Senate sends Jindal bill on evolution

2theadvocate.com ^ | Jun 17, 2008 | WILL SENTELL

[Tailgunner Joe]

A bill to overhaul the way evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools easily cleared its final legislative hurdle Monday despite threats of a lawsuit.

Opponents, mostly outside the State Capitol, contend the legislation would inject creationism and other religious themes into public schools.

However, the Senate voted 36-0 without debate to go along with the same version of the proposal that the House passed last week 94-3.

The measure, Senate Bill 733, now goes to Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is expected to sign it.

Backers said the bill is needed to give science teachers more freedom to hold discussions that challenge traditional theories, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

“It provides assurances to both teachers and students that academic inquiries are welcome and appropriate in the science classroom,” said Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum.

Mills’ group touts itself as one that promotes traditional family values. It was called an influential mover behind the bill.

However, officials of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana and Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington, D.C., said the bill represents an intrusion of religion into public schools that may warrant a lawsuit.

“It is the ACLU’s position that we intend to do whatever is necessary to keep religion out of our science classrooms.” said Marjorie R. Esman, executive director of the group in New Orleans.

The legislation is called the Louisiana Science Education Act.

It would allow science teachers to use supplemental materials, in addition to state-issued textbooks, on issues like evolution, global warming and human cloning.

The aim of such materials, the bill says, is to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied,” including evolution.

“I just believe that it is important that supplemental scientific information be able to be brought into the school system,” state Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa and sponsor of the bill, said after the vote.

Nevers said that, despite the rapid pace of changes in science, textbooks are only updated every seven years.

Critics said DVDs and other supplemental materials with religious themes will be added to classrooms to try to undercut widely accepted scientific views.

The bill cleared its final legislative hurdle in less than five minutes.

Nevers noted that the key change made in the House would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to toss out science supplemental materials that it considers inappropriate.

Opponents contend the bill is a bid to allow the teaching of creationism and intelligent design. Christian creationism is the view that life began 6,000 years ago in a process described in the Bible’s Book of Genesis.

Intelligent design advocates believe that the universe stems from an intelligent designer rather than chance.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a prepared statement that the bill “is clearly designed to smuggle religion into the science classroom, and that’s unwise and unconstitutional.” Joe Conn, a spokesman for the group, said attorneys will review the bill.

Lynn’s group calls itself a national watchdog organization to prevent government-backed religious teaching.

Barbara Forrest, of Holden, a member of the group’s board of trustees and a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, also criticized passage of the measure.

“I think what the Legislature has done is an embarrassment to the state in the eyes of the entire country,” Forrest said.

Nevers downplayed talk of legal action against his bill.

“I don’t think any lawsuits will be brought because of this act,” he said.

Mills predicted that the bill will survive any legal challenge.

In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a 1981 state law that required equal time on creationism when evolution was taught in public schools.

[MrB]

Yeah, but we’ll damn well be sure to teach Secular Humanism and Atheism in the classroom contrary to the wishes of the parents, right?

[Non-Sequitur]

“I don’t think any lawsuits will be brought because of this act,” he said.

Wanna bet?

[Non-Sequitur]

I wouldn't be surprised if the 'young earthers' are actually a minority of Christian creationists, but because what they believe in parts so far from current scientific knowledge, it is the one that gets the airtime.

But shouldn't it be taught? As one of the 'academic inquiries' that are are welcome and appropriate in the science classroom of course.

[Non-Sequitur]

Evolution is just that - a theory. Why should it be given more prestige than it deserves?

Flight is a scientific theory. Gravity is a scientific theory. Most of physics is scientific theory. If you do away with anything labeled 'theory' then you depopulate the science curriculum. Whatever's left will certainly be prestigious though, won't it?

[mnehring]

I didn’t say it shouldn’t be taught. I think all ideas should be explored in a scientific fashion. Some will immediately be discarded, others may survive for further debate. My challenge was the article’s classification of Creationists as being only young-earthers.

[Non-Sequitur]

I didn’t say it shouldn’t be taught. I think all ideas should be explored in a scientific fashion. Some will immediately be discarded, others may survive for further debate.

And what will be used to discard those ideas? Science?

[mnehring]

Discard may be the wrong word, but my point stands. If it is a science class, why not let it be challenged and defend it based on scientific standards? If, for example, a Native American child brings in the creation story his grandfather believed about a great snake giving birth to the earth, we can look at this from a scientific fashion and determine if there is any logical basis.

If we believe in creation, we should be willing and able to have our belief stand up to scientific scrutiny and challenge the scientific scrutiny if we feel it is addressing our belief incorrectly.

If we are unable or unwilling to defend our belief in the scientific world, what point is there?

[jmc813]

If, for example, a Native American child brings in the creation story his grandfather believed about a great snake giving birth to the earth, we can look at this from a scientific fashion and determine if there is any logical basis.

Schools would be sued out of existence if this were to happen. I still like my idea in post 20 the best.

[mnehring]

Schools would be sued out of existence if this were to happen.

Why? If a child was raised in a Native American household and had this belief, why should he not be allowed to bring up his belief. At the same time, why should the teacher not also be allowed to explore and challenge this based on science? If we expect pro-creation teachers to be able to challenge evolution, we should also expect the freedom for the same challenge. We should never hide behind the 'its religion, therefore it can't be challenged'. How many people call evolution religion? If our belief is strong, having to respond to the challenge will strengthen our belief.

[mnehring]

why not just not address this in public schools

The problem I have with your post 20 is two fold. First, if we follow this path, then it could get to the point where nothing could be taught because it offends or challenges the belief of someone else. Secondly, faith (or science) is not strengthened by avoiding challenges to it. It is strengthened by facing those challenges and hashing them out.

[jmc813]

In an ideal world, your solution would be best. My point, however, is there are scumbag lawyers out there and people on both sides of this have a tenancy to have their fragile little sensibilities shattered easily. The first time a debate on this came up, parents would be suing the school left and right.

Like I said before, people are not going to be happy regardless of what you do, so as far as I'm concerned, the heck with it. They should be teaching more practical things during school. I look around at all of these obese ankle-biters these days and can't help but think that a bit more phys-ed would be more beneficial to them than a science lesson they'll forget by the end of the day anyway.

[JLLH]

The difference between the examples you have chosen and evolution is that the others can be proven. Evolution cannot. There is no way to re-create evolution in a lab - or to demonstrate such using the traditional scientific method. There is a great difference. Evolution is a non-provable theory. There are (at least to my knowledge) no transformational fossils.

[jmc813]

Secondly, faith (or science) is not strengthened by avoiding challenges to it. It is strengthened by facing those challenges and hashing them out.

I agree with you on that 100%. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people on both sides of this are not nearly as sensible as you and I. Just look at how most of these threads here on FR get gayed up. You know me, I usually couldn't care less whether people get offended or not, but in this case, I really just don't see a practical way to accomplish this. And I'm usually not a quitter either. This one particular issue stumps me.

[jmc813]

Oh, and if I don’t get back to you right away, I’m not ignoring you. I’m leaving the office now, getting dinner, and then I’m going to be playing with my about:config settings in my Firefox 3 (the new love of my life). I’m enjoying this discussion though and shall return.

[Coyoteman]

Evolution is a non-provable theory. There are (at least to my knowledge) no transformational fossils.

No theory in science can be proved; in this, the theory of evolution is equivalent to the theory of gravitation and germ theory. It has been better substantiated than almost any other theory, but it has not been proved as that is impossible in science.

See my FR home page for some definitions of "theory" and other pertinent terms.

As for transitional fossils, your understanding is incorrect. There are lots of them. What we don't have is the strawman fossils demanded by creationists, with something half formed, such as a half fish/half bird. Rather than supporting the theory of evolution, such a fossil, if shown to be reliable, would call much of what we have learned into question.

As for transitionals--here's one. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the right center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source

[JLLH]

With all due respect, gravity can certainly be demonstrated in a lab, as can most other scientific discoveries. Re-creating evolution in a lab cannot be done. As for the “transformational fossils” - no, as such, they do not exist. If, in fact, a completely different species is “born” through adaptation, fossils demonstrating this gradual change should exist. To my knowledge, they do not. Having fossils which supposedly demonstrate an earlier form of man, and then - oops, a later form of man - is not transitional. Furthermore, all the charts and “fossils”, dating, etc... are based on Darwin’s THEORY - and, as such, should not be taught as provable fact in a classroom (i.e. science). That is my point and I stand by it.

[Non-Sequitur]

The difference between the examples you have chosen and evolution is that the others can be proven. There is no way to re-create evolution in a lab - or to demonstrate such using the traditional scientific method.

Much of it can't. Much of what is taught in physics class can't be proven. Geology teaches what happened over millions of years, how do you recreate that in a lab? Science believes that much of evolution can be proven, through a path that can be traced through a series of transitional fossils. You don't need to recreate that in a classroom for it to be true.

There are (at least to my knowledge) no transformational fossils.

There are literally hundreds of them. Link

[Non-Sequitur]

If it is a science class, why not let it be challenged and defend it based on scientific standards? If, for example, a Native American child brings in the creation story his grandfather believed about a great snake giving birth to the earth, we can look at this from a scientific fashion and determine if there is any logical basis.

Because a science class, at least at the primary through high school level, is meant to teach science. If I want to believe in the theology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster then how much time do you devote in a high school class to refuting it? How do you prove that the great snake didn't give birth? What do you use as evidence?

[JLLH]

As I read this article, I noticed the claim that many fossils haven’t been found yet. A nice disclaimer, but really....!! Again, with all due respect, evolution is premised on something which cannot be proven unless one accepts a whole litany of unproven and unprovable assumptions. Scientists have largely found things they cannot explain (or which have turned out to be clever hoaxes) and have attached meaning to them with no independent scientific testing to verify that those basic premises are even correct. In fact, the whole idea of the “something from nothing” theory has been dis-proven time and again by actual science (such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.) While this may seem like a separate problem, it is not. None of the fossils found actually “prove” that man evolved from lower forms of life - and that that life evolved from nothing. There are no fossils to support that. Yes, old fossils of apes exist, and yes, older forms of what looks to be man (but is it really?) exist, but where is the link? I feel certain that if the link existed it would be shouted from the rooftops - but maybe they haven’t been “found” yet...

[Coyoteman]

Yes, old fossils of apes exist, and yes, older forms of what looks to be man (but is it really?) exist, but where is the link? I feel certain that if the link existed it would be shouted from the rooftops - but maybe they haven’t been “found” yet...

I showed you an example of a transitional fossil ("missing link" is a newspaper term, not a scientific term). There has been a lot of argument as how to classify this specimen precisely because it has earlier (more ape-like) and later (more human-like) traits. Even creationists can't agree where to classify this, with some holding for ape and others for human. That's part of what makes this such a good example of a transitional!

And please tell me you are not bringing up the 2nd law of thermodynamics to claim that evolution is not possible. Please!