Posted on 07/11/2008 8:06:50 AM PDT by rhema
A bill protecting the critical analysis of evolution by Louisiana public school teachers outraged committed Darwinists last month when it cruised through both houses of the state legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support. Not a single state senator voted against the Science Education Act and just three of 97 state representatives opposed it—this despite strong public relations campaigns condemning the legislation from several high-profile organizations and individuals.
In the wake of that crushing defeat, the rhetoric of the bill's opponents morphed into threats of costly lawsuits. The Louisiana Coalition for Science called the development an "embarrassment" and warned that it would attract "unflattering national attention." Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "Louisiana taxpayers should not have their money squandered on this losing effort." Marjorie Esman, director of the local ACLU chapter, reminded supporters: "We're known for suing school boards."
What's all the fuss about? The Louisiana Science Education Act, which mirrors legislation receiving serious consideration in a handful of other states, protects the right of teachers and administrators "to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
In other words, the bill supports a more thorough examination of controversial topics, complete with scientific explanations as to why such areas of study spark controversy. Anticipating suspicions of ulterior motives, the legislation also includes a proscription against its misuse "to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
Nevertheless, a New York Times editorial labeled the bill an "assault on Darwin" and compared it to the Louisiana legislature's effort to force biblical creationism into public classrooms in the 1980s. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, called the legislation "a creationist bill written in creationist code language."
When WORLD reached Forrest by phone, she declined to comment. She stated in a press release that the bill's authors are creationists "using the same old tricks, but with new labels."
Darwinists have long sought to dismiss intelligent design (ID), an alternate theory of origins, as repackaged creationism. That strategy proved successful in a landmark court decision against a Dover, Pa., school board in 2005, when a federal judge declared ID inherently religious and its inclusion in the classroom therefore unconstitutional. But categorically dismissing critical analysis of evolution as equally unconstitutional is a far tougher sell—no doubt explaining why numerous states with critical analysis of Darwinism in their official science standards have yet to face legal challenge.
John West of the Discovery Institute, which advocates teaching the evidence for and against Darwinism, says the Louisiana Science Education Act and other similar bills stand on firmer legal ground than the unchallenged proscriptions for critical analysis in several states' science standards: "This bill does nothing to help a teacher promote religion in the classroom," he said. "Why is it unconstitutional for a teacher to point out that mutations are almost always harmful and in just a few cases neutral, which poses a huge problem if you believe all the major innovations in life were driven by a blind process of natural selection and random mutations? That answer is, it's not unconstitutional."
Some Darwinists recognize that. In a column for the American Chronicle, self-described atheist Jason Streitfeld urges support for the bill, which he says promotes "exactly what American students need: encouragement to think critically about controversial topics." Streitfeld further argues that "by reacting negatively to this bill, atheists and supporters of Darwinian evolutionary theory are proving their opponents right: they are acting like reason and the facts are not on their side."
West says the propensity of Darwinists to threaten lawsuits and scare teachers or districts out of critically analyzing evolution stems from an unwillingness to engage on scientific merits and betrays their vulnerability. The Science Education Act, which Democratic Sen. Ben Nevers originally proposed under the title Academic Freedom Act, signals teachers and districts that the state will back them should they choose to undertake a more thorough handling of controversial topics.
Opinion polls show large public majorities in many states favor teaching the evidence for and against Darwinism. Among science teachers, that support dips but remains significant enough to suggest the Louisiana Science Education Act and other bills like it will have a considerable impact on how students encounter evolution.
ACLU director Esman admits that if the law "works as it should, it shouldn't be a problem." But she worries that it may leave room "for things to get sneaked into the classroom that shouldn't be there." That suspicion is shared among many of the bill's detractors, who point out the religious motivation of such supportive groups as the Louisiana Family Forum, an evangelical organization with strong ties to Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.
But supporters counter that many of the bill's opponents maintain strong atheistic commitments, a correlation given far less publicity or credence in major media reporting. Indeed, much of the public campaigning and calls to arms against the legislation played out on evolutionary biologist and popular science author Richard Dawkins' pro-atheist website. West contends that all such religious motivations for passing new laws are irrelevant in assessing the legality and value of the policy: "Should we repeal all the civil rights laws because lots of American Christians supported them? That's a preposterous argument. The most important thing is what the law actually says."
Letter of the law: Key elements of the Louisiana Science Education Act
Requires the state board of education to support the wishes of a local school board if it requests assistance in helping teachers and administrators promote critical analysis and open scientific discussion of theories related to evolution, origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
Requires that such assistance from the state board include guidance for teachers in developing effective methods to help students analyze and critique scientific theories.
Requires that a teacher first present material in the school system's standard textbook before bringing in additional resources for further analysis and scientific critique.
Prohibits any promotion of religious doctrine or discrimination for or against religious beliefs, religion, or nonreligion.
like proper condom application on cucumbers. socialism and group think are preferable to individualism and capitalism. Religion is a crutch and your parents are stupid and not worthy of respect. Truth is relative, and morals are up to the individual. Sex has no consequences if you are "safe". All lifestyles and cultures are equally valid. Yes, I know what the left would like to assert as "what all members of society need to learn", and that you're arrogant enough to think that you have the right to decide what those things are.
Larry,
If the teachers say to the students, “We all come from God”, I would tend to agree.
On the other hand, and this is the point you are failing to acknowledge, if probability science is unable to correlate the incredible improbability of a fish that looks like the sea-weed it lives in, there is a problem.
...and I believe there is real science out there worth looking at.
If you want total bullshit, look no further than “global warming”. Science doesn’t support anything other than a natural cycle and yet the left is screaming in your face (and destroying careers) over it.
I guess you can't have any of that having people learn to think for themselves stuff going on, now can we?
Cause it's the only way to maintain the stranglehold on the education system that they can think of.
Sources? Anything at all that you can site to back up your statement?
People try, but it gets rejected by the "scientific" community off hand. Besides, theories are supposed to be disproved. Have the evos disproved creation?
This is an interesting little tidbit...
There's this curious little molecule that's rather important in the body. It's called *laminin* and has a very interesting shape....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminin
Shaped like a cross. Imagine that....
Wow, you just managed to insult every teacher in this country in one fell swoop. That's quite an assumption, BTW.
If they are not *informed scientists* then what are they doing "teaching" science in schools to begin with?
Would you rather that they just blindly recite out of the textbooks handed to them without questioning any of it because *greater minds* than theirs have said so?
Is this how you would prefer kids to be taught? Just swallow the *facts* handed to them to later regurgitate them back on a test to receive a passing grade?
And people can't figure out why the US is so far behind the rest of the world in science. It comes from stifling learning and brainwashing them instead of teaching them to think.
You're really on a roll, aren't you.
Now you've managed to insult the rest of humanity.
Outside of the law, judges are just common folk; outside of medicine, doctors are just common folk; outside of science, scientists are just common folk; outside of anyone's area of expertise, people are just common folk. Not everyone is good at everything. Everyone has areas in their lives that puts them at the common folk level.
Whoever said that schools were the sole domain of science? Or that only science can be taught in schools? What are they, science churches supported by the coerced monies of unwilling taxpayers?
If churches pulled something like that, the hue and cry would be unreal. But schools can be commandeered by those who claim to be scientists to have a monopoly on teaching their own worldview and it's supported by the atheist, evo, ACLU crowd and if anyone else objects they're just a bunch of religious zealots.
How hypocritical.
I enjoyed that.
You should head over to Charles Johnson’s site...Charles is absolutely irrational on this issue....
Well said.
You're batting 1000. Now you've managed to insult families.
Perhaps you could explain, then, the blinding success of all those homeschoolers that consistently outperform public school students in virtually every area going.
I saw the Louie Giglio series as well, good stuff.....
“If”
Pretty close to the truth. But not quite. Some people know how to make use of the expertise of specialists. Others are just threatened by it.
For example.
Two of the modern era's greatest scientists were not athiests. Newton was a Christian. Einstein - while he didn't believe there was a bearded guy sitting on a throne in the sky watching carefully to make sure men kept their peckers in their pants - was quite upset when people tried to paint him as an athiest.
They were not unusual. Many of today's scientists are religious...and that includes specialists in Evolution. Why don't believers talk to them about how to best handle the challenges to belief instead of - hopelessly and foolishly - trying to deny the value of science?
Maybe you misunderstood the point.
In no way am I saying such an event would happen.
I’m demonstrating the mindset of the atheist.
Fascinating. Thanks for the ping!
It’s fascinating how people see things how they want to. And what about the other important molecules even more crucial to life. What does that tell us? H2O looks like Mickey. Shocking...
I’m not sure that’s exactly how science works. I think it’s more that theories are tested, and they may consequently be rejected, modified, or reinforced, according to the results. And, of course, the process is not usually all so cut-and-dried as that. It is, I think, generally more incremental and prolonged before any tentative conclusions can be drawn, and there is even longer a wait for something definitive.
”Have the evos disproved creation?”
The more responsible ones will, I think, declare themselves incompetent to judge such matters (the existence of a Creator, a universe born of intelligent design, whether we humans, individually or collectively, are destined for oblivion, etc), their discipline confining them to material boundaries that limit the range of their investigation. Outside their discipline, they all have an opinion, of course, and it will often influence what they declare, depending on the audience they address at any given moment.
Compounding this situation is the fact that for religion and science alike the stakes have become enormous in terms of political power, money, and prestige.
LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.