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.
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.
Hmm. Don't teachers do that now? And what's a 'fundamentalist' in your mind?
“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.
No, Louisiana was always this way. They’ve been fighting the one-sided indoctrination of evolution in the classroom since day one.
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.
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.
“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....
Amen to that Brother Jason. LOL
Just the facts PING!
So, a teacher should say on any science subject “Be quiet and don’t question this, Kayla. We’re not informed scientists.”? Really?
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
If you're not an informed scientist but are teaching science your reservations and doubts do not belong in the classroom.
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.I think I have made my case. If you disagree, you have to show how that law was "designed" to promote real science.--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."
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.
Any particular reason you didn’t answer my question?
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.
Would you be so kind as to post the relevant passages "allowing" violation of the "establishment clause'?
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.
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.