The state of Louisiana has passed an unfortunate law that allows teachers to toss in any ol’ garbage into their science curricula. For most teachers, this will make no difference at all in their classrooms; this is a law that specifically caters to irresponsible instructors who want to smuggle in questionable content. All you have to know to see that this is a bad bill is to look at the backers: conservative groups that want to see more religion in the schools, old-school fundamentalist creationists, and the Discovery Institute.
« Sæglópur
Louisiana does a wicked thing
« Sæglópur
Bring back phlogiston!
So what happens if a science teacher tells the precious moppets about the Hopi creation myth (hint — we crawled out of a hole in the ground (sipapu)) or Norse, or . . . .
Can we import biology Hopis to teach the controversy in their churches?
Crap. That should have been: “Can we import some Hopis to teach the controversy in their churches?”
Lousiana’s education system is so bad that they have to pass a law specifically saying science classes should foster critical thinking?
What an odd little bill this is.
Maybe we should introduce alchemy back as well. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Why would people want to further destroy science education? Is it because they are sick and tired of the advanced science and technology we have now? Maybe they want to put an end to all the madness that is modern science.
Yeah, what’s the deal with all this “science” being taught in science class! Do they want religion removed from their churches too?
So…is this better or worse than state mandates to “teach the controversy”? There will inevitably be some so-called biology teachers who will structure the entire course around ID…but then there may be some who pull in extra resources from outside the curriculum to provide students with ID-debunking ammunition and strong evidence for evolution. That is, until the parents in their districts get them fired.
I’ve had this argument with xtians about religion in schools. They’re OK with it as long as it’s their insane myths that are being taught. When I suggest, for instance, that a teacher might teach creationism from an islamic perspective, then they get all bent out of shape and start prattling about how “this is a xtian nation…”
Hypocrites. It never ends does it?
Instead of demanding the immediate firing of idiot teachers, the bible thumping politicians of Louisiana pass a law to let creationist teachers lie to their students. Of course bad teachers are probably already teaching magical creation, and nobody complains because that’s what the Louisiana hicks want.
Of course, the fact that they label their own content “questionable” does quite say something.
You know, every time it’s cold out and I start to wonder why I live in Minnesota, I go through a mental lists of the other states and end up with “Oh yeah, that’s why…”
Noone learns anything in LA public schools anyway. So it wont make any difference. You can ‘get by’ with LA schooling when you work at McDonalds.
The topics singled out for this special treatment are:
evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
I can understand people can facetiously want “critical thinking” on evolution, but human cloning? What is the scientific controversy there? Are medical ethics generally covered in middle school science?
this is a law that specifically caters to irresponsible instructors who want to smuggle in questionable content.
Awesome! Defending the rights of students to read webcomics in science class!
Why include global warming as well? I see the cultural clash with evolution and human cloning. How is global warming affecting anyone’s view of the universe? It might kill us all but basically it’s only a measurement.
Questionable Content? I have been forgetting to read it for about a fortnight (their RSS didn’t work when I tried it). They absolutely should teach that comic in school.
Thanks for the reminder
Firstly, the bill (SB 733 by Sen. Ben Nevers, YEC), was passed 92-3 in the House and unanimously in the senate.
Secondly. Several professors and many grad students at LSU wrote a letter against the bill and some professors went to the public hearing and argued against it but were completely ignored.
On wednesday of this past week rules were proposed with specific language prohibiting the teaching of creationism or ID but Ben Nevers (Sen. YEC) removed the language. Read about it here: http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/37554394.html
“The section removed said: “Materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science classes.” …
“But state Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa and sponsor of the bill, said the wording should come out.
Nevers noted the law did not single out creationism or intelligent design and that state regulations should not either.”
The original bill *did* single out evolution however, as a controversial subject. Therefore the idea of “singling out” subjects works only when it benefits the creationists.
Barbara Forrest of Dover fame and the local chapter of AU have been fighting against these bills and rules but we cannot get any traction. The Louisiana Family Forum has incredible contacts in the legislature and has been able to push this through without any legislative opposition. They are your standard ultra-right conservative YEC group, http://www.lafamilyforum.org. Their director of YEC propaganda is a retired judge.
Here is a comprehensive overview of the entire history and passage of this bill compiled by Barbara Forrest:
http://www.lasciencecoalition.org/docs/Forrest_UpdatedAnalysis_SB_733_6.5.08.pdf
It makes for fascinating and depressing reading. We are not all rubes down here, so be careful not to paint us with a broad brush. LSU has an excellent biology department, yet no one will listen to the faculty of the flagship institution of higher education in this state.
faust,
Evolutionary Biology PhD candidate
LSU
The Advocate, our local major newspaper has a scathing criticism of board of secondary education’s recent ruling and the influence of our creationist governor Bobby Jindal (look for this name in the national news soon.)
Read it!
http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/37752504.html
“But with a certitude born of zealotry, the creationists wanted that sentence out of the rules, and BESE agreed.
The creationists don’t want to be reminded of the law they don’t like. They really don’t want teachers to comply with the law, for that defeats the purpose of sneaking religious tracts into public school classrooms.
The list of the weak-kneed on this issue gets longer and longer every time it is discussed. Not only the BESE members but state Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek acquiesced in the lobbying from creationism backers such as the Louisiana Family Forum. The latter is a particularly influential backer of Jindal. Three members of the 11-member BESE are Jindal appointees.”
(TypeKey test.)
What’s really depressing is that the state board of ed. approved the policy unanimously. That’s just sad.
From the article: “The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, …” (emphasis mine)
Um, I’m thinking that tank is a little low.
why do we actually bother to vote these people in power?
after we’ve conquered this religion issue i think the next witch hunt should be aimed at politicians.
I want to teach high school science in one of the wonky states just so I can teach everything BUT christian creation, that oughta put their panties in a bunch.
Unfortunately, I’d have to let the kids in on the joke, and they might tell.
Yet another reason I home school. I know exactly what my child is being taught and it isn’t junk.
The obvious solution, colleges will not accept students graduated from states that pass such legislation and from these High Schools of lower learning. At the very least, incoming freshmen from such states and schools will begin their college career on manditory automatic academic probation and be required to take remedial classes in biology and earth sciences and, no scholarship dollars (grants or tuition waivers) will apply to these classes.
oops= ‘mandatory’
Discovery Institute= think tank= loony bin.
@ 18
An annex branch for the Deranged Institute on the bayou, right in there with the muck and mire of swamp religion.
If they’re a think tank, what’s needed is an intellectual Javelin missile…
I agree with the above comments that we might as well just bring back alchemy & phlogiston, along with leeching/bloodletting, aether and the flat and expanding earth theories.
(@Matt Heath – I noticed QC’s RSS isn’t working too; my fix is to follow Jeph Jacques on Twitter)
This is a Scientific Nation.
@ 18,
We see the same problems in the middle of the state. My peers over in biology struggle with students that do not know the very basics of biology. Here in the central portion of Louisiana, schools place coaches in the open science positions. This is not a knock against coaches in general, but the majority of them here do not have the background in biology that is required to effectively teach the subject matter. I can think of only one teacher in the whole parish who actually covers evolution beyond mentioning it once or twice.
It sounds like a law which actually considers teachers to be professionals that don’t need to be in a centrally controlled straitjacket. Presumably the teachers unions lobbied for this.
a Seattle-based doublethink tank
Boy, now I’m glad I live in Texas and not Louisiana!
@35: I can’t help wondering why the Discovery Institute picked Seattle, because most of the folks here I’ve met seem remarkably rational. (On the other hand, we also have the icky Mars Hill church too. Blech.)
RE: Louisiana – More unfortunate news I can’t imagine. I wonder if it would be possible to sneak in a bunch of teachers who actually believe in science standards. (And while we’re at it, educators who aren’t afraid of comprehensive sex ed.) After all, the Louisianans can’t fire them for the content of their curricula now. Still, it would be best to start with decent standards instead of a chaotic mess.
I’m a Brit, but …
Isn’t this sort of thing against the US constitution?
G. Tingey, while there are others who can provide you with a more comprehensive answer, here is a quick one. Creationist have been working with a wedge idea, teach the controversy. The idea that there are “strengths and weaknesses” inherent to the theory of evolution. Intelligent design “provides” the answers for evolution with “Goddidit”. Just do not mention christianity and all is good..
That’s something the courts will have to decide.
I’m going to assume you’re arguing this point in good faith. The key words you’re using are ‘sounds like’. It sounds like a good idea, like ‘academic freedom’ sounds like a good idea. But the practice is to provide cover for high school science teachers who wish to teach discredited lies to teenagers who don’t have the grounding in science to distinguish between the lies and the facts.
That’s the whole point: Scientists aren’t fooled by ID. Grad students in science aren’t fooled by ID. College freshmen taking BIO 101 (by and large) aren’t fooled by ID. So ID proponents are aiming at the oldest group of students that they can still fool – high schoolers. It is pernicious, and they KNOW that they are lying. (Look at the Dover school board or the Freshwater case in Ohio.)
The most vicious irony is that they ought to be teaching how to distinguish between unsupported ideas like ID and well-supported theories like evolution.
a Seattle-based
think tankdoublethink tankfish tankclown car.Louisiana is one of the deep south states that is already the toilet of the US and this kind of nonsense just insures that it will continue.
Their education is at the bottom of the list. The residents have the lowest IQ and are the most obese of the US states.
Ignorance and hate flourish in those environments. Critical thinking and logic and rational discourse are hard to find there.
NEBob, those are all reasons why laws like this must be opposed, to give a new generation a chance to get beyond that.
Dear Louisiana,
You.
Fucking.
Twits.
Sincerely,
The Rational Minority
NewEnglandBob,
I was born, raised, and educated here in Louisiana. My ancestors have been here for generations. My BMI is 22 (exact middle of normal range). I am a member of Mensa, an atheist, and a graduate student in molecular and evolutionary biology.
I am neither uneducated, nor stupid, nor obese.
Soooo.. Fuck you.
An apology would be appropriate for slamming everyone in this state just because we’re not as enlightened as a whole as some other parts of the country. Your comment implies that Louisiana should be written off, don’t bother giving us any help. Ridicule and demean everyone here equally as fat ignorant xian morons.
As Janine said, give us a chance to move beyond the current problems and improve our lot. Insulting all of us is *not* appreciated and just proves to the idiots from here that their xenophobia is warranted.
PZ, I really think it’s time for natural science professors at universities to get together and agree not to accept freshmen from states that lack decent science education standards. At least force them to show evidence of taking some remedial critical thinking course outside of the state system.
It may not be fair to some individuals, but it will wake up parents when their precious kids get turned away from good programs, or are forced to take additional courses, because of their ignorant state legislators.
@34:
Nope: “Officials of the Louisiana Association of Educators and the Louisiana Science Teachers Association opposed the bill.”
This tactic is quite common in areas that are homogeneous, namely more rural areas with smaller, generally religious populations. The DI and supporters of legislation like this push this for two reasons:
First, it gives small school districts, you know, the people in Palin’s “real America” the chance to force their religious ideas down the throats of all of the kids in the public schools. For those who are actually aware of their surroundings and/or have a good legal counsel, the Dover decision scared them off. Laws like this give them legal loopholes that give them the “courage” to teach ID, etc., while at the same time the argument that the state told them they could so they shouldn’t be responsible for any financial expenses.
Second, the legal issue is of equal importance. By doing this ID supporters create a dozen or more legal battlefields across the country. In each of these the parents have to first, find out, then, file suit, then survive the public assault on their families. From there they have to actually go to court, and finally win. All it takes is for one federal judge with more “faith” than scruples and you have a number of rulings all over the nation. Once you have that, the Supreme Court will get involved. We already have a couple of justices on the court who show at least tacit support for the “Christian nation” myth. Think about it this way:
1) Teacher includes religious babble in science class
a) Student doesn’t know any better and accepts it
b) Student,terrified of what peers will do/say, doesn’t object
c) Student agrees with what teacher says and celebrates
d) Student objects and goes to parents
2) If D, then:
a) Parents don’t realize they have legal rights/do nothing
b) Parents can’t find anyone to help them ($$$$)
c) Parents are convinced by school that it’s legal
d) Parents actually manage to take case to next level
These same points lead to further and further series of questions where there are far more anti-science (and unconstitutional) outcomes than there are pro-science outcomes.
I think the DI and the other supporters are banking on the idea that ninety-nine kids out of one hundred wont say anything. That nine out of ten of the parents of the remaining kid will be just as silent. That nine out of ten of the remaining parents will be discouraged or browbeat into dropping the matter before it goes to far. And finally, that one, just one, of the judges in those rare cases that actually get to court, rules in their favor and muddies the water.
G. Tingey: I’m a Brit, but … Isn’t this sort of thing against the US constitution?
Yes. Google “dover trial”. I hope there will be another trial in Louisiana, but that depends on complaints from parents. With all due respect to Louisiana citizens like faust, I think vast majority of Louisiana’s population would be glad to throw out our Establishment Clause to protect their childish belief in supernatural magic. It’s not just Louisiana that has this problem. This country is called Idiot America for a good reason.
In each of these the parents have to first, find out, then, file suit, then survive the public assault on their families.
Then of course there’s the death threats. Some Christian thugs will threaten murder to protect their magical creation belief. Just ask the judge in Dover Pennsylvania.
BobC:
No, although Louisiana and Arkansas seem to represent the anti-science side in court cases somewhat out of proportion to their population.
Then of course there’s the death threats. Some Christian thugs will threaten murder to protect their magical creation belief. Just ask the judge in Dover Pennsylvania.
Unfortunately, that’s what I meant by “public assault.”
Also, the Dover trial only has jurisdiction over that Federal District.
Their beef is probably specifically with [i]anthropogenic[/i] global warming. Now while the chief reason to opposition to the notion of same among the sorts that promote ID may be simple wishful thinking, I’ve heard a “theological” argument against it; it suggests that mankind’s fate is in the hand of man, not of God, which is obviously heretical.
This is good news! I feel glad that my kids will no longer have to compete against their peers from Louisiana.
Oklahoma, Mississippi, and now Louisiana. With such IDiots in the government and in school boards vehemently filling every cubic inch of scientific space with their noxious farts, it is a wonder that the US has progressed to be the world’s leading economy. Fortunately for the US, it is just evolution and global warming that is ‘anti-Biblical’. Imagine, for instance, if the Bible were to say that god sticks us to the world with the means of some divine glue, gravitation would automatically become a controversial, unproven theory, the concept of forces would be a myth, engineering would be the work of Satan and would be banned, a la stem cell research currently. Imagine, imagine…
This is really depressing. Ok, so if I don’t get into a Ph.D. program this year, I’m gonna head down to Louisiana and teach high school biology. I’ll show them some real critical thinking (and probably get fired within a year). But if I can open some kids’ minds before I get the boot, it’ll be time and effort well spent.
I am somehow reminded of the old SNL sketch where the bookstore employees are in a bunker, being fired upon be what I assumed to be the forces of ignorance.
Liberal Atheist @6: Yes, that is exactly what they want.
They want science to be only what the priesthood says, and only controlled by the priesthood.
See Robert Heinlein’s short story If this goes on for an interesting treatment of this topic.
Actually, PZ, the law does not make it legal to introduce creationism into public schools.
That’s because of various court cases that have found such teaching violates the 1st Amendment. No state law can circumvent that.
No, the purpose of this law is something more underhanded- to make teachers who are so inclined believe that pushing their religious beliefs about human origins is now perfectly acceptable under the law. It’s a Dover trap. The Discovery Institute gets to poison a few more minds, while pushing the cost of lawsuits down to individual school boards. This way they also use up the resources of pro-science organizations without lifting a finger.
In short, exactly the sort of honesty you’d expect from creationists.
About two hours ago a creationist wrote this on a news website:
“Evolution is a theory, and only a theory. It has yet to be proven as fact.”
Other creationists have said the same thing thousands of times. They think a theory is a wild guess instead of the highest level of understanding in science. Thousands of times they have been corrected but they can’t understand what they don’t want to understand. Creationism is almost always an incurable disease.
Then we will just have to explain it to them 1,000,000 more times. We will explain, again, that facts and theories are different things and that they have different jobs in science. And then we’ll explain, again, that theories do not ever get promoted to laws (despite what fucking Wikipedia blathers) and that laws do not represent better explanations of phenomena than theories (because laws do not represent explanations at all). The xians will keep lying to our students and we’ll keep calling them on it. Sooner or later it will start sinking in to those students who, despite the system, can actually think for themselves. And I for one will continue to tell those, who are nominally on our side but who don’t feel that the differences between these various words aren’t important to the larger problem, to shove it.
@18
You gotta feel for the people of LA who know the difference between science and mythology. Apparently, only 3 of them are in the state legislature, though. I support the friends of science in the great state of Louisiana.
Somite @ # 16: Why include global warming as well?
Louisiana politicians, like Republicans & their fellow-travelers in that other party, are even more beholden to oil corporations than they are to bible-bangers. Their constituents, victims of Fox & Foxoid media, are probably mostly wondering not why GW is addressed in this bill but why other liberal lies were left out.
dogmeatlib @ # 49: … nine out of ten of the parents of the remaining kid will be just as silent. Southern family life is a lot more complicated than that, though the better-known pattern is that of having too few ancestors.
Aside from wearing us down and trying to circumvent or change the law, they’re keeping the issue in the public eye.
It’s time I wrote another open letter to a state governor, thanking him that the children in his state won’t be competing with ME for any knowledge worker jobs.
I may be in N’awlins in April – do you have any recommendations for science sites to visit?
Creationists say
And I reply
What this law does is to make it legal for many teachers to do what they have been doing already, teach creationism and ID in science classes. At least, that’s the way it works here in the Sunshine State. This stuff has been going on for years. Not only have my own children gone through the public school system here, but I now teach high school science in a public school. If you want to upgrade science education in the South, then you need to: (1) develop sexy, free educational materials (posters, lesson plans, etc.) that address these topics; (2) put money into professional opportunities, such as workshops and research experience, that will give teachers the knowledge and skills to teach evolution correctly; and (3) put money into upgrading the resources available to the already poorly funded science education in these states. No one can teach the basics of science without access to minimal laboratory facilities, equipment, supplies, specimens, etc. How can one teach kids about the importance of fossils in evolution, when the kids have neither seen nor held a fossil? How can one teach about the importance of molecular biology in evolution, if one has never done PCR or run a gel?
Haumea@66,
You seem to be implying that providing these teaching professionals the freedom to deviate from the centrally planned curriculum will only result in negatives. Do you really think the prescribed curriculum is so good, that individual teachers won’t find ways to improve upon it? Are there really no textbooks out there that better suit your teaching philosophy than the ones your state settled upon?
africangenesis #67:
And you seem to be implying that this is something other than a cover for ID/creationism. Evidence, bitte.
The problem with the “academic freedom” is not whether the curriculum is good or bad, whether teachers can improve or not, it’s that it allows non-science into the science classroom. It’s irrelevant to think that it will improve some aspects, it’s that a bill like this will degrade the teaching of science for many students.
Chancelikely,
A plain reading of the bill is the evidence. The questioning of the motives of the legislators are suppositions and inferences. The bill passed without any opposition in the Senate in a democratic and Catholic state, neither is traditionally associated with fundamentalism.
“Democratic and Catholic state”?
Louisiana has more Protestants than Catholics, and McCain carried the state by twenty points in what can charitably be described as an off-year for Republicans.
That still doesn’t explain why the parishes around New Orleans couldn’t produce a single Senate vote.
What’s your point? The motives of the legislators was extremely obvious. Did you notice the Christian creationist organization called the Discovery Institute supported this bill? It was obviously passed to make legal what creationist biology teachers were already doing, lying to their students.
Yeah,okay, have you actually MET any of these ‘Catholics’ in rural Louisiana?
If you get a bad case of the vapors, or some spells, they take you to a ‘healer’ who has a rosary in one hand, and is swinging a decapitated chicken over the head with the other, while dancing around a fire to French Accordian Music.
I am not making this shit up.
africagenesis @34
“It sounds like a law which actually considers teachers to be professionals that don’t need to be in a centrally controlled straitjacket.”
But a centralised, standard curriculum across the USA (not just stateside) means all pupils should get approximately the same education. This ensures that should a family move, the pupils will be able to continue with there education in a new school with little disruption.
For example, when I was 14, I was in one of the top classes in my school. But when we moved, my math skills were so out of kilt with the equivalent new class, and I had no French language skills at all. Because of this, I was put in a lower class and had to work hard to catch up. I had to do another 2 years at night school to get a good English and Mathematics qualification.
It also ensures a standard level of education for those wishing to go to university. Being top of a numpty school (or class) is no good if your education is insufficient for you to succeed at a university.
“You seem to be implying that providing these teaching professionals the freedom to deviate from the centrally planned curriculum will only result in negatives.”
If it provides any negatives, it is bad.
Africang…
A plain reading of the bill does provide evidence. Evidence that there are specific targeted topics. O note that other issues in science were not mention specifically. Sounds like a targeted measure to me.
BTW I have no info from the NEA, but the NABT was opposed to this legislation.
Living in Gettysburg, I often find myself wishing the South had won the war and seceded. They’d be in the same straits as Pakistan now and the Yanks would be doing fine. All our nutjobs might emigrate too, which would be a plus.
@africangenesis
No suppositions or inferences are necessary, their motives are part of the public record.
Somite @ #16:
The real target here is evolution (in the broad creationist sense where “evolution” is shorthand for anything that contradicts their origins myth.) Since singling out evolution for criticism has a well-established track record of failure in the courts, they’re hoping to muddy the waters a bit by tossing in some other things that they object to anyway. It’s a variation of the “how many reindeer does it take to make a creche secular?” ploy.
Regarding post #36 by bigjohn756:
Boy, now I’m glad I live in Texas and not Louisiana!
__________
WAKE-UP Message for bigjohn756 Texas –
The Texas Board of Education is dominated by members with the SAME kinds of science revisionist ISSUES & GOALS. Raise your voice in TX, too!!
Some TX information:
1) http://www.tfn.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5651
2) http://www.tfn.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5455
I have a link ( http://tinyurl.com/7xr9fe ) to an America’s United posting about the LA debacle. I got a comment from a blogger calling himself History Matters with a site of churchvstate.blogspot.com
>>
Hmm. Is this the same Louisiana whose Constitution says, “We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy . . .”
(From churchvstate.blogspot.com/2009/01/louisiana-constitution-grateful-to.html)
If they are constitutionally grateful to Almightly God, could it be unconstitutional to teach concepts that come from the Bible, especially if they are offered along with the current scientific theory of the day?
<< my response was probably weak but am new at rebuffing idiots... Two wrongs do not make a right! Just because they choose, in 1921 preamble quote from your own blog, to be grateful to a mystical being in the sky does not mean that teaching concepts from single unverified source should be allowed. Belief can be defined as an opinion or conviction. Faith can be defined as belief that is not based on proof. Therefore faith in god can be defined as an opinion or conviction that is not based on proof. hardly a concept for a science class as you well know. The religious right has long been defined in hypocrisy; right to life except for those they don’t like, constitutional rights but only those you approve of. Where was this almighty god when 9/11 happened? how about the christmas tsunami? holocaust? crusades, there you go, god at his best there! any feedback on my response would be appreciated, don't spare the whip!
@ # 64:
The Audubon Zoo and Aquarium of the Americas are excellent places to visit. There’s also a D-day museum that isn’t really science, but still educational.
This is embarrassing, and as someone from LA, I’m aware there are many fundies here, although I’m shocked they got something like this through the legislature. I have not, however, in my life seen anyone dance around with a decapitated chicken to heal anyone else. We have a pretty big charity hospital system in the state, and I think most gunshot wounds go there before any chickens are involved. I also have lots of Catholic friends, and friends who live in the sticks. I’m pretty sure they ate chickens instead of using them in healing rituals.
Martian@79,
Well hopefully they will be serious about global warming as well, since there is legitimate scientific controversy there.
Hey PZ, the blogger i talk about in #81 is from Minn! friend? :)
New comment on your post #220 “Louisiana Showdown: State School Board Addresses Rules About Teaching Evolution | The Wall of Separation”
Author : History Matters (IP: 75.72.78.2 , c-75-72-78-2.hsd1.mn.comcast.net)
E-mail : lbeiderbecke@yahoo.com
URL : http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=75.72.78.2
Comment:
Hmm. Is this the same Louisiana whose Constitution says, “We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy . . .”
(From churchvstate.blogspot.com/2009/01/louisiana-constitution-grateful-to.html)
If they are constitutionally grateful to Almightly God, could it be unconstitutional to teach concepts that come from the Bible, especially if they are offered along with the current scientific theory of the day?
You can see all comments on this post here:
http://bigmikeh1965.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/louisiana-showdown-state-school-board-addresses-rules-about-teaching-evolution-the-wall-of-separation/#comments
CosmicTeapot@75,
There is still a lot of university admission in the US that only requires aptitude and not achievement. SAT scores and such. It probably shouldn’t require even that. Someone putting up their money probably wants to learn and should be allowed to. Hopefully you were interested in French and math and didn’t have to take it merely when it was convenient for the schools, regardless of your interests. I moved around continually as an army brat, and the main problem was not the stardardization of the curriculum, but the intransiegent beaurocracy that had “rules” about which order things had to be done in and what was prequesite for what. I had biology in the 9th grade as an honors basis, but some clerk insisted that geometry was a prerequisite to chemistry, so I had a year without science. I really learned more in the glorious summers, than when institutionalized.
@ #64: the new Insectarium is supposed to be nice as well but I haven’t made the six block walk to go see it yet. Everyone I know who has been there enjoyed it though. If you like eating bugs then I hear it’s a definite don’t miss.
(#82 wisely recommends the aquarium and the zoo. They are both great.)
It really is time that the biologists stood up and asked what the creators of this mean by controversial. Preferably in a deeply sarcastic way.
This teach the controversy nonsense has gone on long enough.
@Richard Eis:
Do you seriously not comprehend that teaching evolution is controversial in a Nation that believes SELF-EVIDENTLY that “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights?” Has the debate escaped you? Are you unaware of the disagreement? Is it entirely possible that you have failed to get wind of the heated argument which has existed over evolution pretty much since Origins was published 150 years ago?
Was that deeply sarcastic enough?
–Sirius Knott
Not in the scientific community. You know, the place where people who are actually the best educated and experienced in the fields involved work. A place where the past 150 years has continued to support the premise and expand upon it.
It’s only a controversy by those who deal in argumentum ad consequentiam.
@the appropriately named Rev. BigDumbChimp,
Perhaps your brain did not evolve properly, but since the very beginning, EVEN [perhaps especially] WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, there has been debate over whether evolution qulifies as a theory or a tautology and whether anyone could ever empirically test the general claim of molecules-to-man evolution.
I realize that you’re just bleating the propaganda they’ve vomited in your direction. I’m not gonna hold your unthinking, dare I say worshipful ahderence to evo dogma against you, though I do wish you guys would show just the hint of an independent thought, whether from a poorly evolved brain or no.
Contrary to your claim, science has not continued to support the premise of evolution. The premise of evolution has been taken by faith and applied to any and everything the faithful could get their hands on. It is used to explain everything. Which is the entire problem. An aspect of the general theory might be falsified, but evolutionism is so plastic that it can then be adapted [imagineered!] to fit the newest evidence. Which is to say, for all practical purposes, it can never be falsified.
For example, Darwin’s orginal theory has pretty much been falsified, which required the Modern Synthesis [MS] or Neo-Darwinism to take into account the new evidences which had falsified the original concept. Neo-Darwinism was still based on gradulism. Along come punk eek and hopeful monsters to explain the scarcity of transitional forms. The general theory of evolution [both in original form and MS] expected a buttload of transitional forms to be found – eventually. But the glaring inconsistency in the gradualism-based evolutionary theory became more pronounced over time, so the saltation-based evo theories became necessary to explain away the lack of evidence. This year, Massimo Pigliucci is expected to unveil Post-Darwinism [Extended Evolutionary Synthesis or EES] which will include phenotypic plasticity which we will be assured is not Lamarckism even though the definitions of both are well nigh identical. Why the newest revision? To avoid falsification, because genetic processes are not sufficient for evo to work, because science once again fails to support evo’s claims.
But there’s no controversy. Pay no attention to that Man Behind the Curtain. Nothing is wrong.
–Sirius Knott
Serious? NOT! We get it. At least you let us know you’re a Poe upfront.
Sirius Knott,
Genes and control of gene expression, specified by other parts of the genetic code and through epigenetics are genetic processes. Some environmentally influence epigentic “inheritance” does look a little like lamarckism, but if epigenetic change susceptibility significantly reduced fitness it could still be selected against, or the genes that made that environment more likely would be selected against. This may strike us as a rather inelegantly complex “design”, but that in itself is weighs in evolution’s rather than “intelligent” design’s favor. Not everything that can happen, even within the nucleus of the cell is completely under the control of genes. Naturalistic nuances such as this are unlikely to be able to falsify evolution, since the theory is at a more general level than these specifics.