Creationist Bill Signed by Jindal

LGF ^ | June 27, 2008

[EveningStar]

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has signed a stealth creationist bill into law, and American educational standards take a huge step backward: Science law could set tone for Jindal.

The creationist front group called the Discovery Institute is quietly crowing, and maintaining the fiction that the bill is not religiously-based.

[allmendream]

So you reiterate the personal insults while still not supplying any verification either Biblical, observational or mathematical for your Geocentricism.

This is what abandoning Science leads to. A consmologic model that thinking people left behind hundreds of years ago and adherents who cannot defend the model and so engage in personal insult.

Nothing I could say to you could possibly be as insulting as THAT. Pitiful.

[El Cid]

...Creationism can in no way withstand the rigor of scientific examination...

Which process do you think stands up better to the "rigor of scientific examination"?

Darwinism
m + e + t = abiogenesis

'Creationism'
m + e + t + i = abiogensis

where m = matter, e = energy, t = time, i = useful information

In the first case: a random mixture of elements plus unguided energy plus the magic elixir of time creates a process that defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - and all observed phenomena,

In the 2nd case, a process that is consistent with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - but requires a one time event in the past (Creation) implemented by a Creator (the one who provided "i" in the second equation).

No, we aren't going to reproduce God in the laboratory. We aren't going to draw a circle around HIM - and have HIM kneel to our bidding. But once you accept the fact that God made the Creation (as HE said HE did) - you have a process that matches what we observe in nature.

The first process (Darwinism) defies science and observable law - regardless about how large we make 't'. In fact, the larger the 't', the less likely this process (as chemical processes seek equilibrium, and less usable energy - not upward complexity).
The second process adheres to observations -- after the one-time Creation event, thus it is a better scientific explanation than darwinism.

[Fichori]

'Creationism'
m + e + t + i = abiogensis
[excerpt]

According to Answers.com:

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis ( ā'bī-ō-jĕn'ĭ-sĭs)
n.

The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.

So abiogenesis is a process of development.

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7

Adam was assembled and his engine started, all in less than a day.
(After all, God had to save time for all the other critters made on day 6)

To me, as a YEC, abiogenesis doesn't describe Creation very well because there was no development involved in Creation.

Not like you asked my opinion. ;)

[RaceBannon]

So, as long as people dont believe in the Bible in the end, that is okay for you?

You would raher have them believe in the religion of evolution?

[Non-Sequitur]

Or what about belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I'm going with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any heaven with beer volcanos and stripper factories sounds like the place for me.

[Non-Sequitur]

I prefer what is commonly known as “thinkers”.

What if your 'thinker' believes the world is flat?

[tacticalogic]

Sorry, I missed this one last night.

****Under our form of government, we elect representatives. They make the “informed” decisions. I see no limit on where they should be denied the right to include religious beliefs, NOR EXCLUDE them from the discussion!

From that article:

"Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming."

Note that geology is not on that list. You're arguing that we cannot exclude creationism from that subject.

[WVKayaker]

Note that geology is not on that list. You're arguing that we cannot exclude creationism from that subject.

I'm not arguing. I am accepting the wisdom of the Founders, who put no such limits.

Do you not accept the premises posited by our Founders?

[WVKayaker]

...as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming."

Note that geology is not on that list...

nor is basket weaving...

[Antoninus]

Bobby Jindal is a brilliant man. And considering how this bill passed with overwhelming majorities in both the LA House and Senate, why on earth would he block it?

I'm an evolutionist but the censorial attitude of some of the hard-core Darwinian fundamentalists is just ridiculous.

[tacticalogic]

nor is basket weaving...

You didn't come in on a disgreement about teaching creationism in basket weaving. You came in on a disagreement about teaching creationism in geology.

[tacticalogic]

I'm not arguing.

What definition of "arguing" is there that doesn't describe what you've been doing?

[Amelia]

Public Education Ping

This list is for intellectual discussion of articles and issues related to public education (including charter schools) from the preschool to university level. Items more appropriately placed on the “Naughty Teacher” list, “Another reason to Homeschool” list, or of a general public-school-bashing nature will not be pinged.

If you would like to be on or off this list, please freepmail Amelia, Gabz, Shag377, or SoftballMominVa

[allmendream]

Wisdom of our founders? OK. Here is what they left for us concerning religion and Science in the U.S. Constitution.

“The Congress shall have Power To...To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

Yes; by all means let us respect the wisdom of our founders.

[WVKayaker]

You're arguing that we cannot exclude creationism from that subject.

Actually, you were the one making argument pro exclusion. I was trying to make clear that exclusion of Religion is not in keeping with American tradition and Law. You wish to play word games and such. In the mean time, what evidence for your position have you given? Why should the Theory of Evolutionary Philosophy have exclusive rights in the classrooms of the LOCAL citizens who wish to have some input in what to teach THEIR children? Should the Amish be forced to wear plaid suits? Should the Mennonites be forbidden to drive black Chevys?

You set up straw men and have played your silly semantic games with them, as well. The definition of is is still is.

You appear not interested in serious discussion. You just want the attention, and controversy. You think know you have the real, absolute truth and everyone else needs to accept your version. In my version, we call that proselytizing. Others may refer to it as stifling debate. I clearly admit my bias.

Arguing, sure, I'm arguing. If we are in a debate, that is usually what it is called. But, once again, you try to deflect from the matter in discussion and cram your Rubric's Cube of Theory.

Life is real. I think we agree. It is preposterous to think you hold the truth, just because a chimpanzee can tie his shoe laces. Of course, he will take the shoes off as quickly as he can. He knows his place!

I guess yours is just a rung above!

Here's a pic of my Pet Rocks grandson...!

[WVKayaker]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

Yes; by all means let us respect the wisdom of our founders.

[antiRepublicrat]

As far as belief, they can believe what they want. As far as science, I expect them to be taught science (evolution) and not religion.

[antiRepublicrat]

Creation is not a fallacy. The Bible teaches it.

That is just so inapplicable in a science discussion.

[antiRepublicrat]

creates a process that defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I guess you didn't get the memo. The leading creationists have said not to use this gross misapplication of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to attack abiogenesis and evolution anymore.

[Clemenza]

The bible is a largely fictional work of literature often written hundreds of years after the “facts” took place. It has as much worth as a scientific document as Aesop’s fables.