Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

"Up on the white veranda
She wears a necktie and a - Pan-a-ma-hat.
Her passport shows a face
From another time and place
She looks nothing-like-that...."

0 Replies

well Billy Bob's still got to sign the whole load of crap. Then we can go beat up Louisiana AGAIN.

0 Replies

Enjoying your supper of flies and crawlies, Renfield?

0 Replies

You don't understand art either fm.

You only think you do and you make 'em 'ave it.

0 Replies

If you want to view the actual bill, go here: http://www.legis.state.la.us/

Then scroll down to the section with drop-down menus, etc, and switch "HB" to "SB" , write in 733, and hit da button.

0 Replies

lol, aside from spendi's misguided personal attacks (at least mine are accurately childish), let's see if we can get a bearing on this bill, just for fun.

Now, it seems somewhat innocuous at first and I was going to say, "eh, who cares? So teachers can use supplemental books? Big deal!"

But it turns out I'm clearly just buying their BS. The first hint at nonsense we get is when they say this:

Da Bill wrote:

B.(1) The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators 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.[/u]

Sneaky, eh?

So the first thing we notice is that it's calling "human cloning" a scientific theory, lol. Then we notice that every one listed is a hot-button issue for idiot conservatives in the U.S., so we know what they're thinking of Wink

.

Next we can see that rather than merely being about allowing some supplemental texts, it's about removing authority from the administrative bodies which can add or remove texts from a curriculum. That's usually how these things work, because it's actually sane - if the legislature were deciding on these standards all the time, we'd have even more messed up school systems.

To put it simply, a new version of "Of Pandas and People", maybe one with more obfuscation on its origins, is likely precisely what people are thinking of. All of this reads like the new "strengths and weaknesses" strategy - it's just supplemental texts, guys! Don't you like your children getting more points of view!?

It goes on to state that these regulations do not "promote" religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. Now, the first part's easy enough - religious doctrine is easy to find. The same for the last one. But the second is the one any ID material would almost kinda get caught with, but you can see how one could easily wriggle out of that. ID is secular, guyz! We can haz representation in public schools?

Now, it's not all bad, of course, as it's also stressing that these "scientific theories" (human cloning?) must be taught. But this is Louisiana, so we'll see how well that works out Wink

.

0 Replies

Actually, now that I think about it, this bill is vague enough that it could work in either direction - what it really does is give teachers (and whoever has power over them) more authority concerning the materials taught in class. If the state board is as idiotic as that in Texas, this could be a good thing for the competent science teachers (who knows how many LA has?). Of course, the incompetent ones will still get away with the same nonsense and like I said earlier, probably be able to slip in some ID nonsense or something similar.

So I think the reality of the effects would be negative, even if this bill was intended to circumvent the LA board of education making fools out of themselves.

0 Replies

The two crucial Supreme Court decisions which threw out laws intended to prohibit or hinder the teaching of evolution were McClean versus Arkansas, 1968, when a teacher in Arkansas challenged the state law which prohibited the teaching of evolution. That decision meant that no state could prohibit the teaching of evolution, and can be seen as the origin of the attempt of creationists to attempt to tart up their gaudy old whore and parade her around as "science." In 1981, Arkansas tried again, with a law requiring "balanced treatment," which was struck down in a lower Federal court. Louisiana is, along with the other states who are attempting this, just hoping to come up with language which will slide through Federal Courts.

But what is more interesting is that in Edwars versus Aguillard, 1987, the Supremes struck down a Louisiana law which required that creationism be taught in any class which also taught evolution. The court found this to be unacceptable as being a case of religious establishment. But them boys in Louisiana are at it again.

I doubt that they'll have much success, though. Just as was the case recently in Florida, i consider this political grandstanding. Even if they do pass it, they can go back to their constituents saying: "Well, we tried, but you know how those activist judges are."

(This is not the first times, by any means, that i've commented on these two cases in this thread, and i suspect it won't be the last.)

0 Replies

Its all conjecture at this point but Ill bet that Jingo Billy signs the damn thing (assuming itmakes it through the combined houses and is a true bill). If Billy signs it then we are assured of another highly entertaining piece of courthouse drama.

I dont believe that even the present Conservative Supreme Court would be so bold as to overturn all the post 60"s affirmation of the establishment clause.

0 Replies

Thanks for the excerpt of the La bill Shira. It appears that, by trying to invoke a strict Constitutional interpretation, it may be difficult to corner the true purpose of the intended law. As you said, with some good teachers, it may actually be a boon to the advancement of the scientific method.
Im wondering what the present system does to "not promote" critical thinking ? Is teaching science in LA so bad that they dont include these goals in their present system ? (HA!)

Im sure that quality education is not suffering in Fishermans Paradise Cool

. All this legislating is merely an attempt to provide higher quality education for all the kids in the state.

0 Replies

Sorry about the serial posting (I have spendi to thank for that shortcoming)

Perhaps Jindal wont sign the bill if its presented to him. If he is, as is reportedly the case, the number one Veep prospect for Mcain, then hed have to reconsider the affect that such a signature would present to the ticket. Its been said that the GOP, in order to win , can no longer afford to discount the moderate middle of the party. The entire "sing to your base" issue that Creationism is , may be a killer to any McAin/Jindal whitehouse.

PS, in Spanish, jindals name can be slurred to make a really neat four letter word phrase.

0 Replies

So- the " moderate middle of the party" is now in command of your deepest principles is it?

That's raw, naked greed I was told and which we are assured it is impossible to underestimate.

One of its myriad facets is to gumpily double post and pass it off as my fault.

0 Replies

Quote:

Louisiana House approves creationist bill
(by Josh Rosenau, ScienceBlogs.com, June 12, 2008)

SB 733, a creationist bill in the Louisiana legislature, was approved on a lopsided vote in the Louisiana House of Representatives today. It now moves back to the Senate, where small differences between this bill and the Senate version must be reconciled before it can go to Governor Jindal. Jindal is a leading contender for John McCain's vice presidential nomination.

In response to this and other attacks on the teaching of evolution in Louisiana, the indefatigable Barbara Forrest (author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design) and other activists in the Pelican State have organized a group to advocate for accurate science education.

Here's their take on this event:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New group stands up for sound science education in Louisiana

LA Coalition for Science decries House support for SB 733, calls for Senate to reject bill

Baton Rouge, LA, June 11, 2008 - In response to numerous attacks on science education in the Bayou State, concerned parents, teachers and scientists are getting organized. The new group Louisiana Coalition for Science calls upon the Senate to oppose SB 733, a bill which will open the door to creationism in public schools.

Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science (LCFS), says, "The legislature shouldn't be allowing creationists to undermine Louisiana public schools. The House of Representatives just gave the Religious Right a green light to use other people's children for their own agenda." Forrest is the author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and has served as an expert witness on the issue of intelligent design creationism. "The Louisiana legislature tried to force creationism into public schools in 1981, and they lost in the U. S. Supreme Court. The Discovery Institute, a national creationist organization, and the Louisiana Family Forum are using the same old tricks, but with new labels. In Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District in 2005, I showed that intelligent design was cooked up as a new name for the same old creationist arguments, and the strategy behind this bill is no different. Despite their denials, even the bill's backers know that SB 733 is a creationist bill written in creationist code language." The 1987 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard overturned a Louisiana law requiring teachers to "balance" the teaching of evolution with creationism. In the Kitzmiller case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that intelligent design is a form of creationism and that teaching it is an unconstitutional entanglement of religion with the state.

Patsye Peebles, a veteran biology teacher from Baton Rouge and a founding member of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, agrees that the bill should be rejected. "I was a biology teacher for 22 years, and I never needed the legislature to tell me how to present anything. This bill doesn't solve any of the problems classroom teachers face, and it will make it harder for us to keep the focus on accurate science in science classrooms. Evolution isn't scientifically controversial, and we don't need the legislature substituting its judgment for the scientists and science teachers who actually know the subject."

SB 733 lists evolution as an issue deserving of special scrutiny. Scientificorganizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and the National Association of Biology Teachers have spoken out against this tactic of singling evolution out for criticism.

Betsy Irvine, a Presbyterian minister in Baton Rouge, explains, "Evolution is very strong science, and its place in science class should be uncontroversial. Many Christian traditions, including Catholicism, acknowledge the compatibility of evolution and Christian faith. It is shameful to see people sowing division on this subject. The spirit behind these attacks isn't just bad science, it's bad theology. This bill is an attack on the millions of faithful Christians who accept evolution. The best way both to protect the teaching of science in our public schools and to show respect for the religious freedom of all Louisiana residents is to unequivocally reject SB 733."

Forrest, who testified against the bill before the House Education Committee, calls upon the Senate to reject the bill. "Now that the House has passed the bill, the Senate has one more chance to do the right thing. The entire country is watching. They should reject this bill and let teachers do their jobs. This bill is being pushed by creationist groups and does nothing to help Louisiana, our teachers, or our children. It's heartbreaking to see so few people willing to stand up for Louisiana."

Forrest also commends the three legislators Rep. Patricia Haynes Smith, Rep. Jean-Paul Morrell, and Rep. Karen Carter Peterson who had the courage and integrity to speak out for the children of Louisiana by voting against the bill. "These three legislators put principle over politics. What a shame that 94 others could not do the same thing."

Louisiana Coalition for Science is a grassroots group working to protect the teaching of science in Louisiana.

0 Replies

I think their inclusion of "human cloning" as a scientific theory explains most of the intentions... either that or some leftie lawmakers who are actually more incompetent than creationists.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

... either that or some leftie lawmakers who are actually more incompetent than creationists.

How revealing!

How can someone that shows such bias in political matters to be taken seriously about science?

0 Replies

I think Francis means how revealing it is for an AIDser to admit that.

I have been revealing the political and economic aspects of the deep divisions on these matters ever since I came on the thread.

Entirely, as far as I remember, without any of them catching an AIDser's eye. Resort to insult and blackguarding my character was the only answer.

What I find very difficult to understand is why people will encourage a competitor state to catch up with the state the encourager lives and works in. To damage your own state's interests for no other reason than to make a big noise about reason and critical thinking seems ridiculous.

It seems to defy Mr Fields's famous injunction--"Never smarten up a chump".

These southern states already have enough advantages as it is. And people in that position might prefer to buy in their science with the attractions of those advantages as an inducement.

0 Replies

LOUISIANA UPDATE

Quote:

ACLU Wary of 'Critical Thinking' in Science Class
(Associated Press, June 12, 2008)

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana said Thursday it may file a lawsuit to make sure religion is kept out of public school classes if a bill said to promote "critical thinking" about evolution becomes law.

The bill by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, has passed the Senate and the House. It awaits a final vote in the Senate on House language changes before it goes to Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Jindal has not taken a position on the bill, but he has expressed support for teaching the "intelligent design" concept favored by many religious conservatives as an alternative to Darwinian evolution.

Heavily amended since it was first introduced, the bill now specifies that teachers in public school science classes will have to teach from state approved science textbooks. However, it also allows local teachers and school boards to introduce "supplemental materials" in science classes.

The bill specifically mentions evolution, global warming and human cloning as topics on which such materials might be introduced.

Louisiana's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education would be able to prohibit the use of such materials if they are deemed inappropriate, under an amendment added in the House.

Opponents of the bill said Thursday that, with 69 school districts in the state, it will be a tall order for BESE to keep an eye out for religious materials.

Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and a strong opponent of the bill, said she believes the bill could mean the return of "scientific creationism." A Louisiana law requiring teachers to balance evolution lessons with that religious-based view of creation was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1987.

"Any school board can permit any teacher to put any type of creationist supplement into a classroom and use it until they get caught," said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, and a strong opponent of the bill.

Marjorie Esman, executive director of the Louisiana ACLU, said the bill appears to be an attempt to introduce materials from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which challenges Darwin's theory of evolution.

The ACLU and other Discovery Institute critics say the materials are religious in nature, which the institute denies on its Web site.

The institute did not return a telephone call for comment Thursday but, in a news release, hailed passage of Nevers' measure as protection for "teachers and school districts who wish to promote critical thinking and objective discussion about evolution and other scientific topics."

Esman was asked Thursday if the ACLU might file suit against the Nevers measure once it becomes law or wait to see if religious materials are introduced into classes as a result of the law. "We're not going to say now what we may or may not do. That's a legal strategy," said Esman.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

LOUISIANA UPDATE

Quote:
ACLU Wary of 'Critical Thinking' in Science Class
(Associated Press, June 12, 2008)

Good thing they put quotes around 'Critical Thinking', otherwise it sounds stupid, since critical thinking is natural and necessary in every aspect of science.

0 Replies

Quote from Wiki-

Quote:

The Associated Press, or AP, is an American news agency. The AP is a cooperative owned by its contributing newspapers, radio and television stations in the United States, which both contribute stories to the AP and use material written by its staffers.

It has already been shown that "Media" is on the AIDser's side and that it is a potential beneficiary on a grand scale of the AIDser's position winning this argument. It is talking through its pocket.

Every item wande has quoted has pushed the same line.

One might think that AP might have managed to eliminate the repetition of the phrase " Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, and a strong opponent of the bill." A heavy metal solecism and implying little effort in order to fill up the space.

Ms Forrest serves on the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the Board of Trustees of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association (NOSHA).

Really--it's a cute way of trying to line up Philosophy with opposition to the bill.

Quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana said Thursday it may file a lawsuit to make sure religion is kept out of public school classes

Which is impossible unless every teacher in every school has been vetted and approved by recruiters of the same persuasion as Ms Forrest. Which will obviously result in "entryism" by atheists. That would require that the school boards and all the bureaucrats involved are of the same persuasion and thus American school public edication with become atheistic from top to bottom.

With only a few % of the population being atheists the recruitment catchment will be small and hardly likely to provide quality teachers in the numbers required.

I think Ms Forrest is on a self promotion binge and is flogging books which, if an interview I just read that she gave is anything to go by, are not worth reading.

And I think she is discrediting philosophy and science.

I also think that wande should consider his position. He is giving viewers of this thread the impression that a wide variety of sources are behind AIDs-ism when in actual fact all his posts are derived from partial sources of unelected people in organisations the leadership of which is in few hands and who carefully avoid anything to do with what their long term aims might be and what motives they have for pursuing them.

And the whole article, using the term loosely, is posited on a "may".

0 Replies

ros wrote, in another of his namby-pamby contributions which assumes we are all little tots-

Quote:

Good thing they put quotes around 'Critical Thinking', otherwise it sounds stupid, since critical thinking is natural and necessary in every aspect of science.

I entered these items on the thread recently-

Quote:

...the male possesses certain organs of sense or locomotion, of which the female is entirely destitute, or has them more highly developed, in order that he may readily find or reach her; or again the male has special organs of prehension for holding her securely.

And if that isn't sufficient to show that they have no clue of what they say they are also paid up to Darwin's dismissal of equality, a foundation stone of the Constitution, as an "impossible figment" much as ros's FSM is.

The first partial sentence is a direct quote from Darwin as is the phrase "impossible figment".

It is noticeable ros that you failed to apply any of this much vaunted "critical thinking" to either point.

And it does not necessarily mean that you are a critical thinker ros simply because you bang on about it.

So explain to us, pretending we are grown-ups if you really have to do, what Darwin meant by these remarks which I daresay you have never come across before under these new conditions where you have.

Thanking you in anticipation of an early reply.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know