The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Zack Kopplin interviews former Discovery Institute employee

Posted 28 December 2015 by Nick Matzke

Zack Kopplin, who has been opposing the antievolution nonsense in Louisiana since 2008, has an interesting new article in The Daily Beast: Kopplin, Zack (2015). Creationism Whistleblower: 'Academic Freedom' Is Sneak Attack on Evolution. The Daily Beast. December 28, 2015. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/28/creationism-whistleblower-academic-freedom-is-sneak-attack-on-evolution.html Kopplin has really gotten the goods on what these "stealth creationism" bills mean on the ground -- of course, what they mean is straight-up creationism taught in the public schools. Kopplin quotes from documents he has obtained from Louisiana school districts. Also -- it looks like Kopplin somehow got an interview with a former employee of the Discovery Institute -- evidently someone who eventually saw that what was really going on there was apologetics for a very specific sectarian view, rather than actual science. Here's one of the good quotes from Kopplin's article:
"Critical thinking, critical analysis, teach the controversy, academic freedom--these are words that stand for legitimate pedagogical approaches and doctrines in the fields of public education and public education policy," said the former Discovery Institute employee. "That is why DI co-opts them. DI hollows these words out and fills them with their own purposes; it then passes them off to the public and to government as secular, pedagogically appropriate, and religiously neutral." In 2008, Louisiana became the first state to pass an academic freedom law, the Louisiana Science Education Act, which is being used to teach creationism in public school districts like Bossier Parish. According to one email I obtained from Bossier Parish science teachers, students are learning the "Creation point of view" by reading the Book of Genesis and being given "supplemental material debunking various aspects of evolution." In a different email bashing the ACLU and celebrating religious influence in Bossier schools, one Bossier teacher, Carolyn Goodwin, explained her support for creationism succinctly: "My great granddaddy wasn't a monkey."
...also, give Kopplin's article some Twitter love:
Also be sure to check out Kopplin's article in Slate from earlier this year: Kopplin, Zack. (2015). "Dismissing Darwin." Slate. April 21 2015. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/creationism_in_louisiana_public_school_science_classes_school_boards_and.html The Slate article also contains some key material on the origins of the 2006 antievolution policy in Ouachita, Louisiana -- much of the language traces back to Judge Darrell White, a young-earther, and member of the Lousiana Family Forum. I didn't realize this connection until just before publication, so it is not in the main analysis of the "Evolution of Antievolution Legislation" Science paper, but I did summarize it in the Supplemental Material:
Supplemental bill text history After the analysis was complete, it came to my attention that some of the text of the Ouachita Policy is known to have been copied from a Proposed School Board Policy promulgated by retired military judge Darrell White (44, 45). White is a member of Louisiana Family Forum (a group historically involved in many creationist efforts in that state) and a "lifetime member of the Creation Museum" (45). He was also a public advocate for the passage of the Ouachita policy and Louisana's SEA. White's policy can be seen in a February 8, 2005 archive of the (now defunct) website (https://web.archive.org/web/20050208075130/http:/judgewhite.com/docs/proposedresolution.pdf). An even earlier copy is appended to an "Open Letter to LA Educators" (dated March 9, 2004) by Darrell Scott, a parent of a victim of the Columbine High School shootings. The letter expresses concern that the teaching of evolution leads to atheism and school shootings (https://web.archive.org/web/20050210161118/http://judgewhite.com/docs/dscottletter.pdf). The Judge White text is clearly the source for some of the Ouachita policy, and includes common Discovery Institute talking points, although it does not have some key pieces like the targeting of human cloning and global warming in addition to evolution. The Discovery Institute website academicfreedompetition.com has recently posted a "2015-2016" version of an Academic Freedom bill (http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php, "Model Academic Freedom Bill"). Despite the "Academic Freedom" label, this model bill is clearly in the SEA tradition, complete with the phrase "teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy." The original DI Model Bill seems to have disappeared from the website, but a 2012 copy of the version posted in 2007 can still be seen at https://archive.is/20120717194631/http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php. [...] 44. B. Forrest, The Discovery Institute, the LA Family Forum, and the "LA Science Education Act" updated. Talk to Action (2008); www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/26/18920/8497. 45. Z. Kopplin, Dismissing Darwin. Slate, April 2015; www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/04/creationism_in_louisiana_public_school_science_classes_school_boards_and.html.
At some point, we will have to do a new analysis, with these additional texts, plus whatever legislation comes out in 2016 and beyond. (I also was recently pointed to the Legislative Influence Database, which might have some interesting synergies with this kind of phylomemetic analysis. See also: "Text detective can unmask the secret influencers behind US laws." New Scientist, November 11, 2015. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830473-000-text-detective-can-unmask-the-secret-influencers-behind-us-laws/)

42 Comments

John · 28 December 2015

Eventually I would love to know who Zack Kopplin's "Deep Throat" is. Regardless, I don't think this allegation is all that new since Paul Gross and Barbara Forrest did an extensive investigation into the DI which they noted in their "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design".

harold · 28 December 2015

All of this stirring at the DI and lesser shill organizations is interesting. Are they just reacting to the tenth anniversary of Dover? Are donors putting on pressure after ten years of inactivity and public silence? Is some new lawsuit on the horizon? Could it be related to the 2016 election cycle? It will be interesting to see.

Mike Elzinga · 28 December 2015

I haven't yet been able to verify this, but I heard recently that one state legislature - Texas, I think - attemped to "beef up" its revisionist school curriculum legislation by also passing a law that forbids fact checking what is in their new textbooks.

Has anyone else heard anything about this?

Mike Elzinga · 28 December 2015

Mike Elzinga said: I haven't yet been able to verify this, but I heard recently that one state legislature - Texas, I think - attemped to "beef up" its revisionist school curriculum legislation by also passing a law that forbids fact checking what is in their new textbooks. Has anyone else heard anything about this?
Ah, here is what I heard.

Victor Hutchison · 28 December 2015

Mike Elzinga: Yes, it was Texas:
http://fusion.net/story/235591/texas-sboe-textbook-decision/
There are several other reports available.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 28 December 2015

Mike Elzinga said:
Mike Elzinga said: I haven't yet been able to verify this, but I heard recently that one state legislature - Texas, I think - attemped to "beef up" its revisionist school curriculum legislation by also passing a law that forbids fact checking what is in their new textbooks. Has anyone else heard anything about this?
Ah, here is what I heard.
Better source than "News" at UD, but not ideal. Glen Davidson

John · 28 December 2015

Victor Hutchison said: Mike Elzinga: Yes, it was Texas: http://fusion.net/story/235591/texas-sboe-textbook-decision/ There are several other reports available.
Terrible, but not surprising, to say the least. I am sure Zack Kopplin, Texas Citizens for Science and others will remain vigilant to ensure that only accurate textbooks are used.

Just Bob · 28 December 2015

John said: I am sure Zack Kopplin, Texas Citizens for Science and others will remain vigilant to ensure that only accurate textbooks are used.
In Texas? You're being sarcastic, right?

John · 28 December 2015

Just Bob said:
John said: I am sure Zack Kopplin, Texas Citizens for Science and others will remain vigilant to ensure that only accurate textbooks are used.
In Texas? You're being sarcastic, right?
No, I'm not. There will be enough pressure coming from Zack, Texas Citizens for Science and ACLU, etc. It took a while, but the Texas State Board of Education didn't succeed in eviscerating the latest edition of Miller and Levine, ensuring that high school students around the country had a textbook that reflected current mainstream biology, not some risible religiously-inspired pseudoscientific quackery.

Just Bob · 29 December 2015

John said:
Just Bob said:
John said: I am sure Zack Kopplin, Texas Citizens for Science and others will remain vigilant to ensure that only accurate textbooks are used.
In Texas? You're being sarcastic, right?
No, I'm not. There will be enough pressure coming from Zack, Texas Citizens for Science and ACLU, etc. It took a while, but the Texas State Board of Education didn't succeed in eviscerating the latest edition of Miller and Levine, ensuring that high school students around the country had a textbook that reflected current mainstream biology, not some risible religiously-inspired pseudoscientific quackery.
I live here, pal. Look at whom we elected governor. Look at whom he looks to for the Real Truth about American history. Remember Don McLeroy? Remember Christine Comer?

John · 29 December 2015

Just Bob said:
John said:
Just Bob said:
John said: I am sure Zack Kopplin, Texas Citizens for Science and others will remain vigilant to ensure that only accurate textbooks are used.
In Texas? You're being sarcastic, right?
No, I'm not. There will be enough pressure coming from Zack, Texas Citizens for Science and ACLU, etc. It took a while, but the Texas State Board of Education didn't succeed in eviscerating the latest edition of Miller and Levine, ensuring that high school students around the country had a textbook that reflected current mainstream biology, not some risible religiously-inspired pseudoscientific quackery.
I live here, pal. Look at whom we elected governor. Look at whom he looks to for the Real Truth about American history. Remember Don McLeroy? Remember Christine Comer?
Last time I checked, Zack Kopplin still resides in Texas. His was among the influential voices that ensured that Ken Miller and Joe Levine's textbook wouldn't have been eviscerated by the Texas State Board of Education. So too was Texas Citizens for Science's, if my memory is correct.

SLC · 29 December 2015

The issue relative to the Miller/Levine textbook came up a couple of years ago and was cited by Jerry Coyne on his blog. Ken Miller contributed a number of comments to Jerry's blog post as to what the creationists were up to and may have posted the criticisms of the review panel and his responses on his Brown Univ. website.

Just Bob · 29 December 2015

OK, yeah, you're right. Texas is safe from crazy right-wing religious nutjobs. And all the ones we elect and put on school boards and hire as teachers will be stopped dead by Z. Kopplin and TCS.

John · 29 December 2015

Just Bob said: OK, yeah, you're right. Texas is safe from crazy right-wing religious nutjobs. And all the ones we elect and put on school boards and hire as teachers will be stopped dead by Z. Kopplin and TCS.
No, I didn't say that. If you are really concerned, then I suggest getting more involved with NCSE, which has been monitoring the textbook situation in Texas for years and providing support. BTW Zack has been a most effective advocate.

John · 29 December 2015

SLC said: The issue relative to the Miller/Levine textbook came up a couple of years ago and was cited by Jerry Coyne on his blog. Ken Miller contributed a number of comments to Jerry's blog post as to what the creationists were up to and may have posted the criticisms of the review panel and his responses on his Brown Univ. website.
Eventually there were some concessions made to the Texas State Board of Education apparently, and you can read some - or rather, see - of the details here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/ Ken apparently did not post much on his own page (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km). If he's not committing much, it may be due to his ongoing writing. I know he's in the midst of writing a new book, but can't say more at present.

John · 29 December 2015

Typo, note the correction below:
John said:
SLC said: The issue relative to the Miller/Levine textbook came up a couple of years ago and was cited by Jerry Coyne on his blog. Ken Miller contributed a number of comments to Jerry's blog post as to what the creationists were up to and may have posted the criticisms of the review panel and his responses on his Brown Univ. website.
Eventually there were some concessions made to the Texas State Board of Education apparently, and you can read some - or rather, see - of the details here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/ Ken apparently did not post much on his own page (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km). If he's not commenting much, it may be due to his ongoing writing. I know he's in the midst of writing a new book, but can't say more at present.

Just Bob · 29 December 2015

John said: Typo, note the correction below:
John said:
SLC said: The issue relative to the Miller/Levine textbook came up a couple of years ago and was cited by Jerry Coyne on his blog. Ken Miller contributed a number of comments to Jerry's blog post as to what the creationists were up to and may have posted the criticisms of the review panel and his responses on his Brown Univ. website.
Eventually there were some concessions made to the Texas State Board of Education apparently, and you can read some - or rather, see - of the details here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/ Ken apparently did not post much on his own page (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km). If he's not commenting much, it may be due to his ongoing writing. I know he's in the midst of writing a new book, but can't say more at present.
John, really, nobody cares, unless a typo is so egregious that it distorts the meaning or something.

Robert Byers · 29 December 2015

Academic freedom is a good thing for creationism because its a good thing to have freedom in academia.
In fact its power is shown by attempts to discredit that THAT is the true motive. AHA.Evolutionists are losing the NO ACADEMIC FREEDOM part of this struggle. As p[predicted in a free nation. court decisions don't make it any more acceptable but only bring more attention to this unacceptable agenda.
Anyways.
Remember its politics that is used to censor creationism and so one must use poltics to bring equity.
The goods ain't been got yet!
The truth is the moral right of a free people on all matters of human enquiry. Especially in the anglo-American world and especially more in AMERICA.
Banning a opinion is not embracing truth as the objective. unless the banned is established to be not true. They say they are not doing this as the banning is based on religion banning and so its illegal for the state to say religion ideas are wrong.
anyways the censorship will fall soon enough. just not enough interest yet in still obscure things.
What is needed is a great hugh case to capture historically the whole american peoples attention on origin censorship issues.
so great they will make movies and better movies about it! Fun too.
Enough carping about state bills.
Its time for a great judical event. iI know the present supreme court is not worthy or able but still the event would be so great it would lead to another event when a better court is arrived.
what more can anyone say about origin censorship?? its all been said.
There will be no end until a clear wISE answer comes down.
Creationists , i hope, are ready.
Lets rumble. Then help Canada if possible.

phhht · 29 December 2015

Robert Byers said: Academic freedom is a good thing for creationism because its a good thing to have freedom in academia. In fact its power is shown by attempts to discredit that THAT is the true motive. AHA.Evolutionists are losing the NO ACADEMIC FREEDOM part of this struggle. As p[predicted in a free nation. court decisions don't make it any more acceptable but only bring more attention to this unacceptable agenda. Anyways. Remember its politics that is used to censor creationism and so one must use poltics to bring equity. The goods ain't been got yet! The truth is the moral right of a free people on all matters of human enquiry. Especially in the anglo-American world and especially more in AMERICA. Banning a opinion is not embracing truth as the objective. unless the banned is established to be not true. They say they are not doing this as the banning is based on religion banning and so its illegal for the state to say religion ideas are wrong. anyways the censorship will fall soon enough. just not enough interest yet in still obscure things. What is needed is a great hugh case to capture historically the whole american peoples attention on origin censorship issues. so great they will make movies and better movies about it! Fun too. Enough carping about state bills. Its time for a great judical event. iI know the present supreme court is not worthy or able but still the event would be so great it would lead to another event when a better court is arrived. what more can anyone say about origin censorship?? its all been said. There will be no end until a clear wISE answer comes down. Creationists , i hope, are ready. Lets rumble. Then help Canada if possible.
But religion is NOT true, Byers. "Religion ideas" ARE wrong. Gods you're dumb.

Yardbird · 29 December 2015

Robert Byers said: Academic freedom is a good thing for creationism because its a good thing to have freedom in academia.
Everything you need to know about Bugs Byers in a nutshell right here.
Robert Byers said: what more can anyone say about origin censorship?? its all been said.
So shut the fuck up already.

Scott F · 29 December 2015

Robert Byers said: Academic freedom is a good thing ... because its a good thing to have freedom in academia.
Creationist "logic" in a "nut" shell.

Scott F · 29 December 2015

Robert Byers said: Its time for a great judical event. iI know the present supreme court is not worthy or able but still the event would be so great it would lead to another event when a better court is arrived.
But Robert, on the other thread, just days ago, you were arguing that judges should not be allowed to decide matters of origins, or religion, or "truth". You wanted the "truth" to be put to a vote of the people. Now, instead, you want to replace the Supreme Court, and have a bunch of unelected judges to decide what religious dogma is "true" and what dogma is "false". But, not surprisingly, you only want judges who will rule in your favor. Judges who might rule against you, you believe are not "worthy or able" to decide such a case. You see, that is the point of Enlightenment Science. Science is "true" no matter what religion you are, no matter where or when you live, or who your parents are. In contrast, the "truth" of religion varies by country, varies by continent, varies by time, and varies by who your parents are. That isn't the kind of "truth" I would want to believe in.

phhht · 29 December 2015

Science is “true” no matter what religion you are, no matter where or when you live, or who your parents are. In contrast, the “truth” of religion varies by country, varies by continent, varies by time, and varies by who your parents are.

Furthermore, truth is objective. Truth for me is also truth for you. And truth can be verified by appeal to objective reality, by means of empirical test. You and I can settle a question of truth by that means. None of that is possible for "religion ideas."

John · 29 December 2015

Just Bob said:
John said: Typo, note the correction below:
John said:
SLC said: The issue relative to the Miller/Levine textbook came up a couple of years ago and was cited by Jerry Coyne on his blog. Ken Miller contributed a number of comments to Jerry's blog post as to what the creationists were up to and may have posted the criticisms of the review panel and his responses on his Brown Univ. website.
Eventually there were some concessions made to the Texas State Board of Education apparently, and you can read some - or rather, see - of the details here: http://www.millerandlevine.com/ Ken apparently did not post much on his own page (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km). If he's not commenting much, it may be due to his ongoing writing. I know he's in the midst of writing a new book, but can't say more at present.
John, really, nobody cares, unless a typo is so egregious that it distorts the meaning or something.
I had in mind others who would be reading this, not you or the other usual PT posters. But I appreciate the sentiment, Just Bob.

John · 29 December 2015

Scott F said:
Robert Byers said: Academic freedom is a good thing ... because its a good thing to have freedom in academia.
Creationist "logic" in a "nut" shell.
I was thinking of noting it as a rather sick and twisted Panglossian observation from Booby Byers, but yours is a most succinct and apt appraisal, Scott F.

Science Avenger · 30 December 2015

phhht said: Furthermore, truth is objective. Truth for me is also truth for you. And truth can be verified by appeal to objective reality, by means of empirical test. You and I can settle a question of truth by that means. None of that is possible for "religion ideas."
Which is precisely why religious disputes are so often settled with violence and scientific ones aren't. When mutually accessible evidence is off the table, there is little left.

Henry J · 30 December 2015

Ah, so it's not about who's right - it's about who's left.

FL · 30 December 2015

In 2008, Louisiana became the first state to pass an academic freedom law, the Louisiana Science Education Act, which is being used to teach creationism in public school districts like Bossier Parish.

I remember that accusation, we've discussed it in this forum. However, Bossier Parrish officially responded to this sort of accusation, saying that the ACLU was wrong in its statements. So did the ACLU ever actually DO anything to carry this matter any further? Or did they just quietly fade out (for lack of supporting evidence) and float away? FL

DS · 30 December 2015

FL said:

In 2008, Louisiana became the first state to pass an academic freedom law, the Louisiana Science Education Act, which is being used to teach creationism in public school districts like Bossier Parish.

I remember that accusation, we've discussed it in this forum. However, Bossier Parrish officially responded to this sort of accusation, saying that the ACLU was wrong in its statements. So did the ACLU ever actually DO anything to carry this matter any further? Or did they just quietly fade out (for lack of supporting evidence) and float away? FL
Well now that we have a letter signed by twenty teachers and administrators, you can be sure that there will be a law suit and that the creationists will lose. See Floyd, the rest of the world values evidence and courts actually use it to decide things. Take a lesson.

FL · 30 December 2015

DS said:
FL said:

In 2008, Louisiana became the first state to pass an academic freedom law, the Louisiana Science Education Act, which is being used to teach creationism in public school districts like Bossier Parish.

I remember that accusation, we've discussed it in this forum. However, Bossier Parrish officially responded to this sort of accusation, saying that the ACLU was wrong in its statements. So did the ACLU ever actually DO anything to carry this matter any further? Or did they just quietly fade out (for lack of supporting evidence) and float away? FL
Well now that we have a letter signed by twenty teachers and administrators, you can be sure that there will be a law suit and that the creationists will lose. See Floyd, the rest of the world values evidence and courts actually use it to decide things. Take a lesson.
I'm sure the ACLU values evidence as well. So, where's the evidence? And while we're waiting, where's the specific letter that you mentioned? What does it say? FL

FL · 30 December 2015

Oh wait, you must mean THIS letter...

http://www.repealcreationism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Slate-Ouachita-Teachers-Letter2.pdf

...Of which the letter's actual text is totally NOT at odds with the LSEA's actual text.

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

FL

Robert Byers · 30 December 2015

Scott F said:
Robert Byers said: Its time for a great judical event. iI know the present supreme court is not worthy or able but still the event would be so great it would lead to another event when a better court is arrived.
But Robert, on the other thread, just days ago, you were arguing that judges should not be allowed to decide matters of origins, or religion, or "truth". You wanted the "truth" to be put to a vote of the people. Now, instead, you want to replace the Supreme Court, and have a bunch of unelected judges to decide what religious dogma is "true" and what dogma is "false". But, not surprisingly, you only want judges who will rule in your favor. Judges who might rule against you, you believe are not "worthy or able" to decide such a case. You see, that is the point of Enlightenment Science. Science is "true" no matter what religion you are, no matter where or when you live, or who your parents are. In contrast, the "truth" of religion varies by country, varies by continent, varies by time, and varies by who your parents are. That isn't the kind of "truth" I would want to believe in.
No contradiction. A accurate court, Supreme, should only rule state censorship is illegal. thats all they can or should do. Thats what ID/TEC should aim for. A bigger cause and not just academic freedom. The whole rotten state speech/thought/teaching/enquiry control is what must be destroyed. That is the greater enemy. The judges right now are the enemy also for defending state censorship in public institutions. Your correct in saying i insist its none of the damn business of lawyers to judge what is truth in origin matters or what is scientific methodology or what is true regarding religion. They have no authority to do so pr ability. None given them by the constitution. Its up to the people to decide what is taught in schools and all unrelated to the government of the nation. Schools are not the state but only paid for by the state. Another remedy.

Dave Luckett · 30 December 2015

Byers has as many as two strings to harp on. One is that it's "censorship" to prevent the state from teaching a religious doctrine as if fact. That is, Byers refuses to recognise the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a religion.

Two is that Byers wouldn't allow "lawyers" (by which he means Federal judges) to rule on what the Constitution actually means. He wants it done by plebiscite, apparently.

So basically the Byers position is "The hell with the Constitution" and "the hell with the rule of law". He wants his religion established. In fact, he wants a theocracy, and he thinks a majority of Americans agree with him.

Well, he's wrong. Separately, he's also daffy and semiliterate at best. But he's mostly simply wrong.

DS · 30 December 2015

FL said: Oh wait, you must mean THIS letter... http://www.repealcreationism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Slate-Ouachita-Teachers-Letter2.pdf ...Of which the letter's actual text is totally NOT at odds with the LSEA's actual text. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/text_of_louisiana_science_educ007391.html FL
Every single signer of that letter will most likely be named in a class action law suit. They will be forced to reveal exactly what they have been teaching in their classrooms. And when it is revealed that they have illegally taught creationism in place of science, they will pay the price. It certainly is no surprise that you support their illegal efforts to undermine science education. After all, you are the one who endorses violence against anyone who threatens you. Isn't that right Floyd?

W. H. Heydt · 30 December 2015

Dave Luckett said: Byers has as many as two strings to harp on. One is that it's "censorship" to prevent the state from teaching a religious doctrine as if fact. That is, Byers refuses to recognise the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a religion. Two is that Byers wouldn't allow "lawyers" (by which he means Federal judges) to rule on what the Constitution actually means. He wants it done by plebiscite, apparently. So basically the Byers position is "The hell with the Constitution" and "the hell with the rule of law". He wants his religion established. In fact, he wants a theocracy, and he thinks a majority of Americans agree with him. Well, he's wrong. Separately, he's also daffy and semiliterate at best. But he's mostly simply wrong.
I suppose the proper question is...Since Byers is (so far as I know) a Canadian, did Canada follow the English lead and establish the Church of England, or local equivalent? Perhaps his problem is that--from his perspective--they established the "wrong" church and he fails to understand that the US Constitution prohibits establishing *any* church?

Robert Byers · 31 December 2015

W. H. Heydt said:
Dave Luckett said: Byers has as many as two strings to harp on. One is that it's "censorship" to prevent the state from teaching a religious doctrine as if fact. That is, Byers refuses to recognise the Constitutional prohibition against establishing a religion. Two is that Byers wouldn't allow "lawyers" (by which he means Federal judges) to rule on what the Constitution actually means. He wants it done by plebiscite, apparently. So basically the Byers position is "The hell with the Constitution" and "the hell with the rule of law". He wants his religion established. In fact, he wants a theocracy, and he thinks a majority of Americans agree with him. Well, he's wrong. Separately, he's also daffy and semiliterate at best. But he's mostly simply wrong.
I suppose the proper question is...Since Byers is (so far as I know) a Canadian, did Canada follow the English lead and establish the Church of England, or local equivalent? Perhaps his problem is that--from his perspective--they established the "wrong" church and he fails to understand that the US Constitution prohibits establishing *any* church?
Its not establishing any church to teach truth about religious or any matters. Lines are just crossed. iN fact this is what happens when teaching evolution as truth. It teaches religion is wrong. The whole point of the constitution on church/styate is a beautiful brillient idea. Neither one should interfere with the other. The nation is secular and the government neutral towards religious ideas and conclusions. AMEN> Yet they break contract. First they say the state is whatever the state pays for. So the schools. Then they say the schools can't teach religious truths. FINE. BUT then they talk about subjects that religious truth talks about. So they are saying , in origin matters, religious truths are false THEN when rebuttal, ONLY not censoring the attack, is asked for they invoke the separation concept. Its a trick and cheat and poor reasoning and illegal. If subjects are breached where religious conclusions are likewish breached then EITHER both are censored or no censorship. The state breaking its own law if it bans creationism as a option for truth in these subjects since its the objective to teach truth in these subjects. In fact teaching evolution etc breaks the law since its the state attacking religious conclusions. State censorship can't be divorced from state opinion on matters censored. So the state has a opinion on religion. Which is illegal and breaks the beautiful, brilliant idea of state/chirch separation. It ain't separation but agggresive opposition to religion. Where am i wrong in my reasoning? Any lawyers about the place or sharp evolutionist up to the task of the defence.?

phhht · 31 December 2015

Robert Byers said: iN fact this is what happens when teaching evolution as truth. It teaches religion is wrong.
But evolution is truth, Byers. Religion is wrong. You cannot show that evolution is false. You cannot show that religion is true. All you can do is to bluster, clumsily.

eric · 31 December 2015

Robert Byers said: First they say the state is whatever the state pays for. So the schools.
Not quite, but close. Teachers are state employees, teaching state curriculum. THAT is why we say its the state talking. Just like if Robert Byers hires a spokesperson and writes their speeches, and pays them to speak those speeches, we attribute the opinions spoken to Robert Byers, not the spokesperson. Do you get that?
Then they say the schools can't teach religious truths.
Nope. You can have a comparative religion class. You can have a bible as literature class. Schools can't teach that one religion is right and others are wrong, but it can teach students what those religions teach; their 'truths.' You've been told this many many times. For some reason, you choose to ignore it.
BUT then they talk about subjects that religious truth talks about.
Well given that religion talks about everything from geography to what to wear to what sexual positions one can perform, it would be pretty impossible not to talk about subjects religion touches on. But Robert, "neutrality" does not mean "silence." Just because the bible mentions Egypt doesn't mean schools must stay silent about Egypt. Neutrality means they can't take an opinion on whether Jesus or Mohammed is the correct religious leader to follow. They can certainly talk about history, geography, hygiene, sex ed, how to breed striped goats, the fact that insects have six legs, the fact that mustard seeds are not the smallest seeds, and so on...AND this includes earth history.
Where am i wrong in my reasoning?
Everywhere. You're wrong about what neutrality is. You're wrong about schools not being able to teach about the bible. You're wrong about a limitation on state employee on-the-job speech being equivalent to individual citizen censorship. You're wrong about how US law is interpreted...and you haven't even bothered reading the legal decisions pointed out to you as important to the topic!! Good gracious, not only are you wrong, but even when we suggest important legal decisions made by the US Supreme Court that would tell you what the law says, documents that are free and easily accessible via google, you refuse to read them.

DS · 1 January 2016

Happy New Year Robert.

Hear is something for you to thing abouts. My religions says that the sun goes around the earth. So now the government cannot say the earth goes around the sun or its saying my religion is wrong. so no more astronomy classes can teach that my religion is wrong. Where am i wrong in my reasoning? we is applying this to canada so now you space program is in the crapper. no more space arms or orbits for canada oopsy doopsy. where am i wrong?

gnome de net · 1 January 2016

eric replied to Robert Byers: You've been told this many many times. For some reason, you choose to ignore it.
Robert doesn't read comments; he scans them searching for key words or phrases. Then he consults his list of scripted talking points and responds by simply repeating the corresponding baseless assertions. And repeating, and repeating,... Does he devote any conscious effort to ignore everything except those words or phrases? Or does he view comments, perhaps all reality, instinctively through genetically-inherited filters? Either way the results are the same.

John · 1 January 2016

Here's some unexpected good news, Casey Luskin announces his departure from the Dishonesty Institute:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/a_big_announcem102011.html

The DI has lost its Minister of Propaganda, though I think the ever devious David Klinghoffer is a most "worthy" replacement.

Scott F · 1 January 2016

DS said:
FL said:

In 2008, Louisiana became the first state to pass an academic freedom law, the Louisiana Science Education Act, which is being used to teach creationism in public school districts like Bossier Parish.

I remember that accusation, we've discussed it in this forum. However, Bossier Parrish officially responded to this sort of accusation, saying that the ACLU was wrong in its statements. So did the ACLU ever actually DO anything to carry this matter any further? Or did they just quietly fade out (for lack of supporting evidence) and float away? FL
Well now that we have a letter signed by twenty teachers and administrators, you can be sure that there will be a law suit and that the creationists will lose. See Floyd, the rest of the world values evidence and courts actually use it to decide things. Take a lesson.
Well, here is one of the references from Zack's article in slate: http://www.repealcreationism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Ouachita-Parish-Junior-High-Origins-Curriculum.pdf It's not particularly good. The "definition" of "Theory" includes the "common" definition, rather than the "scientific" definition:

Theory: - an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events - an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

The first one is close to the correct scientific definition, but the second is not. Is that bad? It depends. If the Teacher intended to point out that the second definition is *not* the scientific definition, then it might be good. But that is unlikely to be the case in Louisiana. Four different "Theories on the Origin of Life" are given: 1. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, "Developed by Charles Darwin-mid 1800's". Well, okay. If focuses on Darwin, and what Darwin argued. Nothing from the 1900's or later is presented or suggested. It does say that, "Natural Selection- can explain how populations change over time". It also says, "He [Darwin] studied tortoises, mockingbirds, and finches because they looked different on each island". It appears that the Teacher is confusing "cause" and "effect", or is confused about why scientists observe nature, or how scientists observe nature. On the plus side, there is no explicit disparaging language of the Theory of Evolution. 2. Theory of Spontaneous Generation This is given one sentence, ending with, "this theory has since been disproven". I'm thinking that the Teacher has confused a scientific "Theory" with a "Hypothesis", or "Guess". 3. Primordial Soup Theory So, the Teacher is also mixing theories of Evolution with theories of abiogenesis, and again mixing "Theory" with "Hypothesis". The Teacher concludes that this "theory" is "Now believed to be inaccurate for several reasons". 4. Creationism (Intelligent Design)" Well, FL will be happy that the Teacher was clear that Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing. It appears to be a neutral description, offering no positive or negative assessment. It does not give Creationism or even ID the moniker of "Theory". It clearly states that the "Basis for creationism is founded in Genesis of the Bible". It identifies 3 different kinds of creationism: OEC, YEC, and ID. This one page does have a footnote listing the NCSE, RationalWiki, and AnswersInGenesis, in that order. Odd, also, that the "Objective" of the lesson is to, "differentiate between the theories of how the earth began and evolution". Maybe there is other material besides these slides, but there is no reference to the Earth at all, except to note that YEC states that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. So. Rather sad, really, for a "science" teacher. But, having worked with teachers at an "alternative" school for troubled kids, most of them would not have done much better. In my limited experience, I would say it is typical. Other than being confused about the science and the definitions of scientific terms, the slides are relatively neutral. I could use these slides to talk positively about Evolution. I'm sure FL could spin a yarn about Creationism. On their face, it isn't clear how they would be used. However, 2 of the 3 scientific "theories" are identified as "wrong" or "inaccurate". That could easily suggest that the first of the 3 "theories" just hasn't been shown to be wrong yet. Also, there is no distinction made between "scientific" "theories" (the word "science" or it's derivatives isn't used; Darwin is described as a "Naturalist"), and relying on the Bible. It's also not clear how "Creationism" can be considered a "Theory on the Origin of Life". (It's not even clear how the TOE can be considered a theory on the "Origin of Life".) If this were presented as history of the "science" of origins and evolution, it might be reasonable, just as one would talk about the raisin-pudding model of the structure of an atom. But the slides do not suggest that this is a history lesson.