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

WORLD ^ | July 12, 2008 | Mark Bergin

[MrB]

I’ve also heard a description that nails the mindset of the atheists really well:

If there were a huge thunderclap,
and the earth shook and rippled,
and the sky opened up and everyone looked up simultaneously
to see an enormous Michaelangelo inspired bearded figure
pointing His finger down on a specific atheist,
and a booming voice declared
“[insert name here], STOP THE NONSENSE, I _DO_ EXIST”

said atheist would attempt to explain it away as some sequence of natural events.

Such is the nature of the unwillingness to believe.

[polymuser]

But what happens when the much vaunted "critical analysis" is applied to the claims of intelligent design, creation "science" and all the rest of the disguises under which fundamentalists have tried to promote their beliefs? Teachers will be free to expose these efforts for the dishonest propaganda devices they really are, without fear of reprisals!

Hmm. Don't teachers do that now? And what's a 'fundamentalist' in your mind?

[milford421]

“This guy Jindal might have something to do with it. Louisiana appears to have turned some sort of a corner or something.”

He does and he’s taking serious flak for promoting, (gasp), the concept of introducing controversial material for serious discussion in the classroom.

[DannyTN]

No, Louisiana was always this way. They’ve been fighting the one-sided indoctrination of evolution in the classroom since day one.

[freepertoo]

Religious nonsense? Have more respect for those who believe (you just alluded that those who do are foolish...they might say the same about you in reverse). It takes MUCH more faith to believe in Darwinism than scripture and the evidences in nature. The Bible backs itself up so many times that the odds against it being false are astronomical. Darwinism cannot say the same.

*Their* view is just an attempt introduce nonsensical Darwinism into the school system.

[js1138]

The law requires that evidence must be supported by science. Since federal courts have ruled creationism and intelligent design are not science, this law only protects teachers who teach evolution as understood by mainstream science.

Unintended consequences. Teachers in rural areas who have been afraid to teach evolution now have a free hand, protected by law.

[milford421]

“They’ve been fighting the one-sided indoctrination of evolution in the classroom since day one.”

One-sided indoctrination of evolution. That sums things up nicely...we’re seeing anti-Intelligent design zealots coming out of the woodwork on this one. So much for the notion of free exchange of information and ideas....

[jwalsh07]

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."

Amen to that Brother Jason. LOL

[Jo Nuvark]

Just the facts PING!

[polymuser]

So, a teacher should say on any science subject “Be quiet and don’t question this, Kayla. We’re not informed scientists.”? Really?

[Soliton]

Intelligent Design is a deliberate fraud. It is just creationism in disguise and has been proven as such in a court of law directed by a church-going Republican judge.

here is the smoking gun that proved that the Discovery Institute is a pack of Liars For God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI

[liberallarry]

Would you support an amendment to the bill to allow the teaching atheism in the schools as an alternative to religious belief? Both, after all, can be nicely supported by evidence and reasoned argument. Why should kids be prisoners of their parents' prejudice and superstition?

[liberallarry]

Really.

If you're not an informed scientist but are teaching science your reservations and doubts do not belong in the classroom.

[sportutegrl]

Now all we need is a law saying it is okay to present scientific evidence against anthropomorphic global warming in school.

[Coyoteman]

This law was passed to promote religion, and more specifically, a narrow fundamentalist view of religion.

Thats bull. Prove it.

Two items:

--“cdesign proponentsists." The leading book promoting intelligent design, Of Pandas and People was originally a creation "science" text. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1987 which outlawed creation "science" in schools the authors of that book did a cut-and-paste job to change "creationists" and similar words to "design proponents" and similar words. But they missed one! As if this wasn't enough, due to a poor edit job in one place "creationists" became “cdesign proponentsists" --giving the whole sordid scheme away.

--Intelligent design is promoted largely by the Discovery Institute, and they are the ones who wrote the model bill that the Louisiana law was based on. They are trying to hide it, but they are promoting religion in the disguise of intelligent design. You can see this in The Evolution of the Discovery Institute's Website Rhetoric. You can also see it in their Wedge Strategy.

Here is a quotation from that document:

"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Here is one of their goals:

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

I think I have made my case. If you disagree, you have to show how that law was "designed" to promote real science.

[liberallarry]

Actually, I do have a great deal of respect for sincerely religious people, far more than I do for agressive athiests. But bullshit is bullshit.

[scottdeus12]

Any particular reason you didn’t answer my question?

[jwalsh07]

I think I have made my case.

You've made no case except the case that takes power from the people and places it in the hands of unelected old folks in black robes.

If you want to make a case then you have to quote from the Louisiana law the relevant parts that countenance an "establishment of religion" in their public schools.

Failing that you simply affirm the statement by the atheist fellow in the article.

[jwalsh07]

Would you support an amendment to the bill to allow the teaching atheism in the schools as an alternative to religious belief?

Would you be so kind as to post the relevant passages "allowing" violation of the "establishment clause'?

[dmz]

Would you support an amendment to the bill to allow the teaching atheism in the schools as an alternative to religious belief? Both, after all, can be nicely supported by evidence and reasoned argument. Why should kids be prisoners of their parents’ prejudice and superstition?
_____

I want that course taught in Sunday School. If the anti-science crowd wants religion taught in science class, I cannot be satisfied until atheism is taught in church.

Or maybe, we could just leave science for science class, and religion for church or religion class.