Died in committee

Posted 30 May 2013 by Matt Young

According to NCSE's scorecard, that is what happened to most of 10 anti-science bills introduced in state legislatures. Most of the bills used the now traditional "strengths and weaknesses" or "academic freedom" ploys, but some would have allowed "teachers to 'intelligently explore' controversies and help wayward students 'develop critical thinking skills,'" as NCSE puts it. Four bills attacked climate change in addition to evolution. None of the bills was enacted into law. Unfortunately, a bill to repeal the "notorious" Louisiana Science Education Act also failed.

46 Comments

DS · 30 May 2013

Why don't we start proposing bills to teach religion in comparative religion class and science in science class? Well, if you need to pass a bill to allow teachers to be "intelligent" it seems that such legislation might be sorely needed.

ogremk5 · 30 May 2013

Texas has a 'comparative religion' course. It was legislated (interesting that it was proposed by the legislature instead of the state board of education) in 2005 or so. Basically it mandated that every school must offer the course as an elective.

As far as I'm aware, no school has actually taught the course. I offered to teach in both schools I've taught at as the most qualified teacher for it. But it never appeared on the course schedule.

It's a plan that didn't work either.

DavidK · 30 May 2013

Speaking of teaching creatioism:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/43485/eric-hedin-state-university-professor-teaches-creationism-calls-it-science

and the Dishonesty Institute, promoters of creationism/ID are already on this new martyr to be case.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 30 May 2013

Well of course, we control just about everything, don't we?

Glen Davidson

FL · 30 May 2013

Hmm. Sorry to hear about the 10 defeats. It's still a long uphill run for non-Darwinists.

But honestly? The LSEA victory was and is major. That is the one battle that really counted.

Of course, you can't mention the LSEA without mentioning its arch-nemesis, the evolutionist wonderboy Zack Kopplin. He has garnered some support. His latest PR campaign (against the LSEA) even made it as far as the Bill Maher TV show. A new media high-point for him. Clearly a rising evo-star.

But...BUT...the LSEA has become the gold standard of Science Education Reform. Kopplin and his allies (and there were many!) gave it everything they got on this one. And yet the LSEA still defeated them anyway.

Meanwhile, for non-Darwinists, it's going to be a long battle (as the 10 defeats clearly show.) Patience and persistence are required (just ask Mr. Kopplin!).

But the LSEA will continue to lead the way, and once again it has scored a huge, undeniable victory. The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution. Here, see the pretty light:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tpothornet.jpg

apokryltaros · 30 May 2013

Liar for Jesus said: Hmm. Sorry to hear about the 10 defeats. It's still a long uphill run for non-Darwinists. But honestly? The LSEA victory was and is major. That is the one battle that really counted. Of course, you can't mention the LSEA without mentioning its arch-nemesis, the evolutionist wonderboy Zack Kopplin. He has garnered some support. His latest PR campaign (against the LSEA) even made it as far as the Bill Maher TV show. A new media high-point for him. Clearly a rising evo-star. But...BUT...the LSEA has become the gold standard of Science Education Reform. Kopplin and his allies (and there were many!) gave it everything they got on this one. And yet the LSEA still defeated them anyway. Meanwhile, for non-Darwinists, it's going to be a long battle (as the 10 defeats clearly show.) Patience and persistence are required (just ask Mr. Kopplin!). But the LSEA will continue to lead the way, and once again it has scored a huge, undeniable victory. The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution. Here, see the pretty light: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tpothornet.jpg FL

So how does this magically make Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design science worth teaching in science classrooms?

j. biggs · 30 May 2013

FL said: Hmm. Sorry to hear about the 10 defeats. It's still a long uphill run for non-Darwinists. But honestly? The LSEA victory was and is major. That is the one battle that really counted. Of course, you can't mention the LSEA without mentioning its arch-nemesis, the evolutionist wonderboy Zack Kopplin. He has garnered some support. His latest PR campaign (against the LSEA) even made it as far as the Bill Maher TV show. A new media high-point for him. Clearly a rising evo-star. But...BUT...the LSEA has become the gold standard of Science Education Reform. Kopplin and his allies (and there were many!) gave it everything they got on this one. And yet the LSEA still defeated them anyway. Meanwhile, for non-Darwinists, it's going to be a long battle (as the 10 defeats clearly show.) Patience and persistence are required (just ask Mr. Kopplin!). But the LSEA will continue to lead the way, and once again it has scored a huge, undeniable victory. The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution. Here, see the pretty light: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tpothornet.jpg FL

Yeah the LSEA has been real effective at promoting creationism. And of course if any teacher is actually dumb enough to teach creationism in a Louisiana class room we will see just how radioactive the LSEA is.

Keelyn · 30 May 2013

FL said: Hmm. Sorry to hear about the 10 defeats. It's still a long uphill run for non-Darwinists. But honestly? The LSEA victory was and is major. That is the one battle that really counted. Of course, you can't mention the LSEA without mentioning its arch-nemesis, the evolutionist wonderboy Zack Kopplin. He has garnered some support. His latest PR campaign (against the LSEA) even made it as far as the Bill Maher TV show. A new media high-point for him. Clearly a rising evo-star. But...BUT...the LSEA has become the gold standard of Science Education Reform. Kopplin and his allies (and there were many!) gave it everything they got on this one. And yet the LSEA still defeated them anyway. Meanwhile, for non-Darwinists, it's going to be a long battle (as the 10 defeats clearly show.) Patience and persistence are required (just ask Mr. Kopplin!). But the LSEA will continue to lead the way, and once again it has scored a huge, undeniable victory. The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution. Here, see the pretty light: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tpothornet.jpg FL

Some "gold standard." It's just collecting dust on the legislative books. j. biggs could not be more correct.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 30 May 2013

FL said: Hmm. Sorry to hear about the 10 defeats. It's still a long uphill run for non-Darwinists. But honestly? The LSEA victory was and is major. That is the one battle that really counted. Of course, you can't mention the LSEA without mentioning its arch-nemesis, the evolutionist wonderboy Zack Kopplin. He has garnered some support. His latest PR campaign (against the LSEA) even made it as far as the Bill Maher TV show. A new media high-point for him. Clearly a rising evo-star. But...BUT...the LSEA has become the gold standard of Science Education Reform. Kopplin and his allies (and there were many!) gave it everything they got on this one. And yet the LSEA still defeated them anyway. Meanwhile, for non-Darwinists, it's going to be a long battle (as the 10 defeats clearly show.) Patience and persistence are required (just ask Mr. Kopplin!). But the LSEA will continue to lead the way, and once again it has scored a huge, undeniable victory. The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution. Here, see the pretty light: [snip] FL

You mean like you do? Yes, we're amazed at the old and stupid dishonesty that creationism attempts to shovel upon anything intelligent and open to the evidence. Glen Davidson

Mike Elzinga · 30 May 2013

I would recommend that every ID/creationist bill that gets introduced in state legislatures be required to have an amendment stuck on it that requires evolution and real critical thinking be taught in the churches of the legislators who introduced the bill.

After all, it is unconscionable that any church be without critical thinking in the very society that guarantees the existence of these churches and allows their representatives to introduce “critical thinking” into the society that protects them.

Tenncrain · 30 May 2013

FL said: Hmm. Sorry to hear about the 10 defeats. It's still a long uphill run for non-Darwinists. But honestly? The LSEA victory was and is major. That is the one battle that really counted. Of course, you can't mention the LSEA without mentioning its arch-nemesis, the evolutionist wonderboy Zack Kopplin. He has garnered some support. His latest PR campaign (against the LSEA) even made it as far as the Bill Maher TV show. A new media high-point for him. Clearly a rising evo-star. But...BUT...the LSEA has become the gold standard of Science Education Reform. Kopplin and his allies (and there were many!) gave it everything they got on this one. And yet the LSEA still defeated them anyway. Meanwhile, for non-Darwinists, it's going to be a long battle (as the 10 defeats clearly show.) Patience and persistence are required (just ask Mr. Kopplin!). But the LSEA will continue to lead the way, and once again it has scored a huge, undeniable victory. The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution. Here, see the pretty light: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tpothornet.jpg FL

As long as no state educator goes through the formal LSEA machinery/paperwork, LSEA is little more than a paper tiger for anti-evolutionists. FL, this has been explained to you before again and again and again (including here over a year ago [click for link], but when you replied back you completely deleted all relevant points and did a red herring with a irrelevant side issue which is a rather common tactic of yours). At the most, LSEA may have encouraged some Louisiana educators to teach a little more anti-evolutionism - if between the lines. But in the five long years since LSEA was passed, anti-evolutionists in the Bayou State still seem very unsure they have anti-evolution material not grounded in religion, material that does not have cdesign proponentsists-like links to religion which of course could violate the US Constitution. Otherwise, anti-evolutionists could have formally gone through LSEA red tape long ago. Despite this reluctance to formally use LSEA, anti-evolutionists have been eager to at least try LSEA. This was shown by efforts in both Livingston Parish and Tangipahoa Parish shortly after LSEA became law. Problem was, both parishes openly used the word 'creationism' which could have resulted in yet another costly Dover trap for anti-evolutionists. A few parish lawyers and perhaps even some at the Discovery Institute were smart enough to nip these two attempts by Livingston Parish and Tangipahoa Parish in the bud. In fact, anti-evolutionists have even expressed their dismay in letters to the editor in Shreveport and Baton Rouge newspapers; these anti-evolutionists have stated their frustration that LSEA has not been taken advantage of. To date, the relatively new law in my home state of Tennessee (largely an equivalent to LSEA) is also being left alone like a hot potato. While most future efforts in other states for LSEA-like laws will probably be routinely defeated, at least few more states may successfully enact LSEA-like laws. But again, until an anti-evolutionist educator shows some balls and formally USES such laws, what's the point? As long as such existing laws remain formally untouched, they are like a martial arts kick-boxer never stepping into the ring yet still claiming to be the next Chuck Norris [Chuck Norris doesn't need a weapon, he is a weapon!!] Sorry, couldn't resist :) :) Prediction: FL will regurgitate this same discredited song about LSEA a couple of months from now which will again be refuted, followed perhaps by yet another red herring by FL. Several months later still, FL will ugh chug the same LSEA verbal diarrhea again. After all, our Pandas Thumb trolls are so predictable.

Keelyn · 30 May 2013

FL said: Hmm. Sorry to hear about the 10 defeats. It's still a long uphill run for non-Darwinists. But honestly? The LSEA victory was and is major. That is the one battle that really counted. Of course, you can't mention the LSEA without mentioning its arch-nemesis, the evolutionist wonderboy Zack Kopplin. He has garnered some support. His latest PR campaign (against the LSEA) even made it as far as the Bill Maher TV show. A new media high-point for him. Clearly a rising evo-star. But...BUT...the LSEA has become the gold standard of Science Education Reform. Kopplin and his allies (and there were many!) gave it everything they got on this one. And yet the LSEA still defeated them anyway. Meanwhile, for non-Darwinists, it's going to be a long battle (as the 10 defeats clearly show.) Patience and persistence are required (just ask Mr. Kopplin!). But the LSEA will continue to lead the way, and once again it has scored a huge, undeniable victory. The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution. Here, see the pretty light: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Tpothornet.jpg FL

You remind me of General George McClellan after Yorktown. He sat there on his duff for almost a month, then when he decided to actually do something he found that confederate General John Magruder had packed up and moved on. Then he had the audacity to claim a brilliant Union victory. After 1925, you have lost every single court challenge brought against the teaching of creationism in the public schools, without exception. Now you get one useless piece of legislation on the books in Louisiana (two, if you count Tennessee) that no one dares take advantage of, and you have the audacity to claim a great victory – citing something that does nothing. Of course, you will remind me that the Union eventually won the War. Well, dream on General – not this time.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 30 May 2013

But evolution is dying. It'll be dead by the turn of the century, you know, at least by 1900.

Glen Davidson

Dave Luckett · 30 May 2013

Of course, you will remind me that the Union eventually won the War. Well, dream on General – not this time.

The Union won, all right, mainly because Grant was "prepared to fight it out along this line if it takes all summer". No doubt Grant would have much preferred an open fight on unencumbered terrain where his logistics, numbers, superior weapons and equipment would have resulted in one decisive battle, and it would have been over. What he got was the the Wilderness. He fought anyway, and he won. At terrible cost, but when it was over the Army of Northern Virginia had begun the long retreat to Appamattox Court House. No doubt scientists would prefer this battle to be fought in the laboratories and journals, where evidence and the light of reason must prevail. But it won't be fought there. It must be fought where the enemy stands, school by school, district by district, legislature by legislature. And it must be won, anyway.

Keelyn · 30 May 2013

Dave Luckett said:
Of course, you will remind me that the Union eventually won the War. Well, dream on General – not this time.
The Union won, all right, mainly because Grant was "prepared to fight it out along this line if it takes all summer". No doubt Grant would have much preferred an open fight on unencumbered terrain where his logistics, numbers, superior weapons and equipment would have resulted in one decisive battle, and it would have been over. What he got was the the Wilderness. He fought anyway, and he won. At terrible cost, but when it was over the Army of Northern Virginia had begun the long retreat to Appamattox Court House. No doubt scientists would prefer this battle to be fought in the laboratories and journals, where evidence and the light of reason must prevail. But it won't be fought there. It must be fought where the enemy stands, school by school, district by district, legislature by legislature. And it must be won, anyway.

Quite so, Dave. And I believe it was the beginning of a campaign that went all summer and then some – it culminated with about nine months of trench warfare in front (meaning actually south) of Petersburg, Virginia, starting about June 9th, 1864. And we all know what happened gratefully happened after that (and I say that as a native North Carolinian girl). But, like our Civil War, it is unfortunate that this “war” even exists. Willful ignorance can be one of the most difficult enemies to defeat.

Just Bob · 30 May 2013

I wonder what FL (the turd) would think about a spate of new 'Jim Crow' laws that were passed in several Bible-belt states and put on the books--but then never enforced because everyone knows the predictable results. Would the turd feel that the KKK and Christian Identity churches were justified in claiming such shadow-laws as great victories?

FL · 30 May 2013

At the most, LSEA may have encouraged some Louisiana educators to teach a little more anti-evolutionism - if between the lines.

"Between The Lines" is always a two-way street, Tenncrain. If it works for evolutionists, and you're okay with that approach, then there's no need for you to complain if it works for...other science teachers. Meanwhile, teaching creationism is officially illegal under the LSEA, so you've got nothing to worry about. ;) ****

To date, the relatively new law in my home state of Tennessee (largely an equivalent to LSEA) is also being left alone like a hot potato.

Ah yes, Tennessee, the most recent success story. LSEA's success should translate into additional longevity for Tennessee's law. But there's no reason for any science teacher to try to rush things, and certainly no reason for any science teacher to use either the Tennessee law as an excuse to teach creationism. That's not necessary, and anyway it's illegal. Frankly, it's far better to get a good understanding of what the law permits and doesn't permit in one's own state. THEN, start off by doing your own extensive homework on the science issues--you teach yourself first and also read stories about, or contact, already successful between-the-lines science teachers. I know of a science teacher in a 100 percent pro-evolution school district, who does quite well with that approach alone. The ACLU can't touch him, despite the utter lack of an LSEA-type law in his state. He doesn't try to challenge current law and current pro-evolution science standards, he simply teaches between the lines and does it well. (This might also explain why you haven't read any news stories of creationist science teachers trying to violate the law and teach creationism. It's simply not necessary to do all that. Just stay within your state's and school's limits, but learn and teach between the lines as much as possible. And of course, if there is a LSEA- or Tenn- type law on the books, only use it as a last resort and follow it to the letter. No need to panic or rush or preach.) FL

FL · 30 May 2013

While most future efforts in other states for LSEA-like laws will probably be routinely defeated, at least few more states may successfully enact LSEA-like laws.

Exactly. That's all that is needed right now. Don't have to rush anything. Lawmakers want to see that if they DO allow one or two laws to pass on behalf of academic freedom and critical thinking skills in the science classroom, that those laws CAN stay intact and make a potentially positive difference, and not merely get automatically chewed up by the rabid drooling ACLU and libbie judges. If the lawmakers see that much coming from the LSEA and the Tenn law, then in a few more states, they'll do the right thing and pass such laws. Science teachers will eventually take it from there. Better science students = better scientists. Thanks LSEA. FL

Mike Elzinga · 30 May 2013

Given the disgusting intrusion of sectarianism into our political processes, I suspect that in the near future there will be a large push to take away the tax exempt status of churches pushing sectarian political agendas in state legislatures and school boards.

When that day comes, I will vote yes to take away their tax exempt status and push to get evolution and critical thinking into their Sunday “schools” by law. Since they can no longer qualify as “churches” – most of them aren’t anyway; they are just fronts for tax-free political activity – there will be no violation of the First Amendment.

And charlatans like Peter Popof will go to prison.

Keelyn · 31 May 2013

FL said:
At the most, LSEA may have encouraged some Louisiana educators to teach a little more anti-evolutionism - if between the lines.
(This might also explain why you haven't read any news stories of creationist science teachers trying to violate the law and teach creationism. It's simply not necessary to do all that. Just stay within your state's and school's limits, but learn and teach between the lines as much as possible. And of course, if there is a LSEA- or Tenn- type law on the books, only use it as a last resort and follow it to the letter. No need to panic or rush or preach.) FL

Translation - distort, misrepresent, and quite lie outright and hope no one notices. Thanks, FL. Understood.

TomS · 31 May 2013

FL said: The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution.

I won't bother with details like whether there is anything "new" about what is going on. But the evolution-deniers cannot claim that there is any effort put into illuminating any alternative to evolutionary biology. No description of what happened, when and where, that resulted in the distribution of living things in time and space, no account for how or why humans ended up on the "tree of life" as nearest neighbors to chimps and other apes if it didn't involve common descent with modifcation, nothing about what sorts of things could not (or will not) result from the action of supernatural agentry. Always negative, never substantive.

harold · 31 May 2013

Mike Elzinga said: Given the disgusting intrusion of sectarianism into our political processes, I suspect that in the near future there will be a large push to take away the tax exempt status of churches pushing sectarian political agendas in state legislatures and school boards. When that day comes, I will vote yes to take away their tax exempt status and push to get evolution and critical thinking into their Sunday “schools” by law. Since they can no longer qualify as “churches” – most of them aren’t anyway; they are just fronts for tax-free political activity – there will be no violation of the First Amendment. And charlatans like Peter Popof will go to prison.

Partial agreement here. I would love to see churches lose their tax exempt status. I don't mean losing it as a punishment for bad behavior, I just mean eliminating the concept of a tax exempt religious organization. (That will never happen, though.) However, if they did, would only make them even more definitively private, and make their first amendment right to preach exactly and only what they want even more obvious. If anything, it is the tax exempt status that amounts to "having it both ways".

eric · 31 May 2013

ogremk5 said: Texas has a 'comparative religion' course. It was legislated (interesting that it was proposed by the legislature instead of the state board of education) in 2005 or so. Basically it mandated that every school must offer the course as an elective. As far as I'm aware, no school has actually taught the course. I offered to teach in both schools I've taught at as the most qualified teacher for it. But it never appeared on the course schedule. It's a plan that didn't work either.

IMO, the way you describe it, the plan is working just fine. It provides a legal avenue for fundies to do what they assert publicly they want to do (teach alternatives!), while not allowing them to do what we all suspect they really want to do (undermine science; force attendence to proselytization). If they aren't using this avenue, that just puts paid to their claim to be innocently suggesting a broader education.

Dave Luckett · 31 May 2013

Creationism in Texas is, I imagine, pretty much identified with Christian fundamentalism. I can see why a fundamentalist would be dead against having "comparitive religion" taught in schools. Why, that would mean learning about false religions!

eric · 31 May 2013

Dave Luckett said: Creationism in Texas is, I imagine, pretty much identified with Christian fundamentalism. I can see why a fundamentalist would be dead against having "comparitive religion" taught in schools. Why, that would mean learning about false religions!

Well, the course could always spend 17 weeks on Christianity and 1 week on everything else. I think the bigger reason fundies don't support it is lack of influence with nonchristians. An elective taught by a (probably) nonscientist just isn't going to cause many nonbelievers to question mainstream science. Most won't bother taking it in the first place. When they do, if their comparative religion teacher says something about (example) chemistry which conflicts with what the chemistry teacher says, they are probably going to give more credibility to the chem teacher. Fundies want their stuff put in HS science courses because pretty much every college-bound student is going to take HS science. That means a captive audience of nonbelievers who would not willingly or normally take an elective covering christian beliefs. And because when it comes to 'what science says,' the science teachers are likely to have far more credibility with the kids than comparative religion teachers.

apokryltaros · 31 May 2013

Liar for Jesus lied: The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution.

You mean repeatedly and dishonestly recycling repeatedly debunked fallacious Creationist anti-science-propaganda and arguments of incredulity in order to brainwash students into becoming science-hating Idiots for Jesus.

diogeneslamp0 · 31 May 2013

FL said: But...BUT...the LSEA has become the gold standard of Science Education Reform. Kopplin and his allies (and there were many!) gave it everything they got on this one. And yet the LSEA still defeated them anyway.

Um, you do remember that they were defeated by the "magic powers" of an actual witch doctor, right?

But the LSEA will continue to lead the way, and once again it has scored a huge, undeniable victory. The LSEA is designed to shine a new and critical light upon the theory of evolution.

No, apparently you DON'T remember that the "huge, undeniable victory" as you call it was won by the magic powers of an actual witch doctor, so let's remind you how the repeal of the LSEA was defeated.

Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could "lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures." "Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man -- in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed -- if I had closed him off and just said, 'That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor,' I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said. [Senators again reject repeal of Louisiana Science Education Act. By Lauren McGaughy. The Times Picayune. May 01, 2013]

"This doctor" referred to by the esteemed legislator (who cast the deciding vote against repeal of LSEA) is an actual witch doctor, presumably voudoun, actually half-naked, crawling in the dirt, casting magic bones and divining their meaning with supernatural knowledge. Which by the way, is exactly the same way William Dembksi and Stephen Meyer and all other IDists divine the "specified complexity" in the human genome, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

diogeneslamp0 · 31 May 2013

FL said: Lawmakers want to see that if they DO allow one or two laws to pass on behalf of academic freedom and critical thinking skills in the science classroom, that those laws CAN stay intact and make a potentially positive difference, and not merely get automatically chewed up by the rabid drooling ACLU and libbie judges.

Libbie judges? You mean like Judge Jones, who ruled on Dover v. Kitzmiller? Let's recall what your creationist intellectuals said about Judge Jones BEFORE he ruled in the Dover case. Perhaps you've forgotten. Pre-Dover, this is how the moderator of Uncommon Descent, Dave Scot, described Jones, and America's judicial branch in general.

Dave Scot, moderator of Uncommon Descent, wrote: "Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too. Politically biased decisions from ostensibly apolitical courts are a double edged sword that cuts both ways. The liberals had their turn at bat. This is our time now. [DaveScot, at now dead link: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/371, cited here]

Here the IDist intellectual is celebrating the *absence* of an independent judiciary, the *absence* of checks and balances as designed by the Founding Fathers into the US Constitution. Indeed, he is triumphantly celebrating the fact that ACTIVIST CONSERVATIVE JUDGES WILL RULE NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE LAW, BUT WILL VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION AND "LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH" because their conservative political patrons demand it. He is celebrating the de facto abolition of the Bill of Rights, at least the First Amendment anyway, by the backdoor route of conservative judicial corruption, powered by the self-centered ambitions of careerist activist conservative judges. Alas, sometimes even conservatives can read a sentence in the Constitution and understand its meaning, so the Constitution hasn't really been abolished yet. And that, Flawed, is your ultimate defeat, your greatest and most important defeat-- you have not succeeded in abolishing the US Constitution... yet. "Patience and persistence," Flawed, patience and persistence.

Tenncrain · 31 May 2013

FL said: ...teaching creationism is officially illegal under the LSEA, so you've got nothing to worry about. ;)

Bobby Jindel himself rather starkly contradicts this statement of yours, and he of course is the guy that actually signed LSEA into law. Jindel just recently said that he has no problem with teaching about creationism, even mentioning that LSEA can be part of this process (starting at the nine minute mark). You conveniently ignore that Livingston Parish and Tangipahoa Parish didn't exactly get the message that "teaching creationism is officially illegal under the LSEA" as these parishes tried to use LSEA to teach creationism anyway (but were discouraged by their own parish attorneys). But the next time a parish tries to teach creationism but actually succeeds in using the formal LSEA process under Jindel's belief that creationism can be supported by LSEA, we could say hello to another Kitzmiller v. Dover/McLean v. Arkansas-like court case.

harold · 31 May 2013

“This doctor” referred to by the esteemed legislator (who cast the deciding vote against repeal of LSEA) is an actual witch doctor, presumably voudoun, actually half-naked, crawling in the dirt, casting magic bones and divining their meaning with supernatural knowledge.

This is probably culturally biased language; however, I appreciate the implied support for science-based medicine. Here's another key logical point. This representative is free to seek medical advice from anyone he wishes, and high school science class has nothing to do with that. The state of Louisiana licenses physicians. Therefore, there may be legal limits on the ability of self-proclaimed voudons or similar figures to charge money for direct medical advice and treatment. However, beyond basic licensing laws, with or without creationism in science class, Senator Guillory is perfectly free to get his medical advice from anywhere he wishes. High school science class is not relevant to that issue. If he wants to eliminate licensing of physicians, he should say so.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 31 May 2013

Exactly. That’s all that is needed right now. Don’t have to rush anything.

Why no, especially that pesky matter of evidence. If there ever is any evidence for creationism, great. But if not, that won't trouble the morons who want it taught regardless of what the evidence shows. After all, FL demonstrates abundantly that creationism has never had any evidence, and all of the evidence against doesn't affect anything he amusingly calls "thinking." Glen Davidson

Richiyaado · 31 May 2013

As far as I know, the only 'success' we've had since Gov. Jindal's idiotic education policy (LSEA) was enacted is the cancellation of at least two major scientific conferences in New Orleans. Combined with his determination to completely replace the state's public education system with voucher-financed private schools, I fully expect my tax dollars will soon be used to teach kids that Jesus rode around on dinosaurs. Or something. Of course, they won't be so much taught as shown, packed like sardines into hastily converted strip mall storefronts where they'll be plunked down in front of giant video screens all day. If you happen to be in the video propaganda production business, and you're not particularly fussy about all that niggling science stuff, it's like a guarantee of success!

TomS · 1 June 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Exactly. That’s all that is needed right now. Don’t have to rush anything.
Why no, especially that pesky matter of evidence. If there ever is any evidence for creationism, great. But if not, that won't trouble the morons who want it taught regardless of what the evidence shows. After all, FL demonstrates abundantly that creationism has never had any evidence, and all of the evidence against doesn't affect anything he amusingly calls "thinking." Glen Davidson

Agreed, but for me, the prior and more important problem for creationism is the lack of a theory. What is the evidence for? Creationism (especially in the form of "Intelligent Design", which was deliberately constructed to avoid making any positive, substantive statements) is largely "something, somehow must be wrong with evolutionary biology" and "an all-powerful agent with inscrutable motives is up to doing anything." Let's hear what their account is for how it turned out that the human body is most similar to the bodies of chimps and other apes (among all living things). Is that because: (1) It's just a massive coincidence. No explanation is necessary. (2) The designer(s) wanted humans to serve ape-like goals. (3) The designer(s) were constrained somehow (by the laws of nature, for example) to do things that way. or is it that there was common descent with modification?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 1 June 2013

TomS said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:
Exactly. That’s all that is needed right now. Don’t have to rush anything.
Why no, especially that pesky matter of evidence. If there ever is any evidence for creationism, great. But if not, that won't trouble the morons who want it taught regardless of what the evidence shows. After all, FL demonstrates abundantly that creationism has never had any evidence, and all of the evidence against doesn't affect anything he amusingly calls "thinking." Glen Davidson
Agreed, but for me, the prior and more important problem for creationism is the lack of a theory. What is the evidence for? Creationism (especially in the form of "Intelligent Design", which was deliberately constructed to avoid making any positive, substantive statements) is largely "something, somehow must be wrong with evolutionary biology" and "an all-powerful agent with inscrutable motives is up to doing anything." Let's hear what their account is for how it turned out that the human body is most similar to the bodies of chimps and other apes (among all living things). Is that because: (1) It's just a massive coincidence. No explanation is necessary. (2) The designer(s) wanted humans to serve ape-like goals. (3) The designer(s) were constrained somehow (by the laws of nature, for example) to do things that way. or is it that there was common descent with modification?

The trouble is, that comes back to evidence. I mean, you really can't make a decent theory that isn't heavily invested in the evidence. You could easily hypothesize some sort of god/alien/computerized GA that for some reason or other makes life that appears evolved, but that's no good if you have no evidence of the existence of any of these (in the case of GAs, no evidence of existence before computers). Also, any real alternative theory to evolution actually would make different predictions than evolution, while explaining what it does. IDiots, well, don't, instead they'll blather on about how ID is compatible with (biologic) evolution, which is ludicrous (in absence of any evidence of evolution-mimicking designer) as well as making ID worthless as a scientific alternative. So their "theory," whenever they pretend to have one, is that you can detect design by discovering functional complexity (that's all it amounts to), because we see humans making something that fits that category, while evolution, conveniently for them cannot, be so observed in real time (at least not for the greater "innovations" of life). And that "theory" would be adequate, actually, except that they're deliberately conflating life and things like flint knives and Tiger tanks in order to ignore the vast differences between made things and life--to simply define life as designed--as well as to avoid the lack of the tell-tale marks of design in life coupled with the evidence of unintelligent evolutionary processes having produced functionally (irreducibly, if you will) complex organs. Then when we say, hm, life looks like we'd expect of evolution (or they often deliberately reduce this down to the moronic "bad design") and not of design they whine that we're doing theology. And we're like, well, wasn't it supposed not to be about God necessarily, so we naturally looked to real designers and extrapolated to similar alien beings, and then they either ignore it or restate the same complaint more obtusely. But seriously, ID could be a theory (or, at least, a hypothesis) on its own, if it were done honestly--if there were any reason to suppose that functional complexity had to be designed. It wouldn't be the final comprehensive theory, but it'd be adequate for now to do science. Trouble is, even designed functional complexity obviously derives from evolution, and is not a primordial "God-like" ability, and it fails to explain the rather unintelligent yet "cleverly-adapted" forms and processes rife in life. It's just not done honestly, rather it simply exists to declare that life is designed. Which is enough for IDiots, but not for anyone who wants to find answers. Glen Davidson

harold · 1 June 2013

Creationism (especially in the form of “Intelligent Design”, which was deliberately constructed to avoid making any positive, substantive statements)

Repeated for emphasis. YEC makes a testable claim - all modern types of organisms, or something very like them, including a modern human, were instantaneously created about 6000 years ago. It makes numerous testable claims about the physics, cosmology, and geology as well. But it isn't truly a valid hypothesis, because the claims are purely arbitrary, and by definition, those who make the claims also insist a priori that all evidence against them must be false. ID/creationism is a legal/political creation invented in the aftermath of Edwards v. Aguillard, which became prominent circa 1999. Its only goal was to put sectarian evolution denial into a form with "plausible deniability of obvious coded creationism". Somewhat analogous to Rick Santorum claiming that he said "blah people" rather than "black people", ID was intended to send an easily interpreted but slightly coded message to the target audience, while allowing the speaker to deny to others, in the most legalistic way, the actual obvious intent of the communication. As our resident trolls demonstrate, religious authoritarians are quite comfortable in their fight against rival authoritarian religious systems. They seek local dominance. They are fairly happy with the goal of "saying anything to deny evolution and letting people fill in the blanks". ID serves that goal. Unfortunately for them, the ruse didn't stand up in court.

Flint · 1 June 2013

What we have here is two orientations separated by a common language. The word "evidence" as used in the world of religion would translate directly as "assertion" in the scientific world. Similarly, the word "theory" as used by science translates directly into "doctrine" as used in religion.

The ID people really and truly believe that by simply claiming something, they have ipso facto provided evidence for it. And if they claim it twice, they have provided twice as much evidence. The factual nature of religious evidence isn't the scientific notion of intersubjective verification, validation and test, conformity with predictive explanations, etc. In religion, evidence becomes more factual the more people who believe it, and the more sincerely they do so.

Someone with a more religious orientation once asked Einstein, shortly after he published his relativity material, whether it bothered him that so many specialists found so many problems with it. Einstein gave a scientific response - he said it only takes one, if he's right. Truth really is a matter of a voting majority in religion. What ELSE could they use?

Just Bob · 1 June 2013

Flint said: What we have here is two orientations separated by a common language. The word "evidence" as used in the world of religion would translate directly as "assertion" in the scientific world. Similarly, the word "theory" as used by science translates directly into "doctrine" as used in religion. The ID people really and truly believe that by simply claiming something, they have ipso facto provided evidence for it. And if they claim it twice, they have provided twice as much evidence. The factual nature of religious evidence isn't the scientific notion of intersubjective verification, validation and test, conformity with predictive explanations, etc. In religion, evidence becomes more factual the more people who believe it, and the more sincerely they do so. Someone with a more religious orientation once asked Einstein, shortly after he published his relativity material, whether it bothered him that so many specialists found so many problems with it. Einstein gave a scientific response - he said it only takes one, if he's right. Truth really is a matter of a voting majority in religion. What ELSE could they use?

One of the more perspicacious comments I've seen recently.

Scott F · 1 June 2013

It doesn't seem so much to be what people "believe". More, it's what the Authority says. The Bible is the "Authority", for example. It's authoritarianism, more than "religion, per se.

TomS · 2 June 2013

Flint said: Someone with a more religious orientation once asked Einstein, shortly after he published his relativity material, whether it bothered him that so many specialists found so many problems with it. Einstein gave a scientific response - he said it only takes one, if he's right.

The Wikipedia article "Criticism of the theory of relativity" cites Hawking's "A Brief History of Time": "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" —Albert Einstein, commenting on the book ''100 Authors Against Einstein'' (Does anyone have a first-hand citation for this?)

TomS · 2 June 2013

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: But seriously, ID could be a theory (or, at least, a hypothesis) on its own, if it were done honestly--if there were any reason to suppose that functional complexity had to be designed.

And I'd point out that there are two parts to the claim that it "had to be designed": That it is necessary and sufficient. Maybe it could be shown that such-and-such could not result from anything other than design - necessary. But that leaves unanswered the sufficiency - that design is enough to account for the such-and-such. I suggest that design is not sufficient, under a common-sense understanding of "design". (And if the ID advocates protest "that's not what we mean by design", then it's up to them to tell us what they do mean by design.) It is easy to come up with examples of things that are intelligently designed but do not exist. For example, centaurs, flying carpets, a Penrose triangle. Which is just an elaborate way of pointing out the false dichotomy: either evolution or design; if not one then the other. BTW, I think that you folks have made some perspicacious observations.

harold · 2 June 2013

Flint said -

The ID people really and truly believe that by simply claiming something, they have ipso facto provided evidence for it. And if they claim it twice, they have provided twice as much evidence. The factual nature of religious evidence isn’t the scientific notion of intersubjective verification, validation and test, conformity with predictive explanations, etc. In religion, evidence becomes more factual the more people who believe it, and the more sincerely they do so.

Yes, this is true, with the caveat that some of them could secretly be charlatans doing it for the money. But most of them are undoubtedly authoritarians. This is a perfect description of authoritarians. Everything except the most undeniable concrete aspects of reality is determined by self-serving magical thinking and whoever is most successful in imposing their arbitrary will on others. As I noted above -

ID/creationism is a legal/political creation invented in the aftermath of Edwards v. Aguillard, which became prominent circa 1999. Its only goal was to put sectarian evolution denial into a form with “plausible deniability of obvious coded creationism”. Somewhat analogous to Rick Santorum claiming that he said “blah people” rather than “black people”, ID was intended to send an easily interpreted but slightly coded message to the target audience, while allowing the speaker to deny to others, in the most legalistic way, the actual obvious intent of the communication.

This is even more obviously true than Flint's point. They changed a YEC "textbook" into an "ID" textbook by minimally altering it and attempting to insert the phrase "design proponents" where the phrase "creationists" had been before. There is no contradiction here whatsoever. Authoritarians believe that whatever they want is true, and they are driven to entice or force others to say it's true. They may have deep unconscious doubts, but that is their conscious method of evaluating what is true. If it is what they want, it is true, and others must be forced to accept it. However, as part of their strategy to entice or force others to accept their demands, they often use deception. They make frequent use of the technique of using coded language to signal to key followers that they approve of some controversial stance, while using vague language in other venues to try to achieve their agenda. Deception followed by sandbagging is a common authoritarian method. It does not mean that they don't believe their own ideology. When school board candidates campaign on vague feel-good slogans and then attempt to ram science denial into the curriculum when elected, that does not mean that they don't "believe" their own science denial, simply because they initially hid it. When creationists try to hold a below-the-radar "conference" to trick a scientific publisher into printing their work, failing only because one immature attendee started obnoxiously boasting on the internet too soon, that doesn't mean that, because they tried to hide the activity from critics, they don't "believe" in it. They do. The deception is just a strategy. They are deceptive. Period. The fact that they are deceptive is not an argument that they don't believe their own self-serving ideology is true. They almost certainly believe it is, or at least, the majority of them almost certainly do. But they often use a strategy of deception to achieve their goals.

ogremk5 · 3 June 2013

TomS said:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: But seriously, ID could be a theory (or, at least, a hypothesis) on its own, if it were done honestly--if there were any reason to suppose that functional complexity had to be designed.
And I'd point out that there are two parts to the claim that it "had to be designed": That it is necessary and sufficient. Maybe it could be shown that such-and-such could not result from anything other than design - necessary. But that leaves unanswered the sufficiency - that design is enough to account for the such-and-such. I suggest that design is not sufficient, under a common-sense understanding of "design". (And if the ID advocates protest "that's not what we mean by design", then it's up to them to tell us what they do mean by design.) It is easy to come up with examples of things that are intelligently designed but do not exist. For example, centaurs, flying carpets, a Penrose triangle. Which is just an elaborate way of pointing out the false dichotomy: either evolution or design; if not one then the other. BTW, I think that you folks have made some perspicacious observations.

And what is missing from this is 'intelligence'. Indeed, as far as I can tell, the ID guys spend a lot of time on the "D" and no time on the "I". If you call the results of evolution 'design', then the "I" is completely not needed and life was designed. The designer, of course, is evolution.

Rolf · 4 June 2013

My haemorrhoids tells me that if my body is the best our creator/designer could do he might just as well have left the job to nature itself. Must have been pretty tired on the sixth day.

Dave Luckett · 4 June 2013

Rolf said: My haemorrhoids tells me that if my body is the best our creator/designer could do he might just as well have left the job to nature itself. Must have been pretty tired on the sixth day.

No, no, you heathen, you have been smitten by the hand of Almighty God! Read 1 Samuel 5:6, in the proper translation, the King James 1611, and you will see how the Lord gave piles of trouble to the Philistines. Repent!

jeihho · 5 June 2013

I like that most of the bills failed to get anywhere. Considering that taxpayer money is going towards education, I much rather the funds be used to teach facts in the science classroom.

apokryltaros · 6 June 2013

jeihho said: I like that most of the bills failed to get anywhere. Considering that taxpayer money is going towards education, I much rather the funds be used to teach facts in the science classroom.

Using taxpayer money to ensure students get a competent science education through competent (science) teachers??? But that's unAmerican and unChristian!!!!{/sarcasm}