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.
When you're teaching a scientific subject it's your job to present the currently accepted theories and the evidence which supports them...and to make clear to students the nature and limitations of the scientific method.
That's hard enough.
Confusing them by claiming your religious alternatives to currently accepted theories are of equal weight should get you fired.
That's why scientismists (people who hold to scientism philosophically and ideologically), as opposed to scientists (people who practice the methodology known as "science"), don't want anyone explaining the pros and cons. That's why people like Coyoteman and Soliton are so afraid of anybody presenting evidences against evolution - even though falsifiability is ostensibly an integral part to scientific methodology.
What question? I just reread the posts. I couldn’t find it?
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
The Letter of this Law:
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 non-religion.
“If you disagree, you have to show how that law was “designed” to promote real science.”. I do disagree with you. By (your) definition, “which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations” ...this Law complies with the scrutiny of teaching an alternative hypothesis to TOE. Is it your stance that TOE should never be scrutinized? That doesn't seem “scientific” to me.....
The last paragraph of the law as stated above negates your notion that, “This law was passed to promote religion, and more specifically, a narrow fundamentalist view of religion”. It specifically states that the will be no promotion of “religious doctrine” in the classroom.
To: liberallarry
“This is just another b****t attempt to inject religious nonsense into the school system.”
Like I just asked coyoteman...prove it.
20 posted on July 11, 2008 8:29:55 AM PDT by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse
The "establishment of religion" clause? That's no problem.
Fundamentalists simply claim that intelligent design is science and not religion and as such it is allowed to be taught. Of course that's a lie, but its for a good cause and all.
Do you really expect me to believe that this law was passed to promote better teaching of science? It is there to promote challenges to the theory of evolution and nothing else.
Both sides are in error.
Science is like chess. Either you play by the rules, or you are not playing chess. Either you follow the scientific method, or you are not engaged in science.
Science has long been in error for permitting unscientific and non-reproducible theories and data, and unproven extrapolation and interpolation, and to base conclusions on these things. When a scientific experiment has been conducted by the rules, all that has been achieved is a scientific experiment. The results are not science, they just lay the groundwork for the next theory based on those results.
Otherwise, legitimate research can be done, but it is a study, not science. Social studies include history, psychology, philosophy, etc., and while each may have small elements that are scientific, such as statistics, their results remain studies, despite putting on airs of being scientific.
This is done because science has credibility, because when its experiments can be verified over and over again, trust is built that when they are performed again, the same or similar results will happen, unless new variables have been introduced.
A major component, arguable, about science, is that an experiment, any experiment, can be limited to known variables. That is, that all constants and variables of an experiment are known ahead of time, and that the scientist minimizes or ideally avoids influencing the experiment with their own prejudices and biases.
Again, a strong argument can be made that this is impossible, but practically speaking, it is reflected in reality, again because experiments are reproducible, but prejudices and biases are less so.
Which brings us to the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, and why there is no place for it there. It is not because intelligent design does not exist, but because there is no possible way to integrate it into the scientific method. It cannot be verified, it cannot be tested experimentally, it is non-reproducible, it cannot be measured, nor can it be eliminated as an experimental variable.
Thus, it is a football sitting on the chess board. It may be perfectly valid as a football, but it has no place in chess.
And this is the problem with advocating the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom. Like bad science, it wants to assume the mantle of credibility that exists for science. But like bad science, it cannot be scientific. It is not an acceptable scientific theory because it *cannot be* an acceptable scientific theory.
It is in contention not with science, as well, but with bad science. It demands equal time because it argues with unscientific extrapolations and interpretations that are being taught, but shouldn’t be, because they are not scientific either.
Finally, it should be pointed out that what is called Darwinism, is not just a single theory, but several, some of which are neutral in character and uncontested, even by advocates of Intelligent Design.
For example, almost nobody contests that dinosaur bones exist. They can and have been evaluated experimentally and tested many times. The problem is not in the static evidence that can and is tested, but the non-scientific studies based on theories surrounding the origins of such bones.
That is, studies, not science, about how the bones came to be in relation to each other and the world. But that is not, and cannot be a science, because the theory is not experimental, but circular reasoning.
This does not mean that these studies are invalid. And within the ground rules of studies, but not science, they are accurate. But classrooms should be very clear that these are studies, and not science.
So the bottom line is that both studies and Intelligent Design should be excluded from science classes. If taught, they should be taught together as studies, and left up to the students to decide.
Who are you trying to fool? Who do you think is going to believe such nonsense other than people who already have their heads in the sand and their butts exposed?
Nonsense. The many claims of creationists regarding the theory of evolution have been presented and debunked to often they have been numbered!
Check out the Index to Creationist Claims and you'll see how well the creationists' "evidences against evolution" have fared.
And thus the real agenda of the public school system is revealed.
I'll try to find the quote, but it was by a professor stating pretty much the same thing - they target the children of "fundamentalist" parents and hammer their indoctrination at them until they "come around".
OK. Present it as 'the currently accepted theory of evolution', along with the definitions of 'theory'.
BTW, IMO, Americans weren't too confused when taught from the Christian bible in our early government schools, and did quite well building the America you and I reap so many benefits from.
So they will teach intelligent design, that being the latest dodge to get around the prohibition against teaching religion in the classroom.
Face it, the whole thing is an anti-science and anti-evolution fraud designed to promote a narrow fundamentalist view of religion. Those folks who voted for the bill don't care about promoting better science education.
The proof is right there in front of you, and in numerous tracts and court cases extending back a hundred years.
But you don't want to see it...and I don't care enough to do more than I am doing now.
Look into ‘The Frankfurt School’ for a major source of all this. Consensus-building and sensitivity training are rooted there. Marxists.
Here you reveal far more than you ever intended.
I was asked by another poster to prove my assertion. Here’s the proof.
You really teach science in the public schools? Frightening.
“Face it, the whole thing is an anti-science and anti-evolution fraud designed to promote a narrow fundamentalist view of religion. Those folks who voted for the bill don’t care about promoting better science education.”.
Please. I even used the Science definition you posted your homepage...but I guess it’s only science when it’s pro-TOE or pro-darwin.
Answer - deep down inside your beady little pea-brain, you know that evolution is nonsense, and you're afraid to have the underpinning for your entire chosen philosophical system knocked out from under you like so many nine-pens.
But don't worry, C-man, we can sympathise with you. We'd hate to see you driven to drinking, too.
“The proof is right there in front of you, and in numerous tracts and court cases extending back a hundred years.”
Ah, I see...court cases. So men in Black robes know better than we, the common folk...is that it?
“But you don’t want to see it...and I don’t care enough to do more than I am doing now”
Hence your screen name. It fits perfectly Liberal Larry. LOL.
Is it a proper act of public/government employee teachers, on public land and in public buildings, to proselytize children into atheism/secularism, against the religion of their family, working directly against their 1st Amendment freedom?
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.