Posted on 07/05/2008 5:23:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
Celebrate the courage of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in the fight for freedom. He has shown tremendous courage in signing the Louisiana Science Education Bill, an important blow for academic freedom.
"Our freedom to think and consider more than one option is part of what has given America her competitive edge in the international marketplace of ideas,” said biology scientist Caroline Crocker to the Louisiana House Committee on Education. "The current denial of academic freedom rights for those who are judged politically incorrect may put this in jeopardy.”
Crocker was testifying on the bill allowing supplemental materials into Louisiana public school science classrooms about evolution, cloning, global warming and other debatable topics. The legislature went on to unanimously (35-0) pass the bill. Now it has become law because of Gov. Jindal’s courage.
One would think legislation which allows an environment that promotes “critical thinking” and “objective discussion” in the classroom would please everyone -- it did the bipartisan group of legislators in Louisiana -- but such is not the case. The New York Times felt threatened by the legislation, calling it “retrograde,” naming its editorial on the topic, “Louisiana’s Latest Assault on Darwin.” They were attempting to pressure Gov. Jindal to not sign the law, using a number of tactics including implicit ridicule, subtle belittling insults and untruths.
The law is straightforward and clearly restricts any intent to promote a religious doctrine. There is no mention of either intelligent design or creationism. Darwinism is not banned and teachers are required to teach students from standard textbooks. But the Times calls the legislation a “Trojan horse” because the state board of education must, upon request of local school districts, help foster an environment of “critical thinking” and “open discussion” on controversial scientific subjects. This allows teachers to use supplemental materials to analyze evolution and show views other than Darwin’s theory. It allows evolution to be criticized, and the law protects the rights of teachers and students to talk freely about a wide range of ideas without fear of reprisal.
The Times’ fear is that objective discussion “would have the pernicious effect of implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not.” They called any school district “foolish” if they “head down this path.”
Evolutionists use a variety of methods to silence alternate viewpoints. They say people are trying to “inject religious views into science courses.” Besides calling it a “retrograde step”, the Times used implicit ridicule of Governor Jindal, saying, “As a biology major at Brown University, Mr. Jindal must know that evolution is the unchallenged central organizing principle for modern biology.”
Many reputable scientists and scholars disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and certainly challenge it. Evolutionists say they don’t want biased religious views forced on students. Ironically, Darwin’s evolutionary theory is based is atheistic naturalism, a religious belief.
Dr. William Provine of Cornell University explained his and Darwin’s shared atheistic beliefs in this way: “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.”
Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."
Academic free speech rights for Louisiana’s public school students and teachers are now guaranteed because of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature. Trying to strike a modicum of balance to the scientific discussion in classrooms and allow students to hear more than one view, Gov. Jindal acted wisely.
Other states are considering similar legislation. Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics. This freedom will in turn strengthen our country.
Many reputable scientists and scholars disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and certainly challenge it. Evolutionists say they don’t want biased religious views forced on students. Ironically, Darwin’s evolutionary theory is based is atheistic naturalism, a religious belief.
Dr. William Provine of Cornell University explained his and Darwin’s shared atheistic beliefs in this way: “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.”
Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."
Academic free speech rights for Louisiana’s public school students and teachers are now guaranteed because of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature. Trying to strike a modicum of balance to the scientific discussion in classrooms and allow students to hear more than one view, Gov. Jindal acted wisely.
Other states are considering similar legislation. Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics. This freedom will in turn strengthen our country.
that’s supposed to read “he forgot the “sarc” on that”
Maybe they need a monkey-god idol, huh?
And one could teach thermodynamics by showing the energy transfer required for it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights was not possible in any real world.
sorry. I know it’s not fair, but miracles leave no tracks.
Neither do invisible pink unicorns
nor a lot of overthrown science
A list of “transitional forms” with apparent detailed descriptions seem to me like a way of getting around the fact that these are not really transitional forms.
I think this explains why pictures of transitional forms are not used, including in the link by Non-Sequitur, because a good common sense look at the general morphology of these animals would demonstrate the vastness of unfilled physical gaps and unanswered questions.
“Evolutionists use a variety of methods to silence alternate viewpoints. They say people are trying to “inject religious views into science courses.”’
I always wonder WHICH religion are they talking about. They never name a religion.
Many evolutionists don’t even want a HINT of God, and that is their problem.
I posted a picture of H. ergaster in post 47, upthread.
And don't worry overmuch about laymen having to apply "common sense" looks at the general morphology of these specimens.
Scientists are applying very detailed looks, as well as multivariate statistics to remove the subjectivity.
I think all your post proves is that when it comes to science and the interpretations therein, it is no use listening to creationists.
My post had lots of pictures, but, "none are so blind as they who will not see".
Xenophiles called it too!!
"Ah Soliton, you fail to see the cleverness of the creationist argument; now that a transitional form between fish and amphibians has been found, it's no longer transitional. It will be quietly removed from the the list of fossils that should exist but don't (like reptiles->birds or land mammals->whales) and they won't admit they ever challenged science to find it. From now on when they say that there is no (zero) evidence for transitional forms, they'll mean between fish and tiktaalik roseae, and between tiktaalik roseae and amphibians"
And my sarcasm is sometimes missed by posters on FR
Evolutionists are too defensive. Most if not all posts by evolutionists require some sort of character defamation against creationists—associate creationism with an emotional response, because the more rational consideration it gets, the more believable it is.
To those who haven’t made up their minds, I would say look at both sides of the argument. Read everyone from Darwin up to the contemporary biologists. And of course Gish and Behe.
I would recommend listening to Perry Marshall and what he has to say about information theory:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
That’s pretty much it. I sort Creationists with 9-11 Truthers. Really the truth is irrelevant as they’re just trying to shoot down verifiable or plausible theories of what happened in order to shoehorn implausible scenarios. Yea, we’re not sure the exact evolutionary path of man...but we’re damn sure we didn’t pop up out of thin air 6,000 years ago with everything exactly as it is today. Unless you believe in a Trickster God who decided for fun he’d give us a planet that was indistinguishable from one that was hundreds of millions of years old. But then you have to throw out anything not directly verifiable by you because you never know what he’s pulling on you.
Evolutionists get touchy and frustrated because the inherit dishonesty by Creationists. It’s like arguing with 9-11 Truthers. Shoot down one theory they move onto the next and ignore their defeats.
“Shoot down one theory they move onto the next and ignore their defeats.”
To tell you the truth, I have never seen an ID theory “shot down.”
Can you point us to a couple of examples?
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm
This is phenomenal! A true must-hear! I work in the IT field and this guy knows his stuff. (So far I'm almost half way through the first audio track.)
The other day I mentioned some similar things in a post here
I also did a little crude math and found that the chances of the first cell springing to life from non-life is statistically impossible.
Thanks!
-Jesse
“An ID theory”? Set some parameters. young Earth. shot down in a horrible defeat. Man made whole a few thousand years ago? Never stood a chance.
More evidence of the phony political liberals posing as conservatives alert.
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.