Louisiana is saddled with this absurd “creationism law”, which states that teachers can bring creationism into the public school classroom as part of a “teach the controversy” strategy. Zack Kopplin has been fighting this stupid law, trying to get it repealed, but with no luck so far. One problem is that lawmakers have an excuse to avoid doing anything about it: they try to claim that no one is using it to teach creationism!
The Louisiana State Legislature has voted to keep this law despite repeated challenges, in part because it has a fig leaf: No one has managed to demonstrate what is going on inside Louisiana classrooms. In 2013, as I was testifying before the Louisiana Senate Education Committee in support of a bill to repeal the law, Sen. Conrad Appel, the committee chairman, asked me, “Do you have any evidence of school districts or individual schools that are physically teaching creationism?”
How odd. So they needed to pass this law permitting creationism, but now they’re all saying the law does absolutely nothing at all, and no sir, there aren’t any teachers promoting creationism in Louisiana? It always surprises me, how dishonest and devious creationists can be — any lie is permissible in the name of the Lord, I guess.
So Kopplin is chasing around the state, looking for that concrete evidence that bad ideas are being pushed in Louisiana schools. He’s succeeding.
Yet in the fall of 2013, at Negreet High School, in Sabine Parish, teacher Rita Roark insulted the religion of C.C. Lane, a Buddhist student in her sixth-grade science class. Roark told the class that evolution is a “stupid” theory that “stupid people made up because they don’t want to believe in God.” Roark’s science tests included a fill-in-the-blank question that said, “ISN’T IT AMAZING WHAT THE _____________ HAS MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” and students were expected to write in “LORD.”
Would you believe they’re still in denial?
When confronted with these episodes, Appel said he didn’t believe that they had happened because Louisiana’s creationism law allows them.
Man, that has to be the most ineffectual law on the books.
Read the rest. Kopplin is collecting all kinds of examples of religious inanity promoted in the classroom. This one is my favorite.
At the Central Community School Board meeting, Mickey Cleveland, a Ouachita Parish teacher, presented a letter to the board in support of the new policy. (Cleveland once told the Monroe News Star that, “Darwin didn’t have the microelectronic microscope. … Science is proving creation.”)
Damn. Those creationists have got their hands on the microelectronic microscope now? Oh no! I hope no one tells them about the quantum fossilometer, or we’ll be doomed!
Damn, I need to write a grant for a microelectronic microscope.
This is precisely why His Noodly Appendage created Himself, may pesto be upon Him.
If there are now microelectronic microscopes why are there still macroelectronic microscopes?
Let’s just hope they don’t get hold of the macrokinetic sphygmomanometer.
That is deviously true. They aren’t doing it because the law allows them. They have no respect for the law when it restricts their ability to indoctrinate children, and would likely still teach creationism even if a law specifically forbade it, constitution be damned.
The law does prevent anyone from taking action against these creationists, however, which is ultimately the point: the law is there to let them get away with it.
What the ever loving…?
Jafafa Hots just won.
Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened @ 4
Or the interocitor!
What if they get hold of Mjolnir? Or *gasp* Gungnir?
Wow. Over thirty exclamation marks. I hope that’s how it was actually written. Nothing is a dead giveaway to not take something seriously more than having a shit ton of exclamation marks after it.
Also, I love creationists dismissing evolution as something stupid invented so that people are justified to not believe. Projection at its finest.
See here for a letter referenced in the article: http://www.repealcreationism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Slate-Ouachita-Teachers-Letter2.pdf
They also want to be able to question global warming. And nicely put scare quotes around “theories”. Because science.
Also:
Hey, at least they aren’t saying “Evolution leads to Hitler!”. It just leads to Columbine. Progress!
A small percentage of people loudly disagreeing is apparently a controversy now. I think absolutely everything counts as a controversy now. Thanks, Louisiana.
Also: Librul media!
Also also: ” Could it be…..SATAN!?”
I’m glad I wasn’t smoking anything when I read that, because my mind would have been blown. Like the Big Bang. And then my brain would have nothing left but a smouldering pair of snake leg nubbs.
(The preceding paragraph was directed by David Lynch)
It took him 40 whole minutes to “destroy” a “scientific” “theory”, promulgated by an atheist in the name of Satan? I assume it actually only took 5 minutes, an additional 10 minutes rambling about monkeys, and the rest of the period was just tangential Bible quotes.
Is it possible that my joke was less ridiculous than the reality?
“Satan is pleased with the status quo” is so sublimely meme-worthy.
And we end with more projection. Sounds about right.
I need to write a grant for a microelectronic microscope.
It’s so small you can’t see it with the naked eye. You need a normal microscope and very very small tweezers to operate it. That’s why microbiologists are so tiny. Actually, it’s microscopes all the way down.
Physically? As opposed to…?
The law only allows them to teach, it doesn’t cause them to teach. That teacher that taught it, didn’t do it cuz the law #told her to do so#, she did it just because she wanted to, the law had nuthin to do with it. So why do you care about it? The law, itself, does nuthin!!!!!!!!!! So what’s the problem with the law? We see none.
*ahem*
or, as I am characterizing the LA legislature as sayin…
Five exclamation marks is the point when someone has fully descended into madness. Creationists, obviously, view that only as a starting point.
@Thumper, 6
Wait… so I’m no expert on creationism, but surely snake leg nubs don’t do anything to support the big bang theory?
slithey tove:
Yeah, the law causing them to teach creationism is just a theory. An unproven theory. Were you there? If laws cause teaching creationism and not evolutionism, why is there still evolutionism? Sure, you have some examples of microcreationism microeducation, but that isn’t proof of macrocreationism macroeducation. If creationism was being taught because of the law, how do you explain PYGMIES + DWARVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
Teach the controversy about teaching the controversy.
I remember Snake Leg Nubbs.
Worst breakfast cereal ever!
Oops! I forgot the extra exclamation points!
Also: I believe in microelectron microscopes, but there is no proof of macroelectron microscopes. Or microelectron macroscopes. Those are all just lies told to us by Satan, via his various agents, such as liberal commie pinko college professors and the non-Fox News news corporations.
I’m afraid of macroelectrons…
Oh! Those evilutionists never seem to get it. Microelectronic telescopes, macroelectronic telescopes, it makes no difference. They’re still telescopes!!!!!
Especially as Yahweh can see through them, no clothing is safe from his x-ray vision.
@ Athywren
It’s snake leg nubs all the way down. Or something.
I was kind of under the impression that creationism and the Big Bang theory were mutually exclusive, so how anything, let alone “snake leg nubs”, can support both of them is a bit beyond me.
BUT WHY ARE THERE STILL LIZARDS!?!?!?!!!!!!!
According to the article, the teacher wanted the blank in question to be filled with “Lord” (duh…). I wonder if any of the students filled it in with “Lady” and–if so–what the teacher’s reaction was?
What’s really needed is a Total perspective Vortex.
Hmmm… Big Bang? Is that the answer she was looking for? :-P
Also, why are fundies obsessed with all caps and exclamations?
Finally, I understand everything:
“ISN’T IT AMAZING WHAT THE __ Snake Leg Nubbs __ HAS MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I think I now officially have a Louisiana high school diploma.
Thumper #23 wrote:
They don’t just use one strategy. One of their favorite new tactics is to adopt a sort of pop postmodern position where evidence and argument are always subsumed under social constructs. Two people can look at the same thing and come to different conclusions based on their world view. Thus, evolutionists will see fossils and believe in evolution because their world view rejects the existence of God, and creationists will see fossils and dismiss evolution because their world view is firmly grounded in the Bible.
This different commitments, different conclusion stance simply recapitulates how religious faith is supposed to work. You will blindly believe the illusions of the world until and unless you give in and accept that God is the rightful authority. Those who reject God do so for emotional reasons like arrogance, shallowness, and/or a desire to do what they want without accountability. The focus is now shifted away from evidence, reason, and science and honed in like a laser on whether or not you will humble yourself and commit to God and His unfathomable love for you.
Basically, it treats the entire congruence of scientific reasoning towards the support of a theory as if it was no more complicated than a beautiful sunset or a pretty flower. The debate has been reduced to emotional response. YOU see snake leg nubs and think evolution, Big Bang, and a cosmos without a mental cause. WE see snake leg nubs and think “God did it.” Neither one of us begins by questioning evidence and following a chain of reasoning: we start with our chosen world view and follow that.
@ Sastra
It’s the old “My opinion is equal to your opinion!” bullshit in a new dress.
Time to whip out possibly my favourite quote:
Reginald Selkirk #12
I think the way you teach creationism “physically” is by literally beating your students over the head with a Bible. Also, it would not surprise me if some teacher in USAistan is doing exactly that.
Ooh! I know this one. The Big Bang ‘proves’ ex nilho creation. Snake leg nubs ‘prove’ the Adam and Eve story.
And what do dolphins with hind flippers prove in the minds of this ignorant idiots? An alternative genesis in which Adam and Eve are mermaids?
Does this law single out creationism, or does it also permit teaching Hindu, sundry Native American, Norse, and other religious myths as well? Because if the only religious mythology so favored is creationism, then the problem goes beyond just injecting religion into science class; it’s actively preferring one religion over another. If we’re going to teach the controversy, may as well teach all sides of it.
I hope the Satanists can come to the rescue.
No,no,no. Inconvenient facts are ignored entirely.
why of course it is about teaching the christian version of god creating the world. The very thought of teaching some “foreign” religion is about the same as teaching satanism directly. After all all other religions are really devil worship any way! The only reason they can even suggest teach the controversy is there is no serious proposal to teach any other religious view on creation.
uncle frogy
Does a microelectronic microscope use thermionic valves?
ISN’T IT AMAZING WHAT THE __popcorn maker___ HAS MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see no one has refuted the microbang theory yet.
anteprepro @10,
You… counted?
That’s, um, dedication.
Or something.
What a Maroon, oblivious: I needed to. If I was student, approached with a teacher presenting that question, I would count the number of exclamation marks to determine exactly how little chance there was that I would actually be receiving an education in that classroom. I tentatively use the following equation:
P= (1+x) / (((x+1)^2)-x)
Where x is the number exclamation marks and P is the probability of an actual education being received.
If x= 0, probability is 1, excluding other factors.
If x=1, probability is 2/3.
If x=2, probability is 3/7.
If x=3, probability is just over 30%.
Once x=5, it becomes roughly 20%.
At x=10, it is under 10%.
And at the dreaded x=30, probability is about 3%.
The model is flawed, in that it underestimates probability for low amounts of exclamation points, and overestimates at high amounts. But as you can see, it is a very dire situation for those poor students.
*And you thought merely counting the exclamation points was dedication. You vastly underestimate how much effort I am willing to waste.
@Athywren #20:
What have taus and muons ever done to you?
We are all naked apes, but sexual selection has provided us with long hair, and pubic hair, that are protection from the sun, and nature’s fig leaf, all std’s are the hell that sinner’s can be reincarnated into, and we can eradicate them. They live life as std’s until they can become human again, and then transhuman.
If that makes sense.
It does to me.
I like how teaching the controversy is a good thing in regards to creationism, but even mentioning homosexuality is promoting an agenda.
Sili @39
Or a positronic brain?
@#8
“Joe, I’m in one of these boxes. Find me!”
The top comment there is hilarious
Here’s more on that science teacher:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/14/buddhist-student-louisiana-settlement/6440001/
If she can be called a science teacher; I can think of a few more appropriate things to call her.
anteprepro,
The flaw in your formula is obvious. It should be:
P= (1+x) / (((x+1)!)-x)
After I had done counting the exclamation marks, I would have written “BATMAN“.
Leaving aside the religious aspect, any teacher who deliberately ridicules a sixth-grader in front of their classmates is probably in the wrong profession.
I’m just gonna run off with that based on no “hard” evidence, just impressions; to go to the most extreme: uhhhh… This law does NOT expressly say that “creationism can be taught, as the controversy surrounding evolutionism”, no no no, it is much harsher. “Science is itself a religion, so to be fair, any/all religions can be taught in ‘Science’ class”.
my my my. Jindal has always given me that impression: that he only sees science as some camoflage name for another Religion. He’ll often say “I do not believe …[some fact]…”, as if everything is just a matter of faith…
What a Maroon: Superb, works for me.
Moggie:
So fucking true. That is ridiculous, unprofessional, bullying behavior. That isn’t a teacher, that is a future Fox News pundit.
Also, the ALL CAPS EXCLAMATION MARK QUESTION reminds me of this
Marcus Ranum you villain!
This
kind of thing should come with a warning label!
@ 8
I’ve been using mine to make hot chocolate.
I thought that “snake leg nubs” might be used in mating, to account for the “big bang” connection.
Where are the pictures of the transparent fig leaves?
“ISN’T IT AMAZING WHAT THE _____________ HAS MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
This is genuinely distressing. It brings to mind a red-faced, vein-popping man screaming at your face, with flecks of spittle flying into your eyes.
I’ve seen horror movies that are less scary than this. What exactly is the point of adding dozens of unnecessary, inappropriate punctuation marks? If only Grammar Nazis were a real thing
I don’t get the teaching method here, either. It has all the subtlety and nuance of a lead anvil. And even assuming that the ostensible “fact” being tested here is that God is responsible for… this, then how on earth does this question test that knowledge in any capacity whatsoever? This has all the educational value of making students write “GOD DID IT” on the blackboard over and over.
@John Marley #33
It does? They do? X-/
I sort of get the misunderstanding and twisted logic that would lead you to believe that the Big Bang would “prove” ex nilho “creation”; but how the fuck do vestigial leg bones in some snake species “prove” the Adam and Eve myth? And even if they did “prove” that, then how the hell do they prove the Big Bang theory?
@james129 #53
QFT. It’s not education, it’s indoctrination. And that’s exactly their intention.
Thumper, I presume they
a) think snake leg nubs support the Big Bang theory (and by implication, actual science) because that and the theory of evolution are somehow one and the same (as we know, these idiots have never grasped (or choose to pretend that they do not grasp) the fact that natural selection =!= abiogenesis, let alone the origin of the universe. They like to mush it all up together and say things like there are still monkeys! Therefore no Big Bang!!!!! or something equally despair-worthy in its utter not-even-wrongness).
b) think that snake leg nubs support the bauble, because the bauble has a bit in it somewhere about a snake being cursed to go on its belly without benefit of legs.
At least, that’s what I thought they meant. But it’s such a mess that it’s anyone’s guess what they meant, assuming they even meant anything that could ever be pinned down in the first place.
@ opposeablethumbs
a) Oh yeah; I forgot about that little nugget of ignorance. When I read crazy crap like in the OP, I always try and put myself in the idiot’s shoes so I can understand what the hell they’re talking about and how they’ve managed to be so wrong, but sometimes I forget to account for something that just seems bleeding obvious to me.
b) Huh, I suppose that does make a twisted kind of sense; but even if you were operating under the “Goddidit” assumption and took evidence of snakes previously having legs as automatically being evidence that God took them away, that still doesn’t logically prove the Adam and Eve story.
From the OP:
Put “ALLAH”. See how long that lasts.
Support of religious freedom will fly out the window faster than a secretary bird going after a nice fresh bowl of Snake Leg Nubs Cereal.
If God were taking away the serpent’s legs, wouldn’t leaving nubs be half-assing the job? I mean, taking them clean off, and making it look like there had never been any legs, that would be a retcon worthy of a god.
Snake Leg Nubbs needs to become a Christian rock band before I can die happy.
Recurrent Laryngeal nerves, the coccyx, the appendix, the human retina, eyes on blind cave-dwelling animals, toenails on manatees, nipples on male mammals… He’s sloppy about a lot of stuff.
All this time i just thought Uncle Si was an aging man with some faculty issues. Now it just seems like he’s a common product of the Louisiana school system.
Repeal of the law failed
Louisiana is doing the right thing. The world needs more fruit pickers and stoop laborers.
grumpyoldfart
Fuck you.
Jal @71
Seconded.