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.
So your objection to evolution is economic and not based on academic freedom?
Public Schools falls in that category. Churches do not.
Aren't churches financially beholden to the state because they enjoy tax-paid services and infrastructure without paying taxes?
colleges, schools too?
Nope. A church, like any incorporated entity, does not “enjoy” anything. It the people who make up the church who enjoy those benefits. Since they already pay taxes, the church is not beholden to the state.
What do the evolutionists say—to those who would like to be certain that their belief in evolution is based on firm science—about the lack of fossil evidence for transitional forms?
But churches are a corporate entity just like any corporation. It has financial assets and owns property. These assets can appreciate over time and belong to the corporate entity, not the members individually. These assets are not taxed but they receive police protection, they impact our traffic and harm our roads. Why should tax payers who are not religious have to pay the churches' share?
For the same reason those of us who homeschool, or send our kids to private school have to pay personal property taxes to support the public schools.
Is the theory of Evolution falsifiable?
If this was a refereed debate, you would have just lost by stating my position. Thank you.
Is that a correct assessment of your position?
Why should tax payers who are not religious have to pay the churches’ share?
For the same reason those of us who homeschool, or send our kids to private school have to pay personal property taxes to support the public schools.
Why should tax payers who are not religious have to pay the churches’ share?
For the same reason those of us who homeschool, or send our kids to private school have to pay personal property taxes to support the public schools.
you’re supposed to answer; he asked you twice.
“Ironically, Darwin’s evolutionary theory is based is atheistic naturalism, a religious belief.”
My impression of the evolutionist approach is that it includes a fervent desire to ignore, and if ignorance doesn’t work, to suppress and ridicule, any and all inquiry into an examination of the circumstances described by the comment quoted above.
Darwinism is a religion, but this fact cannot be adequately discussed because Darwinists know it would hurt their credibility.
LOL! Actually, he asked me twice, and posted my own answer twice.
Soliton: Getting back to the subject of this thread--You believe that churches should be required to teach what the state dictates to them. Is this correct? Yes, or no, please.
If so, then there is no value in the diversity of our educational backgrounds, is there? We're all supposed to be robots, fed information the state wants us to have. No debate allowed on subjects that the state has deemed true.
If not, then your whole argument falls down, as your original question becomes moot.
http://tinyurl.com/6f96ux
Elvis Costello-Monkey To Man YouTube
The NYTimes would have served better in times past defending the Roman Empire, the Nazi socialist, and as a corrupt mouthpiece for the former USSR. The times never did like alternative and diverse opinions.
I’m sick of these moronic discussions. People have some nerve. The argument always boils down to:
“The very people who demand undeniable proof from “evolutionists” when faced with a variety of evidence supporting the theory but do not hold themselves to the same standard. Matter of fact, they think their argument is the strongest even though there is zero science to support it.
It must be nice to engage in an argument where your opponent is the only one bound by any burden of proof.
“Academic Freedom” is nothing more that people on the losing side of a debate running to Uncle Sugar and calling foul, like good liberals.
“Academic Freedom” is nothing more that people on the losing side of a scientific debate running to Uncle Sugar and calling foul, like good liberals. Think "Global Warming". Those guys have piles more evidence to support their notion than young earth creationists.
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.