Creationist Bill Signed by Jindal

LGF ^ | June 27, 2008

[EveningStar]

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has signed a stealth creationist bill into law, and American educational standards take a huge step backward: Science law could set tone for Jindal.

The creationist front group called the Discovery Institute is quietly crowing, and maintaining the fiction that the bill is not religiously-based.

[El Cid]

...To bill is designed 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." ...

Geeze ... what an awful Bill - can't have people asking questions...

It passed 94 to 3 in the Louisiana House, and 36-0 in the State Senate ...
How terrible that Mr. Jindal didn't call out the State Troopers to squish this Bill, since its obviously against the best interest of the people...

Kudos to the state of Louisiana (we'll never see a bill like this in California)...

[firebrand]

Bye bye, Bobby. You weren’t really in the running for VP anyway, but now thank God you’re gone.

[KantianBurke]

Oh well in that case I’ll just go and assume that the T Rex died out right around the time of the founding of Athens. BTW, how old is the moon?

[GourmetDan]

"It shouldn't because science doesn't deal with "truth." It should be taught as the current state of scientific knowledge on the subject, as all science should be. One day maybe another scientific theory will come along and supplant evolution, but until then evolution is what should be taught in science courses."

Uh, sorry. In order for a theory to be 'scientific' it must be completely naturalistic because science is based on the philosophy of naturalism.

The only thing that could supplant evolution is panspermia directed by intelligent aliens that somehow 'evolved' elsewhere unobserved. This only begs the question further than science does now.

Instead of calling them 'science' classes, they should be called 'philosophical naturalism' classes. At least that would be accurate.

[antiRepublicrat]

Bring on the nationally televised debate between the evo’s and intelligent designer’s and let’s see who can support their case.

The creationists usually win in the audience's opinion because while the "evo" is trying to talk science the creationist is running circles around him with crowd-pleasing rhetoric and off-topic logical fallacies. This is why Kent Hovind, while loving free-form public debates with his opponents, refuses highly structured or written debates.

[allmendream]

Maybe they can have Creationists school board members teach it in Science class like they had to in Dover. Science instructors usually prefer to teach actual Science.

[Blogger]

I love the criminal language in this tripe. A Stealth bill (not so stealth if we know about it). Front group for Creationists. Lovely. Bookem Dan-o. They actually have the audacity to believe that the evidence points in another direction!

[GourmetDan]

"Oh well in that case I’ll just go and assume that the T Rex died out right around the time of the founding of Athens."

Might as well. Any date is as good as another when you are assuming.

"BTW, how old is the moon?"

Just pick a date. Any date is as good as another when you are assuming.

Just don't pick one that is less than what the mob believes or the mob will think you are stoopid. There's safety in numbers on this one. :-)

[firebrand]

logical fallacies

You got it. Teleology in science is the ultimate logical fallacy. Very like predestination. If it happens, it was God's will. Why? Because it happened!

[GourmetDan]

"Science instructors usually prefer to teach actual Science."

You mean philosophical naturalism instructors prefer to teach philosophical naturalism?

I'm shocked!

[GourmetDan]

"The creationists usually win in the audience's opinion because while the "evo" is trying to talk science the creationist is running circles around him with crowd-pleasing rhetoric and off-topic logical fallacies. This is why Kent Hovind, while loving free-form public debates with his opponents, refuses highly structured or written debates."

Here's to hoping that the 'evos' keep telling each other that (and believing it).

[magritte]

That’s it for Jindal as VP then...next!...magritte

[EveningStar]

Places to teach creationism / ID:

Home: YES

Church: YES

Parochial schools: YES

Public schools: NO

[GourmetDan]

"Teleology in science is the ultimate logical fallacy."

There is no teleology in philosophical naturalism.

This is all random and purposeless.

[count-your-change]

That was never an assertion of the Discovery Institute and the silly charge that they are a front group for “creationists”, whoever that is, is getting old and tiresome.

[WVKayaker]

I did not say that Bishop Ussher's time line was correct. I simply stated that the date is unknown. Do you have a definite date of birth, for anything besides your family? I don't find any date stamps on the rocks here in WV.

Your absurdity is duly noted in the previous pic! Of course, you have also defined yourself to a T...

[allmendream]

CNN http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/27/president.2000/evolution.create/

Gary Bauer, head of the Family Research Council, said he does not teach his children that they are “descendant from apes.”

Evolutionists don’t say that either, of course. They say todays apes and humans have a common ancestor, a species called Australopithecus.

******************************

OMG!!!! Australopithecus is NOT and has NEVER been proposed to be an ancestor of modern apes.

[Gritty]

First chemical castration for child rapists, now academic freedom in government schools. What mischief will he think of next,... lowering taxes?

[GourmetDan]

"Places to teach creationism / ID:"

Places to teach philosophical naturalism:

Home: YES

Darwin Festival: YES

Naturalism.org: YES

Public schools: NO

[allmendream]

Yet you define Science in a previous post in this thread AS philosophical naturalism. So your contention is that you prefer the other synonym?

I have found that abandoning the empirical method that Science is based upon will lead one to ridiculous assertions about geocentricity and other such nonsense.