands of good Christians over the years, many of whom are close friends, and none of them behave the way FL does. I can say unequivocally that FL is NOT a Christian; he doesn’t even come close.

I am married to a Christian Pastor and couldn't be happier.

stevaroni · 10 August 2011

He (Dembski)claimed that his refusal stemmed from the fact that the Dover Board did not allow him or several others to have their own personal attorney as part of the Thomas More Center's legal team representing the defendants...

Yeah. Because this is the kind of thing that happens in real science all the time. Q. "Mr Hawking, can you demonstrate how you calculate the radius of the event horizon of a black hole?" A. "Not - until - I - speak - to - my - attor-ney."

stevaroni · 10 August 2011

FL said: Please show me where it "forces teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda."

It allows teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda. Actually, more accurately, you can leave anti-science out of it. It allows teachers to teach religious, anti readily-demonstrable-physical-fact propaganda. That is reason enough to oppose it. The fact that allows teachers to present this fact-free claptrap as legitimate "controversy", thereby propagating yet another generation as scientifically illiterate as they are, almost exclusively for religiously motivated purposes, is just icing on the cake.

FL · 10 August 2011

It allows teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda.

As always, stevaroni, the question is WHERE SPECIFICALLY in the LSEA that this science-education law "allows" any such thing. You gotta do more than the usual Panda bald assertions with no supporting evidence. All I ask is for you to show me straight from the LSEA text. That is what you guys seem to be stumblin' and bumblin' over. I'll provide the actual LSEA text again, to save time. Just point out your specific claim by showing specifically where the text "allows" it.

Â§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, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection. C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. D. 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. E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. Section 2. This Act shall become effective upon signature by the governor or, if not signed by the governor, upon expiration of the time for bills to become law without signature by the governor, as provided by Article III, Section 18 of the Constitution of Louisiana. If vetoed by the governor and subsequently approved by the legislature, this Act shall become effective on the day following such approval.

FL · 10 August 2011

Got any published (or even link-based) LSEA-correlated, quantifiable, documented, three-year LA science-student-performance drops yet, Mike?

So far your links don't show a thing WRT the question, Mike. May I ask you why that is so?

PS....For any latecomers, Mike was--and still is--attempting to salvage an unsupported claim about the LSEA that was earlier made by Stanton.

Stanton's bald, unsupported assertion was that the LSEA has (despite three published years of ACT "Science Category" scores to the contrary) somehow "turned Louisiana into an academic hellhole."

So far, Mike has failed (see the opening question there which Mike remains unsuccessful in answering) to evidentially defend Stanton's specific claim, and Stanton himself is, well, in NO position to help Mike at all period finito. (You know how it goes.)

***

But stay tuned. Perhaps Mike vill try to do a little more actual homevork today, and thus try to pull zee Stanton-bacon out of zee Stanton-fire. Vee shall see.

Dave Luckett · 10 August 2011

FL's an idiot. Or he thinks we are.

Does he really think that any State legislature could say in so many words, "It's OK to teach creationism in science class"?

Is he out of his mind? Of course not. A routine open-and-shut case in the State Supreme Court would throw any such wording out so hard that it wouldn't even bounce. Creationism is a religious doctrine. It is not science. It cannot be taught in the public schools as science. The law on that is settled, done, finalised.

So the stealth creationists in the State legislature are trying something else. They are trying to tell school districts and individual teachers that creationism is a "theory" on a par with evolution, and can be taught. They are pretending that they can offer teachers licence to teach creationism equal with evolution as the explanation for the origin of the species.

That's a gross lie. They can't offer that. The school district that OK's it, the teacher that teaches it, will most likely be sued as soon as a non-creationist parent concerned for their child's education notices it. That suit will be successful. Not a chance that it won't be. The district will lose a heap of money.

So what are these words there for? There is no reason whatsoever for them, except as camouflage for a series of gross lies.

"Creationism is a scientific theory" is a lie. "There are scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution" is a lie. "There is controversy and discussion in science about the basic truth of common descent" is a lie. But "it's acceptable to teach that there are such alternatives, or such controversy, or such discussion" is a further lie. It is not acceptable. That is a lie about a series of lies.

All of this is plainly obvious. Yet here's FL, with his word-games, trying to game the lunatic notion that if the wording doesn't say "You can teach creationism in science class", then it doesn't actually mean that.

Of course the wording means that. The legislation is a further lie, because no State legislation can offer that power. So the intent and effect of these words is to subvert and breach the Constitution. The cunning liars who formulated them merely veiled their intent by dissembling their motives, thus demonstrating not merely that they are liars about the science, but liars about themselves.

Among creationists, the two are often found together.

Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2011

FL said: Got any published (or even link-based) LSEA-correlated, quantifiable, documented, three-year LA science-student-performance drops yet, Mike? FL

Trying to gradually weasel around the issue by word-gaming the question, are you? Trying to rewrite history? We predicted you would. I don't give a crap what you think Stanton's point was; the issue is your pretense about being an expert in "critical thinking." You are trying to conflate and confuse. And I am just making sure that your fakery over on the Bathroom Wall is posted here as a reminder of how you go about word-gaming and weaseling, and how you got caught red-handed THREE TIMES over there. That is precisely what I said I would do, and that is what I have done. You are not going to evade that. Just running away for a few days doesn't mean that the people here forgot. I don't have to prove anything to you; I am the expert and you are the fraud. You are the fool; I am not. That pisses you off. Too bad; that's reality. But you just proved yet again that your pretenses at "critical thinking" can't deal with real straight-forward data. Not only did you lie and pretend and weasel over on the Bathroom Wall, you repeated all that right here; and you got nailed again. You have no idea what THIS or THIS means, do you. This is theTHIRD time this particular information was placed right in front of you, and you still don't get it. You won't even look at it. You wouldn't know what it meant even if you did look at it. You have shown us that you don't know what the ACT or the SAT are. You don't know who takes them. You don't know how to compare the numbers of students from state to state. You have no idea how any of this relates to anything in those data in the links I provided THREE times. You don't know what cherry-picking data far out on the extremes reveals about you and your ability to "think critically." And you are unable to do this even when supplied with the data. And here is another reminder that you also offered a TV program from Unsolved Mysteries as "proof" of faith healing. And here is another reminder of your fakery at being an expert on entropy. How many more reminders do you need? Where is that lesson plan and set of evaluation and grading criteria we asked for? Where are the "supplemental materials" you would use to meet the course objectives on evolution? What would you put in the lesson plan that teaches students to "think critically?" You can't even do that yourself. By the way, you were shot down on this issue on page 213 on the Bathroom Wall (comments 266228 and 266230). People can check, you know. Most normal people know how to do that. But what would you know about that? I can also point back to that entropy test you flunked. How about a few other reminders? When are you going to "critically analyze" that Dembski and Marks paper? And still you taunt and moon. Well, taunt and moon away, fool; you just keep digging yourself in deeper. And everybody sees.

phantomreader42 · 10 August 2011

Every single creationist education initiative or legal trick in decades has been aimed at stealing tax money to indoctrinate innocent children into your monstrous death cult. Every single time, again and again, without exception. And you've been caught at this, in court, repeatedly, lying without a hint of remorse. Why do you expect anyone to believe this one is any different? Your cult is founded on lies, why should we trust anything you say?

FL said:
It allows teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda.
As always, stevaroni, the question is WHERE SPECIFICALLY in the LSEA that this science-education law "allows" any such thing. You gotta do more than the usual Panda bald assertions with no supporting evidence. All I ask is for you to show me straight from the LSEA text. That is what you guys seem to be stumblin' and bumblin' over. I'll provide the actual LSEA text again, to save time. Just point out your specific claim by showing specifically where the text "allows" it.
Â§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, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection. C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. D. 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. E. The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and each city, parish, or other local public school board shall adopt and promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this Section prior to the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. Section 2. This Act shall become effective upon signature by the governor or, if not signed by the governor, upon expiration of the time for bills to become law without signature by the governor, as provided by Article III, Section 18 of the Constitution of Louisiana. If vetoed by the governor and subsequently approved by the legislature, this Act shall become effective on the day following such approval.
FL

eric · 10 August 2011

FL said: See, here's the deal Eric. As you were forced to tacitly admit (by your clear failure to show otherwise), critical thinking skills aren't even MENTIONED,

Critical thinking skills are mentioned. 11, 15, and 16 are critical thinking skills. If you were thinking critically about the skills those items teach in relation to what it means to do 'critical thinking,' you would see that. But I was right in my previous post, you are treating the words as if they had some magic value. This isn't religion, it's science. You may feel the need to preface every prayer with the vocal statement 'let us pray' (though I wonder why - do you fear that your congregation won't know what it is they're doing if you don't label it?), but we don't feel any need to say 'now let us do critical thinking' before we do it.

A science teacher who teaches anything NOT expressly permitted and NOT expressly mentioned in the official state science education policy standards, is effectively risking loss of job and careers, if even ONE parent gets an angry attitude and goes to the media in accusation.

Teaching kids to do 11, 15, and 16 IS teaching them how to think critically about science, you dope. 11, 15, and 16 describe activities that one might do when performing an assessment of a scientific hypothesis or theory. There may be other skills the kids have to learn too, but those listed in the standards aren't a bad start.

Dave Luckett said: All of this [the LSEA's creationist tie-ins] is plainly obvious. Yet here’s FL, with his word-games, trying to game the lunatic notion that if the wording doesn’t say “You can teach creationism in science class”, then it doesn’t actually mean that.

It dovetails nicely with his whole thing about how the standards don't teach critical thinking unless they explicitly say the phrase 'critical thinking.' In both cases, he is refusing to actually DO any critical thinking even while he insists he's defending the practice of it. Question for FL: what skills would YOU teach the kids under the heading 'critical thinking?' What activities would you have them do? Would you have them analyze evolutionary conclusions by using data to determine their validity?

FL · 10 August 2011

I don’t have to prove anything to you; I am the expert and you are the fraud.

Yes Mike, I've heard that one before. That's why I'm so surprised that your expertise cannot provide any documented evidential support for Stanton's specific claim, since you have stepped right in (or perhaps "stepped right in it", hmm?), with the apparent purpose of saving his bacon. FL :)

apokryltaros · 10 August 2011

FL said:
I don’t have to prove anything to you; I am the expert and you are the fraud.
Yes Mike, I've heard that one before. That's why I'm so surprised that your expertise cannot provide any documented evidential support for Stanton's specific claim, since you have stepped right in (or perhaps "stepped right in it", hmm?), with the apparent purpose of saving his bacon. FL :)

So what if other people in addition to me point out how you are a blatant liar and a Fraud for Jesus? You still have not demonstrated how the LSEA is supposed to help children learn education, and you still have not demonstrated why you should be trusted as an "expert" Hell, you still refuse to demonstrate why Creationism and Intelligent Design are supposed to be "alternatives" to Evolution(ary Biology).

apokryltaros · 10 August 2011

Dave Luckett said: FL's an idiot. Or he thinks we are.

Both are true: FL repeatedly demonstrates that he is stupid enough to assume that we are stupid enough to swallow his blatant bullshit without hesistation. And when we don't, he then ridicules us for being stupid evil non-Christians, while unsubtly hinting that we can look forward to an eternity of fiery buttrape in Hell if we don't believe him.

Science Avenger · 10 August 2011

Dave Luckett said: ...here's FL, with his word-games, trying to game the lunatic notion that if the wording doesn't say "You can teach creationism in science class", then it doesn't actually mean that.

It's identical to the argument that since the words "seperation of church and state" appear nowhere in the constitution, the concept is not supported by it. In FL's world, if he pushed someone off a building, he didn't murder them if he proclaimed at the time that he was testing gravity and the effects of massive deceleration.

mrg · 10 August 2011

apokryltaros said: Both are true: FL repeatedly demonstrates that he is stupid enough to assume that we are stupid enough to swallow his blatant bullshit without hesitation.

He's stupid but he's not THAT stupid. He doesn't want the Pandas to swallow it, he just wants to use it to moon the Pandas and aggravate them. I will concede that he seems to perceive and obtain glee from "winning the argument" -- which is easy to do if, when called on stupid, FL just trots out more stupid from the vast supply available. The problem is that when FL shuts up, everything he has said immediately ceases to exist because it never had any substance. The solution is to keep on talking, keeping his contraption levitated on a column of hot air, knowing it will fall to earth the instant he goes quiet.

Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2011

FL said:
I don’t have to prove anything to you; I am the expert and you are the fraud.
Yes Mike, I've heard that one before. That's why I'm so surprised that your expertise cannot provide any documented evidential support for Stanton's specific claim, since you have stepped right in (or perhaps "stepped right in it", hmm?), with the apparent purpose of saving his bacon. FL :)

More fraud talk. You may have heard it before, but you still don’t get it. You can’t attach me to a comment I did not make in order to change the subject. You can’t avoid facing the solid evidence of your sleaze that I deliberately brought over from the Bathroom Wall as a reminder of how you word-game and get caught red-handed. I put your profile up here for the reasons I said. When directing anything at me, you can’t change the subject unless I allow you to. I am the expert. You are the fool; remember? You don’t get to set the rules if you think you can “argue” with me. You come up to MY level or you get slaughtered. You don’t get to pretend expertise you don’t have. Right now that happens to be your pretense at being an expert on critical thinking. I have provided solid evidence that you know nothing about critical thinking; and you continue to confirm it with your attempts at word-gaming it. Given your refusal to learn anything, especially science and critical thinking, I have rigged the game so that you will always lose unless you learn science instead of trying to refine your bullshitting skills. All you have left is to taunt and moon; and that makes you look ridiculous. And that is your own damned fault.

mrg · 10 August 2011

Mike Elzinga said: All you have left is to taunt and moon; and that makes you look ridiculous.

That's the POINT of the exercise. I'm reading a biography of Ike right now. It tends to emphasize what a real stand-up guy he was -- by having a contrast with someone who not only has no such virtues as Eisenhower, but doesn't even want them.

FL · 10 August 2011

11. Evaluate selected theories based on supporting scientific evidence (SI-H-B1) 15. Analyze the conclusion from an investigation by using data to determine its validity. (SI-H-B4) 16. Use the following rules of evidence to examine experimental results: (a) Can an expert's technique or theory be tested, has it been tested, or is it simply a subjective, conclusive approach that cannot be reasonably assessed for reliability? (b) Has the technique or theory been subjected to peer review and publication? (c) What is the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied? (d) Were standards and controls applied and maintained? (e) Has the technique or theory been generally accepted in the scientific community? (SI-H-B5) (SI-H-B1) (SI-H-B4)

Okay, that's the "11, 15, and 16" that you're talking about Eric. You specifically said they (11, 15, 16) mentioned "critical thinking." They DON'T. The honest response would have been to say that they DON'T mention "critical thinking", but that you strongly believe that they INFER a measure of critical thinking on the part of science students. *** However, "11, 15, and 16" do NOT say anything about the role of, and/or the importance of, developing critical thinking skills in the science students. "11, 15, and 16" do NOT say anything about mandating the Louisiana State Board board providing "assistance", "support", and "guidance" to science teachers (upon the request of the local school boards) to help said science teachers in their important mission to develop critical thinking science skills in public school. Furthermore, "11, 15, and 16" DO NOT GIVE SPECIFIC PERMISSION FOR SCIENCE TEACHERS to use "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education." That's really important, Eric. Without that provision, you're right back to that Kansas City science teacher whose several colleagues revealed to her that they were SCARED to deviate AT ALL from the biology textbook, even on items that they knew were clearly OUTDATED or material that modern peer-review-published science has now cast genuine doubts on. When the Principal sends you to his office, you MUST show that you are in full compliance with the EXPRESSLY WRITTEN local and state board policies. Your "Inferences" or "Interpretations" of the actual written policy (such as what you displayed with '11, 15, 16', even if plausible) will simply get you reassigned, resigned, or removed if a parent-complaint gets published in the paper or broadcast on local TV and you can't show compliance to the letter. Furthermore, "11, 15, and 16" DO NOT SPECIFY A MINIMUM SPECIFIC RANGE OF SCIENCE TOPICS that would be potential areas of controversy and thus potential sources of teachers getting their careers held hostage by hysterical parents and whatever-sells media outlets. In contrast, The LSEA clearly specifies at least four major current science topics that the LSEA provisions clearly will apply to, and they specify that this is only the minimum; it's not exhaustive. *** Anyway, you get the picture. The LSEA is a scientific quantum leap forward from the previous stuff. FL

Robbert · 10 August 2011

FL said: Okay, that's the "11, 15, and 16" that you're talking about Eric. You specifically said they (11, 15, 16) mentioned "critical thinking." They DON'T.

Oh, give it a rest. I've long lurked this site and have always enoyed reading the debates, but this is just pathetic. Surely you understand what words like "evaluate", "analyse" and "examine" mean? How do you suppose students "evaluate selected theories based on supporting scientific evidence" without critical thinking? They draw straws? It's like saying the sentence "I did the New York marathon in 3 h 20" says nothing about running.

apokryltaros · 10 August 2011

FL said: Anyway, you get the picture. The LSEA is a scientific quantum leap forward from the previous stuff. FL

The LSEA a quantum leap backwards towards the Dark Ages where people could be and were frequently put to death for not being Christian enough. You're lying through your teeth when you claim otherwise, FL.

SWT · 10 August 2011

FL said:
11. Evaluate selected theories based on supporting scientific evidence (SI-H-B1) 15. Analyze the conclusion from an investigation by using data to determine its validity. (SI-H-B4) 16. Use the following rules of evidence to examine experimental results: (a) Can an expert's technique or theory be tested, has it been tested, or is it simply a subjective, conclusive approach that cannot be reasonably assessed for reliability? (b) Has the technique or theory been subjected to peer review and publication? (c) What is the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied? (d) Were standards and controls applied and maintained? (e) Has the technique or theory been generally accepted in the scientific community? (SI-H-B5) (SI-H-B1) (SI-H-B4)
Okay, that's the "11, 15, and 16" that you're talking about Eric. You specifically said they (11, 15, 16) mentioned "critical thinking." They DON'T. The honest response would have been to say that they DON'T mention "critical thinking", but that you strongly believe that they INFER a measure of critical thinking on the part of science students.

Absolutely! They don't "mention" critical thinking. They don't "INFER [sic]" critical thinking. They are critical thinking.

Just Bob · 10 August 2011

I suspect that to FL, the word "critical" only has the colloquial meaning: to find things wrong with something; to show it's bad. (Or he only wants it to mean that.)

Well it DOESN'T mean that. To be critical is to “evaluate”, “analyse” and “examine”--and it includes discussing what is RIGHT with something. It may mean concluding that the value or worth of something far outweighs its flaws. It always took me a long time to convince HS sophomores that writing an essay of literary criticism doesn't mean finding everything wrong you possibly can with a book.

The glowing blurbs on book covers and DVD cases are from CRITICS.

So, FL, in a decently taught HS biology class, evolution IS "critically examined." If the instructor never brings up the things that you think are "flaws in the theory," that's because all of them have been debunked, shown to be strawmen, or are just plain religious claims. They have no weight or value as "criticisms." Their only value is in showing historically how people's scientific thinking has changed with new discoveries. Phlogiston has its place in chemistry class--what we used to think; we know better now. Creationism has its place in biology--for the same reason; we learned better and it never provided any useful answers anyway.

Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2011

Just Bob said: I suspect that to FL, the word "critical" only has the colloquial meaning: to find things wrong with something; to show it's bad. (Or he only wants it to mean that.)

Historically, the tactics of ID/creationism have been to eat up all time available by hauling discussions into quagmires of word-gaming, Gish-galloping, and bald, evidence-free assertions. Most of the ID/creationist laws advocating “freedom of speech,” “academic freedom,” “critical analysis,” and “presenting both sides” are aimed at fostering the kind of atmosphere that will allow dragging sciences courses into those quagmires without any consequences befalling those who engage in these tactics. FL seems to be equating that set of tactics with “critical thinking.”

eric · 10 August 2011

FL said: You specifically said they (11, 15, 16) mentioned "critical thinking."

No, I said that they ARE critical thinking SKILLS. Do you understand that 'critical thinking' is DOING things like the activities described in 11, 15, and 16?

The honest response would have been to say that they DON'T mention "critical thinking", but that you strongly believe that they INFER a measure of critical thinking on the part of science students.

The honest response would be for you to admit that the LSEA is the latest in a long line of pro-creationist attempts to wedge God back into the science curriculum. The honest respones by you would be to say that you hope that local school boards get the nudge-nudge wink-wink message to challenge mainstream scientific teaching on evolution, because in point of fact, that is really what you hope it will do. But let's go more strategic. An honest creationist would not indulge in this stealth baloney at all. They would happily admit that what they want to do is currently illegal, and seek to change the constitution to allow the state to endorse religion. In the meantime, while they are working for that change, an honest creationist would not try to circumvent the law with word substitutions (as in "creationism means that various forms..." becomes "intelligent design means that various forms...") But you are happy to promote such stealth measures, because you are not honest. The ends justifies the means in your book. Lying. For. Jesus.

"11, 15, and 16" do NOT say anything about mandating the Louisiana State Board board providing "assistance", "support", and "guidance" to science teachers (upon the request of the local school boards) to help said science teachers in their important mission to develop critical thinking science skills in public school. Furthermore, "11, 15, and 16" DO NOT GIVE SPECIFIC PERMISSION FOR SCIENCE TEACHERS to use "supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials...

You're right, they don't. But then again, when I asked you what the LSEA did for Louisiana, you replied "3 words: critical thinking skills." Remember saying that? Did you not mean it when you said it, or have you changed your mind in the last few hours? Perhaps, like Buckingham and Bonsell in Dover, you "misspoke," hmmm? You didn't say anything about mandated assistance to teachers and freedom to use supplemental materials. You just added those right now, as your "critical thinking" argument sinks to the ocean floor. That is what is known as moving the goalposts. Do you understand why we call it that?

DS · 10 August 2011

11. Evaluate selected theories based on supporting scientific evidence (SI-H-B1)

Well that leaves out creationism. It has no supporting evidence whatsoever.

15. Analyze the conclusion from an investigation by using data to determine its validity. (SI-H-B4)

Well that leaves out creationism. There are no data that can be used to determine its validity.

16. Use the following rules of evidence to examine experimental results: (a) Can an expert’s technique or theory be tested, has it been tested, or is it simply a subjective, conclusive approach that cannot be reasonably assessed for reliability? (b) Has the technique or theory been subjected to peer review and publication? (c) What is the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied? (d) Were standards and controls applied and maintained? (e) Has the technique or theory been generally accepted in the scientific community? (SI-H-B5) (SI-H-B1) (SI-H-B4)

(a) That leaves out creationism. There are no experts and they have no techniques that can be tested. All they have are subjective conclusions that cannot be reasonably assessed.

(b) Well that leaves out creationism. There are virtually no publications in peer reviewed journals, except for a few that were published under false pretenses or were subsequently proven to be completely wrong.

(c) Well that leaves out creationism. It has been wrong about every single thing it has ever predicted, when it has predicted anything at all.

(d) Well that leaves out creationism. It has no standards or controls. Anything goes with creationists, no matter how illogical, self contradictory or absurd.

(e) Well that definitely leaves out creationism. It hasn't been accepted by any real scientist, let alone the scientific community. The only people who accept it are religious fanatics.

So I guess FL is g=right. There is absolutely no way that this can be used to as an excuse to teach creationism, unless of course you misrepresent the science. But then again, since the student will be taught to think critically, they aren't going to be fooled by that now are they?

So FL, perhaps you would like to tell us exactly why this legislation is necessary. Exactly what does it allow teachers to do that they didn't already have the right to do? Critically evaluate evolution? We have been doing that for over one hundred and fifty years now. That's why it has gained so much acceptance in the scientific community.

circleh · 10 August 2011

Just Bob said: I suspect that to FL, the word "critical" only has the colloquial meaning: to find things wrong with something; to show it's bad. (Or he only wants it to mean that.) Well it DOESN'T mean that. To be critical is to “evaluate”, “analyse” and “examine”--and it includes discussing what is RIGHT with something. It may mean concluding that the value or worth of something far outweighs its flaws. It always took me a long time to convince HS sophomores that writing an essay of literary criticism doesn't mean finding everything wrong you possibly can with a book. The glowing blurbs on book covers and DVD cases are from CRITICS.

Ever heard of "higher criticism"? That's when you take the Bible and subject it to the same sort of analysis you would any other form of literature. It is NOT about discrediting or denying the value of the teachings of the Bible, unlike the lies told about it by fundamentalist bigots like FL. It is about revealing the TRUTH about where the stories in it came from! You'd think if stories in the Bible that look like myths were based on actual events, higher criticism wouldn't be possible! But it was done and people like FL have been running away from the truth and libeling the ones who did that vital work ever since. And once the truth is revealed, the reason for certain dogmas becomes clear as well. They are man-made, so you are free to either follow the dogmas as they suit you, or ignore them. This is the essence of liberal religion. The Bible was written by men and the religion of Christianity was made by men. There is no "Word of God" in them, for that's a lie. That's blaspheming by making God to be either a liar or an idiot.

FL · 10 August 2011

Welcome, Robbert! Guess you're not quite a lurker anymore.

Surely you understand what words like “evaluate”, “analyse” and “examine” mean? How do you suppose students “evaluate selected theories based on supporting scientific evidence” without critical thinking

Why is why I said what I said about the word "INFER". It's an inference. Furthermore, as clearly shown in my previous post, that particular inference found in (11, 15, 16) inference is highly **LIMITED**--especially for science teachers as well as science students--compared to LSEA's clear and broad provisions. If you taught biology class in high school, and human cloning or origin-of-life came up in the biology book, and you pointed out that one or two textbook statements were outdated and false because of new discoveries or theories,and if an angry parent told the media that you taught something inappropriately and she would sue the school.............. YOU MIGHT WOULD HAVE NO DEFENSE, and you could face reassignment, resignation, or removal to cool off the media and stop a lawsuit, unless you could show that you were only following the specific, express wording of both state and local policies. Stated simply, your personal INFERENCES that you referred to earlier, even though they're quite plausible to me, in terms of denoting "critical thinking", might not save your job in the principal's office with the school board attorney and principal staring at you. Only those state and local policies that are specifically, expressly, OFFICIALLY written in plain English, counts in time of public controversy, media controvery, and school-admin responses. FL

Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2011

If anybody has any doubts about the tactics ID/creationist legislation would allow in the classroom, watch FL’s behavior.

He Gish-gallops all over the place, he raises non-sequitur issues in order to broaden the range of topics he can drag into a quagmire of word-gaming, he injects pseudo-science as though is has not been given a “fair hearing,” and he routinely engages in conflation and gradual shadings of meanings in order to be sure he can use whatever definitions suit his current “arguments.”

And, to top it all off, he engages in an infinite regress of word-gaming about his word-gaming.

That is not how science is or should be taught.

FL · 10 August 2011

You didn’t say anything about mandated assistance to teachers and freedom to use supplemental materials.

Please, please, read the LSEA before commenting about it. The entire LSEA text has been previously presented so you could READ it. (Btw, do you know what a subsection is?) ***

Â§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, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection. C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 10 August 2011

FL said:
You didn’t say anything about mandated assistance to teachers and freedom to use supplemental materials.
Please, please, read the LSEA before commenting about it. The entire LSEA text has been previously presented so you could READ it. (Btw, do you know what a subsection is?) ***
Â§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, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (2) Such assistance shall include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied, including those enumerated in Paragraph (1) of this Subsection. C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
FL

WOW FL you really are infuriating - YOU specifically said the "critical thinking skills" (in a snarky.smarmy, oily tone) was what LESA provided that current standards DON'T - your ass when then handed to you when is was demonstrated, with references in the current standards where critical thinking skills were fostered (and enumerated - you are either playing word games or are ignorant as to the meaning of "critical thinking skills' in this context if you think that does NOT mean "evaluate", "analyze") then you have the nerve to post the most objectionable part of the LESA as if that is it's strength? seriously? the way LESA is worded above B(1) "A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education." - a teacher can use whatever they want as a suppliment UNTIL an official prohibits its use - that's not how standards work - materials must be vetted BEFORE they are used otherwise (under LESA) a teacher who wants to inject unacceptable material has the legal backing to do so until he/she gets caught, then he/she can use slightly different supplimentary material until he/she gets caught etc etc ad nausium

mrg · 10 August 2011

WOW FL you really are infuriating ...

To which his response is no doubt: "Thank you!"

FL · 10 August 2011

YOU specifically said the “critical thinking skills” (in a snarky.smarmy, oily tone) was what LESA provided that current standards DON’T...

And I provided specific examples with which to confirm that point. But you may have missed 'em, so let me repeat 'em.

However, “11, 15, and 16” do NOT say anything about the role of, and/or the importance of, developing critical thinking skills in the science students. “11, 15, and 16” do NOT say anything about mandating the Louisiana State Board board providing “assistance”, “support”, and “guidance” to science teachers (upon the request of the local school boards) to help said science teachers in their important mission to develop critical thinking science skills in public school. Furthermore, “11, 15, and 16” DO NOT GIVE SPECIFIC PERMISSION FOR SCIENCE TEACHERS to use “supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board unless otherwise prohibited by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.” That’s really important, Eric. Without that provision, you’re right back to that Kansas City science teacher whose several colleagues revealed to her that they were SCARED to deviate AT ALL from the biology textbook, even on items that they knew were clearly OUTDATED or material that modern peer-review-published science has now cast genuine doubts on. When the Principal sends you to his office, you MUST show that you are in full compliance with the EXPRESSLY WRITTEN local and state board policies. Your “Inferences” or “Interpretations” of the actual written policy (such as what you displayed with ‘11, 15, 16’, even if plausible) will simply get you reassigned, resigned, or removed if a parent-complaint gets published in the paper or broadcast on local TV and you can’t show compliance to the letter. Furthermore, “11, 15, and 16” DO NOT SPECIFY A MINIMUM SPECIFIC RANGE OF SCIENCE TOPICS that would be potential areas of controversy and thus potential sources of teachers getting their careers held hostage by hysterical parents and whatever-sells media outlets. In contrast, The LSEA clearly specifies at least four major current science topics that the LSEA provisions clearly will apply to, and they specify that this is only the minimum; it’s not exhaustive.

apokryltaros · 10 August 2011

FL said:
YOU specifically said the “critical thinking skills” (in a snarky.smarmy, oily tone) was what LESA provided that current standards DON’T...
And I ~~provided specific examples~~ lied repeatedly and played really blatant word games with which to confirm that point.

There, fixed.

Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2011

FL is still copy/pasting without comprehension. That hasn’t changed in at least four years. Never a thought of his own.

Interesting how he tries to mimic the comments and demeanor of the people who have exposed his phony attempts at playing “expert.” Cargo cult behavior.

Watch FL’s “technique” and picture allowing that to continue in a classroom until someone takes the school board to court to stop it.

Expect to see some “displacement behavior” as he changes the subject and looks for someone else to taunt, kick around, and dominate. It will likely be something to do with his interpretation of his holy book being superior to all others. It's that pornographic urge again.

Rob · 10 August 2011

FL Calibration.

In FL's mind loving equates with slaughter of children and good ethics equates with the sale of daughters as sex slaves.

FL has no problem with these elements of the plainly read inerrant bible.

From a morals and rationality perspective, FL's ability to hold these positions should be considered when interpreting all of FL's posts.

stevaroni · 10 August 2011

FL said: As always, stevaroni, the question is WHERE SPECIFICALLY in the LSEA that this science-education law "allows" any such thing. All I ask is for you to show me straight from the LSEA text.

Here, specifically, FL.

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials

What "supplemental" materials, you may ask. In practice, the DI advocates "Pandas and People", which has been shown over, and over and over again to use widely discredited criticisms of well understood laws of biology. In practice, people like Freshwater download AIG handouts from the internet. Handouts that are so factually incorrect and biased that Freshwater felt the need to number them and collect them after class, lest he leave tracks. In practice, teachers like the moron biology teacher from Springboro who proudly announced that the 2nd law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution will actually teach this to children. So long as this hokum is written down somewhere, bringing it into class and teaching it as "supplemental material" is specifically allowed in section C. BTW, Thanks for the text, FL, it made answering your question as easy as reading three paragraphs.

eric · 11 August 2011

FL said:
YOU specifically said the “critical thinking skills” (in a snarky.smarmy, oily tone) was what LESA provided that current standards DON’T...
And I provided specific examples with which to confirm that point.

Your examples do nothing of the sort. When pointed out that critical thinking skills are exactly what's in the the current standards, you resorted to claiming that they don't actually do it because the standards don't say the words "critical thinking" in them. After we argued this for a while, you suddenly decided that what you really meant all along was that the LSEA supports critical thinking because of its 'providing assistance' and 'allowing the use of supplementary materials' clauses. But this is both wrong and disingenuous. First, its wrong because they have little or nothing to do with critical thinking at all. I could do those in support of basket weaving, or helping someone go to sleep. Second, your claim is disingenuous because you simply added those when your argument about critical thinking failed. This is transparent to every reader on this board. Need a reminder? FL on 9 August, 2:56pm. in response to my question, 'what does the LSEA add?': "Three words, critical thinking skills." FL on 10 August, 12:34pm: [paraphrasing] 'Those critical thinking-addressing passages you cited in the current standards don't provide assistance, and don't tell teachers they can use additional resources.' The dodge you tried is obvious to anyone who reads your posts. This is actually why teaching kids critical thinking skills is so important; so they can see through your crap. It's why nobody here actually believes you are interested in teaching critical thinking skills, instead you and your creationist buddies are simply using the term as a dog whistle to mean "undermine the teaching of evolution." I get so tired of your lying. Why don't you just admit that that is what you want? You don't give a rat's ass if students critically analyze Shakespeare or the civil war or the two-slit experiment. You actively reject the notion of them applying critical analysis to young earth creationism. No, the only thing you really want them to do is question evolution. Why not just be honest about it?

Furthermore, “11, 15, and 16” DO NOT SPECIFY A MINIMUM SPECIFIC RANGE OF SCIENCE TOPICS that would be potential areas of controversy

Those items are in a document called "Grade level expectations - Biology." The 'range of science topics' covered should be obvious. Do you know how to read a title and assess how the title might apply to the text underneath?

DS · 11 August 2011

FL has been asked how this policy enhances teaching. He failed to respond. The fact is that it does absolutely nothing for teachers that they didn't already have the right to do. They could already teach critical thinking. They could already use supplementary materials. And why on earth would you have to say that they have to teach to the standards? Why on earth would you have to say that they cannot use material that is expressly forbidden? Why on earth would you single out evolution ( and a few other things, wink wink) for special consideration?

So the question becomes, if this does nothing to help teachers and if it does not allow for the teaching of creationism, why does FL support it? We know that he knows nothing about science. We know that he doesn't care about teaching. We know that he wants his own religious dogma taught as science at tax payer expense while he sits in his tax free church and gloats. Frankly, the more loudly he denies his true motivations, the more suspicious people should be.

Fortunately it matters not at all. Fortunately, no matter what local standards are in place, federal law prohibits the teaching of creationism as science. Fortunately, everyone is well aware of what happened to Freshwater. Fortunately the science of evolution can stand up to true critical evolution. Creationism cannot. Every real scientist already knows this. Every unbiased teacher already knows this. No policy can stop a dishonest charlatan, motivated by religious imperatives, from preaching in the classroom. But when they get caught and hauled into court, the least we could do is make sure that the policy wording gives them no legal ground to stand on and no excuses for their misconduct.

Dave Lovell · 11 August 2011

eric said:
FL said:
YOU specifically said the “critical thinking skills” (in a snarky.smarmy, oily tone) was what LESA provided that current standards DON’T...
And I provided specific examples with which to confirm that point.
Your examples do nothing of the sort. When pointed out that critical thinking skills are exactly what's in the the current standards, you resorted to claiming that they don't actually do it because the standards don't say the words "critical thinking" in them.

FL, perhaps you could tell us in your own words what you think constitutes "critical thinking". If it is so important that these actual words appear, then it must surely be essential that their precise meaning is not open to (mis)interpretation.

mrg · 11 August 2011

Dave Lovell said: FL, perhaps you could tell us in your own words what you think constitutes "critical thinking".

I am puzzled as to why anyone would be so fond of noisy eruptions of flatulence as to request them.

phantomreader42 · 11 August 2011

I'll point this out again, though Foolish Liar would rather kill and eat his own family than address it. Every single time creationists have meddled in education in the past, it's turned out to be a dishonest, poorly-disguised attempt to steal tax money to indoctrinate other people's children into their cult. This has happened again and again, and they always get caught at it. Now, creationists in Louisiana are meddling in education again. What possible reason would any person who knows anything about past creationist meddling have to think that this time is any different than all the other times? The death cultists have never learned their lesson before, why should we assume they have done so now? Why should we trust people who have been repeatedly exposed as incompetent, bigoted frauds, members of a movement that exists solely to lie?

DS said: FL has been asked how this policy enhances teaching. He failed to respond. The fact is that it does absolutely nothing for teachers that they didn't already have the right to do. They could already teach critical thinking. They could already use supplementary materials. And why on earth would you have to say that they have to teach to the standards? Why on earth would you have to say that they cannot use material that is expressly forbidden? Why on earth would you single out evolution ( and a few other things, wink wink) for special consideration? So the question becomes, if this does nothing to help teachers and if it does not allow for the teaching of creationism, why does FL support it? We know that he knows nothing about science. We know that he doesn't care about teaching. We know that he wants his own religious dogma taught as science at tax payer expense while he sits in his tax free church and gloats. Frankly, the more loudly he denies his true motivations, the more suspicious people should be. Fortunately it matters not at all. Fortunately, no matter what local standards are in place, federal law prohibits the teaching of creationism as science. Fortunately, everyone is well aware of what happened to Freshwater. Fortunately the science of evolution can stand up to true critical evolution. Creationism cannot. Every real scientist already knows this. Every unbiased teacher already knows this. No policy can stop a dishonest charlatan, motivated by religious imperatives, from preaching in the classroom. But when they get caught and hauled into court, the least we could do is make sure that the policy wording gives them no legal ground to stand on and no excuses for their misconduct.

FL · 11 August 2011

Specifically, I want to respond to a Stevaroni post, but it seems that the following post got overlooked by some people (more than one) so I'm bumping it.

See, here’s the deal Eric. As you were forced to tacitly admit (by your clear failure to show otherwise), critical thinking skills aren’t even MENTIONED, nor PUBLICLY, CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED, in the previous LS standards (at your link), as having ANY role or ANY importance within science education and/or curriculum of public school science students. That’s not good enough, Eric. Not even halfway sir. A science teacher who teaches anything NOT expressly permitted and NOT expressly mentioned in the official state science education policy standards, is effectively risking loss of job and careers, if even ONE parent gets an angry attitude and goes to the media in accusation. When controversy erupts, be it in Biology, English Lit, History, Afro-American Studies, Sociology or Goverment class, that teacher gotta be able to show the Principal that he or she was operating under the EXPRESSLY WRITTEN policies of the state and local education board. If not, that person could be forced to accept a choice of “resign” or “reassignment” (to another less desirable school), just to calm the media down. (How do I know? I read the newspaper. Goes down just like that.) One Kansas City science teacher said that several of her colleagues told her that they were afraid to deviate from the biology textbook AT ALL, even if they knew that some stuff was outdated or no longer scientifically true. Why? You know why Eric. If it’s not expressly written and expressly covered in the State Standards, your current job–and maybe your whole teaching career – is toast. Your ONLY defense when the principal calls for a meeting in the office, is what’s specifically explicity written in plain English black and white ink on both the local and state policy booklets.

DS · 11 August 2011

Yea right. Teachers are going to get fired for teaching critical thinking. That;s the most important thing we have to worry about. We have to give them specific permission, in so many words, otherwise they will get fired for actually doing their jobs. And the motivation here is of course getting the best science education possible for our children, right FL?

eric · 11 August 2011

FL said: Specifically, I want to respond to a Stevaroni post, but it seems that the following post got overlooked by some people (more than one) so I'm bumping it.
See, here’s the deal Eric. As you were forced to tacitly admit (by your clear failure to show otherwise), critical thinking skills aren’t even MENTIONED...

I didn't overlook it, I explicitly refuted it. Critical thinking SKILLS are mentioned in the pre-LSEA standards. Example: analyzing conclusions by using data to determine their validity is a "critical thinking skill." Your counter-argument seems to be that since the words 'critical thinking' don't appear, this must not be critical thinking. Which is incredibly stupid. However, if you don't think that "analyzing conclusions by using data to determine their validity" is a critical thinking skill, perhaps you can tell us why it isn't.

SWT · 11 August 2011

It's just a darn shame that it's impossible for teachers who think they've found a significant error in or update to the resources specified for a class to discuss the situation with their department head or principal. It's so unfair that they are forced to take unilateral action that deviates from the state-approved curriculum without even the possibility of consulting with (let alone getting approval from) anyone above them in the school organization. But the curriculum obviously cannot be modified so that valid improvements are shared with teachers state-wide.

circleh · 11 August 2011

eric said to FL: However, if you don't think that "analyzing conclusions by using data to determine their validity" is a critical thinking skill, perhaps you can tell us why it isn't.

Because that is something FL himself NEVER does. For him, the only things deserving "critical thinking" are things against his religion. But slamming things for that reason alone is NOT critical thinking. It's bigotry, which is the exact opposite.

FL · 11 August 2011

Here's what you left out Eric. Try to respond to it.

....nor PUBLICLY, CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED, in the previous LS standards (at your link), as having ANY role or ANY importance within science education and/or curriculum of public school science students. That’s not good enough, Eric. Not even halfway sir. A science teacher who teaches anything NOT expressly permitted and NOT expressly mentioned in the official state science education policy standards, is effectively risking loss of job and careers, if even ONE parent gets an angry attitude and goes to the media in accusation. When controversy erupts, be it in Biology, English Lit, History, Afro-American Studies, Sociology or Goverment class, that teacher gotta be able to show the Principal that he or she was operating under the EXPRESSLY WRITTEN policies of the state and local education board. If not, that person could be forced to accept a choice of “resign” or “reassignment” (to another less desirable school), just to calm the media down. (How do I know? I read the newspaper. Goes down just like that.) One Kansas City science teacher said that several of her colleagues told her that they were afraid to deviate from the biology textbook AT ALL, even if they knew that some stuff was outdated or no longer scientifically true. Why? You know why Eric. If it’s not expressly written and expressly covered in the State Standards, your current job–and maybe your whole teaching career – is toast. Your ONLY defense when the principal calls for a meeting in the office, is what’s specifically explicity written in plain English black and white ink on both the local and state policy booklets.

FL · 11 August 2011

And afterwards requested that somebody provide ANY published evidence showing that the LSEA caused a quantifiable drop in science education performance within Louisiana public schools, within the three past years that the law has been in force.

This request did not get fulfilled either. FL

apokryltaros · 11 August 2011

FL said:
And afterwards requested that somebody provide ANY published evidence showing that the LSEA caused a quantifiable drop in science education performance within Louisiana public schools, within the three past years that the law has been in force.
This request did not get fulfilled either. FL

Lying and falsely claiming that your inane post did not get responded to is not tantamount to no one actually responding to your inane post. Please realize that this is but one reason why we all consider you to be a lying idiot, FL.

Mike Elzinga · 11 August 2011

So now FL switches to pretending to be an expert on the professional development of teachers. FL writes:

See, here’s the deal Eric. As you were forced to tacitly admit (by your clear failure to show otherwise), critical thinking skills aren’t even MENTIONED, nor PUBLICLY, CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED, in the previous LS standards (at your link), as having ANY role or ANY importance within science education and/or curriculum of public school science students.

We have already established that FL knows absolutely NOTHING about critical thinking; and he doesn’t recognize it even as it goes on all around him. And just what the hell is this claim that one “tacitly admits” by failing to show otherwise? FL never shows anything; he just asserts. But he has already demonstrated for us just what that sentence means for him; namely, the way to reject evolution is to never look at the evidence, because never looking means it hasn’t been “shown otherwise.” Where have we seen that before?

A science teacher who teaches anything NOT expressly permitted and NOT expressly mentioned in the official state science education policy standards, is effectively risking loss of job and careers, if even ONE parent gets an angry attitude and goes to the media in accusation.

Now FL is passing himself off as an expert on what professionalism in teaching is all about. BAD FL! Any teacher who thinks that going rogue, just because he/she doesn’t agree with the curriculum or the subject matter, not only has no clue about the subject matter, but such a teacher has chosen to remain isolated and below the radar by not participating in the ongoing professional processes of keeping up-to-date in subject matter and pedagogy. The most likely teachers to avoid professional growth will be the ones who teach stealth creationism.

When controversy erupts, be it in Biology, English Lit, History, Afro-American Studies, Sociology or Goverment class, that teacher gotta be able to show the Principal that he or she was operating under the EXPRESSLY WRITTEN policies of the state and local education board.

Questions and puzzles come up all the time; especially in science because many scientific concepts are subtle and there are well-known misconceptions many students bring with them into class or develop in the process of trying to learn. Professional teachers don’t run to the principal to get permission to deal with such issues. In fact, principals would be alarmed by such a teacher doing this and would be likely to recommend such a teacher be placed under the supervision of a mentor teacher for further training and development. Professionalism in teaching means constantly keeping up with the best material available, developing and sharing pedagogical methods with other teachers, and anticipating the hurdles students will need to overcome when encountering new concepts. Professionalism means belonging to and participating in the professional organizations of ones peers. It means keeping up with the literature in one’s areas of instruction, including the pedagogical literature. Professional teachers are expected to BE the experts in their schools; and they are expected to behave professionally.

If not, that person could be forced to accept a choice of “resign” or “reassignment” (to another less desirable school), just to calm the media down. (How do I know? I read the newspaper. Goes down just like that.)

The only “teachers” to whom this concocted scenario applies are rogue teachers who behave unprofessionally, teach material that is known to be wrong (e.g., ID/creationism), and who attempt to hide their activities from professional vetting.

One Kansas City science teacher said that several of her colleagues told her that they were afraid to deviate from the biology textbook AT ALL, even if they knew that some stuff was outdated or no longer scientifically true.

This statement is PURE BULLSHIT. Nearly every textbook has mistakes, muddled passages, or contains material that has since been updated or superseded. The purpose of professional development in teaching is to stay abreast of these and make the necessary adjustments and to stay in touch with the broader professional community of researchers and instructors. Teachers who fail to do this become outdated and boring; or they are the creationists FL wants to protect.

If it’s not expressly written and expressly covered in the State Standards, your current job–and maybe your whole teaching career – is toast. Your ONLY defense when the principal calls for a meeting in the office, is what’s specifically explicity written in plain English black and white ink on both the local and state policy booklets.

More PURE BULLSHIT. The purpose of professional development is to keep up with one’s area of teaching. It means staying abreast of the latest developments in one’s field and participating in the professional community of teachers, scholars, and researchers who are developing and testing teaching methods and materials. The kind of “teacher” FL is describing is precisely the stealth creationist who THINKS he/she knows better but imagines he/she is “being repressed” and persecuted by the establishment. However, such a “teacher” is not concerned about professional development and keeping up with the subject matter he/she is responsible for. Such a “teacher” is an ideologue and someone who has attained the window dressing of being qualified to teach a subject, but who has every intention of subverting any system set up to ensure that teachers remain qualified, experienced, and continually participating in the process of professional development. FL wants to protect rogue ideologues who never participate in professional development; and those of us who have been involved in the educational community at all levels from elementary to graduate school know damned well what these rogues look like and how they behave. Furthermore, FL has once again demonstrated his “style” of making bullshit assertions and pretending to be an expert in things he knows nothing about. He has not deviated from this shtick in at least four years. His assertions about religion and Christianity are also bullshit. He is not an expert in anything, and he repeatedly demonstrates he knows nothing about critical thinking.

apokryltaros · 11 August 2011

Mike Elzinga said: So now FL switches to pretending to be an expert on the professional development of teachers.

As typical, FL continues lying about topics that are literally beyond his own stunted, bigoted comprehension. Any moment now, he's going to start vomiting up hints about how we're all going to burn in Hell if we do not worship him as an undisputed expert because he believes in Jesus.

eric · 11 August 2011

FL said: Here's what you left out Eric. Try to respond to it.

Sure.

....nor PUBLICLY, CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED, in the previous LS standards (at your link), as having ANY role or ANY importance within science education and/or curriculum of public school science students.

Since critical thinking skills are in the standards, they are "mentioned" in the standards. Since critical thinking skill are in the standards, they are clearly acknowledged as having a role in science education. To wit: the state of Louisiana expects 10th grade biology students to be able to apply and perform the skill listed in the standards, many of which fall obviously under the heading of 'critical thinking.'

That’s not good enough, Eric. Not even halfway sir. A science teacher who teaches anything NOT expressly permitted and NOT expressly mentioned in the official state science education policy standards, is effectively risking loss of job and careers,

Well, it's a good think that critical thinking skills such as 'analyzing conclusions by using data to determine their validity' are expressly permitted and mentioned then.

When controversy erupts, be it in Biology, English Lit, History, Afro-American Studies, Sociology or Goverment class, that teacher gotta be able to show the Principal that he or she was operating under the EXPRESSLY WRITTEN policies of the state and local education board.

That should be pretty easy. 'Analyzing conclusions by using data to determine their validity' covers a lot of territory.

If not, that person could be forced to accept a choice of “resign” or “reassignment” (to another less desirable school), just to calm the media down. (How do I know? I read the newspaper. Goes down just like that.)

Well, then it should be easy for you to provide a link to such stories. Please do so. I'm particularly interested in that KC one.

Your ONLY defense when the principal calls for a meeting in the office, is what’s specifically explicity written in plain English black and white ink on both the local and state policy booklets.

'Analyzing conclusions by using data to determine their validity' is written in plain English black and white ink. I admit it, you've got me on both the "local and state" thing. But then again, the LSEA is just as state policy too.

FL · 11 August 2011

So Stevaroni wrote,

It (the LSEA) allows teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda. Actually, more accurately, you can leave anti-science out of it. It allows teachers to teach religious, anti readily-demonstrable-physical-fact propaganda.

How so, exactly? Well, Stevaroni says that it's this part of the LSEA:

C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials...

So let's check that out. *** Okay. According to Stevaroni, Subsection "C", (the part Stevaroni highlighted), ALLOWS science teachers to teach "religious propaganda." Steve is saying this DIRECTLY; there is no use denying that. Now, just go here on the LSEA:

D. 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.

This is not legally optional. This is not legally negotiable. NO religious anything may be taught in Louisiana science and biology classes at anytime, regardless of Stevaroni's opinion. This would include biblical creationism. So, this specific part of the LSEA law clearly WIPES OUT Stevaroni's claim that any kind of religious material, "religious propaganda", or religious anything is being "allowed" by the LSEA. *** Now, look at the second half of what Stevaroni said.

(LSEA supplement paragraph allows) ..."anti-science propaganda" ..."anti readily-demonstrable-physical-fact" propaganda

Again, Steve makes this claim DIRECTLY. Can't go back and move any goalposts now. *** Now, I'm sure that a lot of material within the biology text chapter WRT prebiotic evolution, and the evo-claim of humas origins, is actually NOT "readily demonstrable physical fact." But aside from that observation, what does the LSEA actually say? Again, here's the text: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/text_of_louisiana_science_educ007391.html So what you need to remember from that LSEA text WRT Stevaroni's claim there, is explained in plain English by Robert Crowther:

• Teachers are still required to follow the standard curriculum, and school districts would still need to authorize what teachers are doing in order for the law to come into operation. Moreover, any teaching or supplemental instructional materials would have to be consistent with the **prohibition** of the promotion of religion in Section 1D of the bill. Finally, any inappropriate instructional materials could be disallowed under the bill by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. • Upon the request of a local school board, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will be required to "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, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Assistance from the State Board in this area now will "include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied." • Teachers will be permitted to "use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." But teachers using supplemental resources must first "teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system," and the State Board of Education reserves the right to veto any inappropriate supplemental materials. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/victory_in_louisiana_governor008401.html

In short, Louisiana science teachers do NOT get to arbitrarily start reading Genesis 1 in biology class, nor do they got to arbitrarily start discussing anything that is "anti-science" or otherwise non-scientific in science class, and THEN bring their moves up for local/state vetting. NOPE---doesn't work that way. LSEA expressly prohibits any religious stuff in science classes anyway. Instead, each science teacher MUST FIRST clear their request to teach their critical thinking supplemental information, with their local school board, which also means clearing it with their own school admins and principal. IF their request gets the nod after all that local admin/board vetting, THEN the local school board makes the request to the state board under the LSEA law for the science teacher to proceed with their stated supplemental information. AND the science teacher has to teach the canned biology textbook material FIRST, even if the State Board grants official permission to teach the supplemental material afterwards. So Stevaroni's fears, though sincere, are clearly baseless when compared to the LSEA requirements. There's some real reasons why evolutionists and ACLU lawyers refuse to go to court on LSEA as it's currently written. There's some real reasons why pro-evolution efforts to repeal LSEA (including high school media sensation Zack Kopplin's efforts) utterly failed. *** Finally, Stevaroni appealed to history (the Freshwater incident, for example) in trying to defend his claims. So I'll appeal to history as well. In over THREE YEARS since LSEA became law, NONE of the three "in practice" examples described by Stevaroni has taken place WRT Louisiana public schools. Nowhere in the state has any of those three been reported. Not even one. Not even once. ZERO allegations in the media. ZERO accusations by the Louisiana ACLU. Grade Card: LSEA's historical track record is a solid A-Plus. Disprove it baby! FL

Mike Elzinga · 11 August 2011

You can always count on a thief to cheer the passage of a law that removes the cops from the beat and requires all the locks to be taken off the doors and vaults of the banks.

Just Bob · 11 August 2011

FL, if no one is using it as a cover for pushing creationism, then why are your panties in such a twist? If it has nothing to do with creationism, and no one is using it for that, why do you care?

And just because no official complaints have surfaced to national attention yet, and no cases have been filed, does NOT, in a state like LA, mean that creationism is not being explicitly taught in public school science classes. For how many years did Freshwater get away with his shtick before someone had the cojones to call him on it?

phantomreader42 · 11 August 2011

More questions Foolish Liar would sooner castrate himself than answer:

If this law doesn't promote creationism, why are creationists pushing it?

Foolish Liar is positively giddy about this idiocy, why? The only things he gets giddy over are lies, torture, and public masturbation. So, which of these does LSEA fall under?

Why should anyone ever believe a single word any creationist says? They're all pathological liars whose entire religion is founded on the worship of ignorance and delusion.

phantomreader42 · 11 August 2011

Just Bob said: FL, if no one is using it as a cover for pushing creationism, then why are your panties in such a twist? If it has nothing to do with creationism, and no one is using it for that, why do you care? And just because no official complaints have surfaced to national attention yet, and no cases have been filed, does NOT, in a state like LA, mean that creationism is not being explicitly taught in public school science classes. For how many years did Freshwater get away with his shtick before someone had the cojones to call him on it?

Oh, Freshwater! Hey, Foolish Liar, what do you think of Freshwater? Are you pro-branding-children-in-the-name-of-jebus, or anti?

circleh · 11 August 2011

FL knows as well as we or anyone else involved in dealing with Creationist bullcrap that proponents of Intelligent Design can claim it does not specifically promote a religion and thus sneak it into science classrooms, with the LSEA as the justification for it. But because the ID hypothesis does not actually show a designer, only resting on the assumption that you can detect design and thus infer a Designer, it is still "religious, anti readily-demonstrable-physical-fact propaganda". Even if such a thing is accepted by most people in Louisiana. Nice try, FL, but you are still a liar and a fraud on so many levels it's no even phunny, just sick!

FL said: So Stevaroni wrote,
It (the LSEA) allows teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda. Actually, more accurately, you can leave anti-science out of it. It allows teachers to teach religious, anti readily-demonstrable-physical-fact propaganda.
In over THREE YEARS since LSEA became law, NONE of the three "in practice" examples described by Stevaroni has taken place WRT Louisiana public schools. Nowhere in the state has any of those three been reported. Not even one. Not even once. ZERO allegations in the media. ZERO accusations by the Louisiana ACLU. Grade Card: LSEA's historical track record is a solid A-Plus. Disprove it baby! FL

SWT · 11 August 2011

Back to the point where FL hijacked this discussion:

FL said: Long story short, Kohls needs to consider going with the proven, sure approach: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/text_of_louisiana_science_educ007391.html The fact is that a LSEA-modeled science education policy, as written, works right now, and is Darwinist-proof, Dover-proof, ACLU-proof, even "Media"-proof, right here and now. Invincible at this time. That's the reality on the ground right now. If Kohls wants to do more than merely generate headlines at this time, she will HAVE to adopt the LSEA approach in terms of advocating for public policy changes. At the same time, she use her public position to encourage churches, students, and concerned citizens to take a stronger lead on ID education advocacy within their own spheres of influence. FL

If you look at scores for the 2011 Science and Engineering Readiness Index, (SERI) you'll see that my beloved Ohio has a SERI score of 2.64, which puts Ohio in the "Average" category. Louisiana has a SERI score of 1.59, which is in the "Far Below Average" category. Why on earth would Ohio want to emulate Louisiana?

oclarki · 12 August 2011

FL said: Here's what you left out Eric. Try to respond to it.

Actually, here is what YOU have left out: any kind of substantive, credible alternatives to the currently accepted scientific explanations for those natural phenomena that challenge your religious beliefs. Why is it that you flee from opportunities to describe such alternatives?

FL · 12 August 2011

If you look at scores for the 2011 Science and Engineering Readiness Index, (SERI) you’ll see that my beloved Ohio has a SERI score of 2.64, which puts Ohio in the “Average” category. Louisiana has a SERI score of 1.59, which is in the “Far Below Average” category. Why on earth would Ohio want to emulate Louisiana?

Everybody knows that Louisiana has always been among a group of 11 or 12 bottom-tier states in terms of low scores. But nobody--and especially nobody in this forum--has been able to substantiate Stanton's original "academic hellhole" claim that the Louisiana Science Education Act has any causal connection to those low scores. Despite multiple requests, there's not been one shred of published or documented or online evidence, nothing to document any quantifiable and LSEA-derived drops in Louisiana student science scores, within the past three years. FL

DS · 12 August 2011

FL said:
If you look at scores for the 2011 Science and Engineering Readiness Index, (SERI) you’ll see that my beloved Ohio has a SERI score of 2.64, which puts Ohio in the “Average” category. Louisiana has a SERI score of 1.59, which is in the “Far Below Average” category. Why on earth would Ohio want to emulate Louisiana?
Everybody knows that Louisiana has always been among a group of 11 or 12 bottom-tier states in terms of low scores. But nobody--and especially nobody in this forum--has been able to substantiate Stanton's original "academic hellhole" claim that the Louisiana Science Education Act has any causal connection to those low scores. Despite multiple requests, there's not been one shred of published or documented or online evidence, nothing to document any quantifiable and LSEA-derived drops in Louisiana student science scores, within the past three years. FL

Nor has there been any increase above "far below average". A stunning success. Just exactly what you wish for all other states I'm sure. Way to champion good science education Floyd. But then, we knew that "far below average" was your goal all along.

SWT · 12 August 2011

FL said:
If you look at scores for the 2011 Science and Engineering Readiness Index, (SERI) you’ll see that my beloved Ohio has a SERI score of 2.64, which puts Ohio in the “Average” category. Louisiana has a SERI score of 1.59, which is in the “Far Below Average” category. Why on earth would Ohio want to emulate Louisiana?
Everybody knows that Louisiana has always been among a group of 11 or 12 bottom-tier states in terms of low scores. But nobody--and especially nobody in this forum--has been able to substantiate Stanton's original "academic hellhole" claim that the Louisiana Science Education Act has any causal connection to those low scores. Despite multiple requests, there's not been one shred of published or documented or online evidence, nothing to document any quantifiable and LSEA-derived drops in Louisiana student science scores, within the past three years. FL

I have not claimed that LA's problems are a consequence of LSEA. Perhaps you'll answer my question, though. Why should Ohio, as you propose, take suggestions about education policy from a state that is less effective in educating its children?

FL · 12 August 2011

I have not claimed that LA’s problems are a consequence of LSEA.

But Stanton did, and that's the proposition that some of your comrades have been attempting to defend. If you are suggesting that Ohio should not emulate Louisiana specifically in terms of emulating Louisiana's generally low test scores, that's fine. But the reality is that LSEA doesn't have anything to do with those low scores, and nobody in this forum has provided (either print or online) any documented evidence to the contrary. FL

SWT · 12 August 2011

FL said:
I have not claimed that LA’s problems are a consequence of LSEA.
But Stanton did, and that's the proposition that some of your comrades have been attempting to defend. If you are suggesting that Ohio should not emulate Louisiana specifically in terms of emulating Louisiana's generally low test scores, that's fine. But the reality is that LSEA doesn't have anything to do with those low scores, and nobody in this forum has provided (either print or online) any documented evidence to the contrary. FL

You explicitly recommended that Ohio adopt a policy like LSEA. I'm asking you why we should take advice from a state that's doing worse than we are (as opposed to adopting practices from a state that's doing better than we are)?

DS · 12 August 2011

FL said:
I have not claimed that LA’s problems are a consequence of LSEA.
But Stanton did, and that's the proposition that some of your comrades have been attempting to defend. If you are suggesting that Ohio should not emulate Louisiana specifically in terms of emulating Louisiana's generally low test scores, that's fine. But the reality is that LSEA doesn't have anything to do with those low scores, and nobody in this forum has provided (either print or online) any documented evidence to the contrary. FL

But the reality is that LSEA doesn't have anything to do with improving those low scores, and nobody in this forum has provided (either print or online) any documented evidence to the contrary. The act did absolutely nothing to bring the scores up to acceptable levels. It didn't let teachers do one thing that they could't already do. Why on earth would anyone try to defend such an ineffective ploy? obviously, anyone who did would have some other reason for defending the act. Perhaps that reason is actually the one they most vociferously deny.

FL · 12 August 2011

You explicitly recommended that Ohio adopt a policy like LSEA.

Yes. I still do. It's well-written and rationally defensible. But If you are suggesting that Ohio not adopt a science-education policy/law modeled after the LSEA merely because the LSEA law was written and approved by the low-scoring state of Louisiana, that is simply not rational. Sure, there's nothing wrong with Ohio generally taking its policies from a higher-scoring state, if those policies are rationally supportable and defensible. But if you disagree with the LSEA, your disagreement should be rationally based on the quantifiable, documentable, evidential, merits or demerits of the LSEA itself. NOT merely because you personally don't like lower-tier Louisiana test scores in general with no rational connection to the LSEA. FL

FL · 12 August 2011

It didn’t let teachers do one thing that they could’t already do.

Unfortunately for you, Eric's link to the previous Louisiana standards provided an opportunity to visibly show that the LSEA indeed included some new measures and new permissions for science teachers that were clearly NOT included in the previous Louisiana standards. Hence your statement is refuted. FL

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 12 August 2011

FL said: So Stevaroni wrote,
It (the LSEA) allows teachers to teach religious, anti-science propaganda. Actually, more accurately, you can leave anti-science out of it. It allows teachers to teach religious, anti readily-demonstrable-physical-fact propaganda.
How so, exactly? Well, Stevaroni says that it's this part of the LSEA:
C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials...
So let's check that out. *** Okay. According to Stevaroni, Subsection "C", (the part Stevaroni highlighted), ALLOWS science teachers to teach "religious propaganda." Steve is saying this DIRECTLY; there is no use denying that. Now, just go here on the LSEA:
D. 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.
This is not legally optional. This is not legally negotiable. NO religious anything may be taught in Louisiana science and biology classes at anytime, regardless of Stevaroni's opinion. This would include biblical creationism. So, this specific part of the LSEA law clearly WIPES OUT Stevaroni's claim that any kind of religious material, "religious propaganda", or religious anything is being "allowed" by the LSEA. *** Now, look at the second half of what Stevaroni said.
(LSEA supplement paragraph allows) ..."anti-science propaganda" ..."anti readily-demonstrable-physical-fact" propaganda
Again, Steve makes this claim DIRECTLY. Can't go back and move any goalposts now. *** Now, I'm sure that a lot of material within the biology text chapter WRT prebiotic evolution, and the evo-claim of humas origins, is actually NOT "readily demonstrable physical fact." But aside from that observation, what does the LSEA actually say? Again, here's the text: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/text_of_louisiana_science_educ007391.html So what you need to remember from that LSEA text WRT Stevaroni's claim there, is explained in plain English by Robert Crowther:
• Teachers are still required to follow the standard curriculum, and school districts would still need to authorize what teachers are doing in order for the law to come into operation. Moreover, any teaching or supplemental instructional materials would have to be consistent with the **prohibition** of the promotion of religion in Section 1D of the bill. Finally, any inappropriate instructional materials could be disallowed under the bill by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. • Upon the request of a local school board, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will be required to "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, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Assistance from the State Board in this area now will "include support and guidance for teachers regarding effective ways to help students understand, analyze, critique, and objectively review scientific theories being studied." • Teachers will be permitted to "use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." But teachers using supplemental resources must first "teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system," and the State Board of Education reserves the right to veto any inappropriate supplemental materials. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/victory_in_louisiana_governor008401.html
In short, Louisiana science teachers do NOT get to arbitrarily start reading Genesis 1 in biology class, nor do they got to arbitrarily start discussing anything that is "anti-science" or otherwise non-scientific in science class, and THEN bring their moves up for local/state vetting. NOPE---doesn't work that way. LSEA expressly prohibits any religious stuff in science classes anyway. Instead, each science teacher MUST FIRST clear their request to teach their critical thinking supplemental information, with their local school board, which also means clearing it with their own school admins and principal. IF their request gets the nod after all that local admin/board vetting, THEN the local school board makes the request to the state board under the LSEA law for the science teacher to proceed with their stated supplemental information. AND the science teacher has to teach the canned biology textbook material FIRST, even if the State Board grants official permission to teach the supplemental material afterwards. So Stevaroni's fears, though sincere, are clearly baseless when compared to the LSEA requirements. There's some real reasons why evolutionists and ACLU lawyers refuse to go to court on LSEA as it's currently written. There's some real reasons why pro-evolution efforts to repeal LSEA (including high school media sensation Zack Kopplin's efforts) utterly failed. *** Finally, Stevaroni appealed to history (the Freshwater incident, for example) in trying to defend his claims. So I'll appeal to history as well. In over THREE YEARS since LSEA became law, NONE of the three "in practice" examples described by Stevaroni has taken place WRT Louisiana public schools. Nowhere in the state has any of those three been reported. Not even one. Not even once. ZERO allegations in the media. ZERO accusations by the Louisiana ACLU. Grade Card: LSEA's historical track record is a solid A-Plus. Disprove it baby! FL

let me distill this down to the essense - could a teacher use "Of Pandas and People" or similar supplimental materials from the Discovery Institute as "supplimental materials" under LSEA, or not? what about material from AiG? who decides if those materials are appropriate? it appears from the wording of LSEA that the instructor gets to decide if "Pandas" would be ok or not, and then could use LSEA as a 'shield' if/when sued.

SWT · 12 August 2011

FL said:
You explicitly recommended that Ohio adopt a policy like LSEA.
Yes. I still do. It's well-written and rationally defensible. But If you are suggesting that Ohio not adopt a science-education policy/law modeled after the LSEA merely because the LSEA law was written and approved by the low-scoring state of Louisiana, that is simply not rational. Sure, there's nothing wrong with Ohio generally taking its policies from a higher-scoring state, if those policies are rationally supportable and defensible. But if you disagree with the LSEA, your disagreement should be rationally based on the quantifiable, documentable, evidential, merits or demerits of the LSEA itself. NOT merely because you personally don't like lower-tier Louisiana test scores in general with no rational connection to the LSEA. FL

Should you take your financial advice from chronically poor people? That's probably not wise. Should you study music with someone who's tone-deaf? That's probably not wise. For science education policy, the smart money is on emulating the states that are doing better than we are, not on emulating one of the worst states in the nation.

FL · 12 August 2011

who decides if those materials are appropriate?

According to the LSEA text: 1) the state school board, who retains final veto power 2) the local school board, because they have to ASK PERMISSION of the state school board for the teacher to use critical-thinking supplemental information or handouts 3) also the School-Admins, because they have to ASK PERMISSION of the local school board to petition the state board. FL

FL · 12 August 2011

Also, according to LSEA, no religious stuff at any level.

Mike Elzinga · 12 August 2011

FL said: Also, according to LSEA, no religious stuff at any level.

So you finally agree that it rules out intelligent design/creationism.

Robin · 12 August 2011

FL said:
You explicitly recommended that Ohio adopt a policy like LSEA.
Yes. I still do. It's well-written and rationally defensible. But If you are suggesting that Ohio not adopt a science-education policy/law modeled after the LSEA merely because the LSEA law was written and approved by the low-scoring state of Louisiana, that is simply not rational. Sure, there's nothing wrong with Ohio generally taking its policies from a higher-scoring state, if those policies are rationally supportable and defensible. But if you disagree with the LSEA, your disagreement should be rationally based on the quantifiable, documentable, evidential, merits or demerits of the LSEA itself. NOT merely because you personally don't like lower-tier Louisiana test scores in general with no rational connection to the LSEA. FL

What is so great about the LSEA policy if the scores of the students under its direction show such poor aptitude for science? How is it even remotely rational to adopt a policy that clearly isn't helping the students? How else would you evaluate such a policy anyway?

circleh · 12 August 2011

The irony is that the LSEA, which FL so zealously defends, can allow teachers to promote critical thinking techniques that can actually lead some students to debunk Creationist bullcrap, Biblical dogmas, right-wing and Conservative politics, nationalist and racist bigotries, and "free-market" capitalist bunk. Oh, the arguments it will trigger among students!

Mike Elzinga said:
FL said: Also, according to LSEA, no religious stuff at any level.
So you finally agree that it rules out intelligent design/creationism.

Mike Elzinga · 12 August 2011

circleh said: The irony is that the LSEA, which FL so zealously defends, can allow teachers to promote critical thinking techniques that can actually lead some students to debunk Creationist bullcrap, Biblical dogmas, right-wing and Conservative politics, nationalist and racist bigotries, and "free-market" capitalist bunk. Oh, the arguments it will trigger among students!
Mike Elzinga said:
FL said: Also, according to LSEA, no religious stuff at any level.
So you finally agree that it rules out intelligent design/creationism.

Those teachers who will use this law to inject ID/creationism into their courses – and we know that there will eventually be some; otherwise why the law? – will not be the teachers who will encourage this kind of debunking. This law is predicated on the new meme being propagated by the DI that ID/creationism is not religion; and that is the position that FL will no doubt take. But then the question comes up about “supplemental materials” and where these come from and how they are vetted. We know from experience how this will go down. Those teachers who will exploit this law for what it was intended to do will get these materials from the usual sources at the DI, AiG, and the ICR. The very fact that they do this means that they themselves already have all those fundamental misconceptions about physics, chemistry, and biology that all ID/creationists have; and they will have already passed these misconceptions on to their students. These are not the kinds of teachers who participate in the kinds of professional development that the best and most knowledgeable teachers participate in routinely. The students will not have the ability to pick up on the subtle nuances of these misconceptions, and from what I know from many years of experience with AP exams, such subtle nuances are not picked up by these exams. The AP physics exams, for example, do not pick up on the misconceptions regarding entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. And even the AP courses don’t give the full impact of what our understanding of the laws of nature says about the evolution of the universe and living organisms. At these beginning levels, there remains enormous latitude for misinformed teachers to inject serious misconceptions into the course material. And that is exactly what this law permits without holding the teachers who do this professionally accountable. FL has no clue about the professional responsibilities of teachers; and his only concern is to have a law that protects the professionally incompetent and irresponsible. ID/creationism is sectarian pseudo-science; it cannot be divorced from its sectarian roots. And there is no way that FL can justify ID/creationism as a science. It is pseudo-science to the core, and it is pseudo-science with the unmistakable DNA of sectarianism.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 12 August 2011

FL said:
who decides if those materials are appropriate?
According to the LSEA text: 1) the state school board, who retains final veto power 2) the local school board, because they have to ASK PERMISSION of the state school board for the teacher to use critical-thinking supplemental information or handouts 3) also the School-Admins, because they have to ASK PERMISSION of the local school board to petition the state board. FL

could a teacher use “Of Pandas and People” or similar supplimental materials from the Discovery Institute as “supplimental materials” under LSEA, or not? what about material from AiG?

FL · 12 August 2011

could a teacher use “Of Pandas and People” or similar supplimental materials from the Discovery Institute as “supplimental materials” under LSEA, or not? what about material from AiG?

The only people who would know the straight Yes or No answer to those questions would be the Louisiana State Board of Education. They get to make the final call, according to the LSEA. Also, you'd have to be very specific if you were to ask them, just as a Louisiana science teacher would have to be. Not merely ask, "Of Pandas and People", but also what chapter, what page. For example, the origin-of-life chapter of the second ediiton of Pandas (1993) has never been scientifically refuted, not in this forum, and not even by the old darwin-dinosaur Judge Jones. So it WOULD make a difference what chapter and what page (and even what paragraphs) you specified, regardless of the source. You do know that if the item you ask about is religious, then LSEA prohibits it no matter what. However, just arbitrarily labeling an item "religious" merely because it has the potential of creating a few possible scientific doubts regarding a years-old high school biology textbook evolutionary claim, might not be sufficient to convince everyone that the item is indeed "religious." You might need to provide some rational proof that the supplemental information in question, was demonstrably religious. Would you be up for that? FL

Ron Okimoto · 13 August 2011

What did the creationists do when they could enforce LSEA? They tried to get creationism and intelligent design supplements into science textbooks. It was their first chance to test the law and what did they do? This is history. There is no doubt what LSEA was meant to do. No blather about wording or some pie in the sky intent. We already know what the bill was meant to do. What supplements were the supporters of LSEA trying to get into the textbooks? Who were the supporters? This happened just last December and guys like FL can still lie to themselves about reality.

http://www.theind.com/cover-story/7427-devolve