Just the facts: LA law protects teachers who bring scientific evidence against Darwinism. . .

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."

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.

Hallelujah! The dogmatists are on the run. Were you impressed by the scare tactics and loaded words used to support the idea that high school students are so dumb and pliable, they must be indoctrinated into lily-white evolutionary truths lest their pure minds get corrupted by evil religious ideas? Were you attracted by the tender vitriol of their hate speech?
This is how you make freedom look dangerous. You characterize the ones calling for freedom as evil. Those sneaky, creepy (05/22/2008), creationists are just angry they lost at Dover. So in retaliation, they look for new ways to set brush fires and wreak havoc on civilization (cf. 11/30/2005). Thus black is white and white is black. (Be sure to throw in a few big lies wherever needed, like defining ID incorrectly, mischaracterizing the Supreme Court ruling [it does not prevent teaching creation science but only laws that require teaching creation equally alongside evolution], and claiming there is no controversy among evolutionists; see 03/07/2008. Also, keep holding up the Dover decision – an ACLU-plagiarized ruling by one unelected judge in one Pennsylvania school district – as the standard of jurisprudence for the entire world.)
Evolution, of course, is so “scientific” that it is the only contender for a science class ( 06/03/2008). And of course, evolutionists have no bias or agenda (06/21/2008, 04/13/2008). Why, those evolutionists, they are so smart, and so logical (04/14/2008, 03/12/2008) they know for a fact that people have bacteria ancestors (03/20/2008, 02/22/2008). They only tell the honest truth (03/06/2008). Their math is so good they get the whole universe out of nothing (01/15/2008). Yes, we must protect students from challenges to those natural truths. Nothing supernatural about their miracles. And they just lo-o-o-o-o-ve the people of Louisiana (04/09/2008). They would never do legal maneuvering and play politics to sneak around the will of the people (02/20/2008).
The dogmatists can’t win through the democratic process and town hall or through open debate on the evidence, so they use the courtroom and special-interest PACs. To enforce their will on the people, they get unelected judges to tell us what science is, and get the ACLU and Americans United for “Separation of Church and State” (a misleading slogan, more properly United Against Academic Freedom) to slap parents, teachers and students with budget-busting lawsuits (intimidation, e.g., 01/06/2007). Who has been setting those brush fires? No wonder the people at the Louisiana hearing were wearing stickers, clapping, cheering and standing in the aisles. No longer will they have to stay after class with Ben Stein, covering the chalkboard with “I will not question Darwinism.”
Let’s keep the pressure on Barb till she emigrates to a country she would really enjoy – Cuba. There, she can stand and clap for little Elian Gonzalez – you remember the little boy denied freedom in America and captured at gunpoint and shipped to Castro’s evolutionary heaven? Now, eight years older (high school age) and sufficiently indoctrinated with the consensus view, Elian is a proud young member of the Communist Youth Brigade (see New York Times). He promised he will never let down the murderous Castro dictators. Enough to make Forrest clap, cheer and stand in the aisle! Sufficiently programmed, Gonzalez will have all the academic freedom he wants to be a good, loyal communist on an island where alternative views are systematically excluded. Maybe he can debate (with his professional academic freedom) controversial topics like whether an annual pro-communist rally should be held on Fidel’s birthday or on Raul’s. See? We’re only trying to alleviate the anxiety that is wearing Barbara Forrest down. Why not take your services to a place where they would be appreciated?
After reading the anti-ID smear piece on New Scientist, take a refreshing intellectual shower. Read John West’s piece on National Review celebrating the fact that neo-Darwinism is no longer a protected orthodoxy in Bayou country. He explains what academic freedom is really all about. If you agree, get to work against the Darwin-only-Darwin-only DODOs in your state.
Next headline on: Education • Evolution • Origin of Life • Intelligent Design • Politics and Ethics

Please understand I can see the merits of your argument but there always has been and always will be tension between the rights of the individual and the rights of his government and society.

The subject of this thread is the teaching of evolution. It's become a problem because its an area where science calls into question some basic religious dogma. You want to discard the science on the grounds that you have the right to teach your kids whatever you wish (spare me the fig leaves, obfuscation, and legal mumbo-jumbo).

Lets say I agree with that. Where does society draw the line? If I subscribe to a religion which forbids the teaching of reading, language, mathematics, English do I have the right to ask the schools not to teach them? What about laws? Do I have the right to disobey them if my religion or culture are in conflict? We've already been through that with the Mormons and polygamy. The issue was settled by force. Ditto slavery and the South.

Basically, what you're demanding is priority for your religious beliefs. That can't be allowed in a pluralistic society like ours. Evolutionary science is just like any other part of science, its our best estimate of the workings of nature. Our best, not our final word, and certainly not nature itself. It's in the best interest of your kids, our kids, all kids to understand science, the scientific methods, the latest scientific findings. You'll have to adjust your religious beliefs to that reality.

Considering that you ARE a lib, you probably believe that I should just submit my family to folks like these “greater wisdom”.

"Folks like these?" What does that mean? These folks were elected by the people according to the rules of the game. Their actions are governed by those rules as interpreted by others folks (judges) who obtained their positions in a similar way.

Do you think you have the right to disobey anytime you disagree with them? Or dislike them? I don't. We have police and armies to deal with such disobedience.

You don't find fault with the system when those in power do things your way, do you? In fact, you extol it as the best system in the world.

Disgusting.

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.