Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Local teachers and lawmakers oppose curriculum change
(By Matthew Pleasant, HOUMA TODAY, June 14, 2008)

A bill some argue will allow educators to teach religious concepts in public classrooms has inched closer to the governor's desk and now waits for a Senate vote scheduled early next week.

Dubbed the Louisiana Science Education Act, the bill passed the House this week with overwhelming support, including that of nearly all local lawmakers.

The debate over the bill has a national reach and polarizes even those at a local level who question whether its supporters have a truly educational aim.

Sponsored by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, the bill would allow teachers to choose "supplemental materials" to help students "understand, analyze, critique and review scientific theories in an objective manner."

The act is designed to promote "critical thinking skills" at elementary, middle and high schools on topics including "evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning," according to the bill.

Paul Johnson, science-curriculum specialist for Terrebonne Parish, said the law would open science classes to opinions and ideas untested by scientific rigor.

"It's confusing to kids when you teach them a topic that has no scientific basis," he said.

A state-approved curriculum sets every teacher's agenda in the parish, he said, including lesson plans, worksheet and activities. In addition to a textbook chosen by a peer panel, teachers can choose their own materials to bolster lesson plans.

Judging which materials are appropriate is part of what makes teaching difficult, he said.

"We know a good teacher uses multiple sources," Johnson said. "You are continually making decisions not only on content, but on the behavior of students sitting in the classroom. You have to be a top-notch decision maker all day, everyday."

When it comes to evolution, he said teachers don't spend a lengthy amount of time covering the topic, but students ask about it.

"They'll argue about things that are scientifically incorrect," he said. "We fight misconceptions and try to replace them with fact."

Similar bills in Missouri, South Carolina, Alabama and Florida died before reaching the full legislature this year. So far, Louisiana is the only state to come close to passage.

Alan Richard, a spokesman for the Southern Regional Education Board, said similar bills are proposed almost every legislative season. This year is no different.

"None of this legislation has passed to become state law," he said. "But it remains to be seen what will happen in Louisiana."

Some trace the bills to the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think-tank that supports researchers critical of evolution. Others link the state's act to the Louisiana Family Forum, a religious lobbying group based in Baton Rouge.

"They've been organizing for a while now and laying the ground work for this," said Josh Rosenau, a spokesman for the National Center for Science Education, an evolution-advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that tracks the progress of such bills. "Everyone is made to feel if they don't go along with that agenda they will be painted as not devout enough."

John West, a spokesman for the Discovery Institute, said the bill might have been drawn from model statutes on its Web site. The institute advocates for such bills, which he said would be academically liberating if passed.

"You have this mentality you can't talk about conflicting evidence that even the scientists themselves talk about in journals," West said. "Students need to learn about the best evidence for evolution, but also the mainstream dispute over evolution."

Barbara Forest, a Southeastern University philosophy professor who formed the Louisiana Coalition for Science in response to the bill, said Nevers' goal is to get creationism onto the curriculum.

"School boards can permit teachers to use creationist supplementary materials in their classrooms," he said. "It will permit the teaching of creationism in the guise of science."

"It's confusing to kids when you teach them a topic that has no scientific basis," he said.

Barbara Forest, a Southeastern University philosophy professor who formed the Louisiana Coalition for Science in response to the bill, said Nevers' goal is to get creationism onto the curriculum.

"School boards can permit teachers to use creationist supplementary materials in their classrooms," he said. "It will permit the teaching of creationism in the guise of science."

READ my last but one post c.i.

And I was referring to the quote above my question.

They should make a Furby that goes "Creationism doesn't belong in science class; it belongs in philosophy or religion class." when you glare at it.

The science classroom is not something you can neatly place book-ends around, tag, and place in a fume cupboard and inspect at your leisure and thus facilitate your propensity to have a bloody theory about every sodding thing under the sun ( eff-off Popper) which might assist in pushing your boat out.

I can't touch you S at the ranting game. You don't answer a single point in your responses.

And do you disparage attempts at literary wit? They are better than no attempts. AIDsers are witless by definition. Like bus timetables. Dead accurate and boring.

Once again you demonstarte that you are clueles as to what goes on in the education process.Ever hear of interdisciplanary studies in K-12 curricula?

No, I expect you havent, from the tone of your clueless statements. When you return from your own looking glass, perhaps Id suggest a deeper reading into all the works of those people whove been quoted by you over the months(including Popper).

First, my rants clearly don't compare to yours... like I keep saying, just ask around... or read them yourselves, find some of those ones I described as run-on sentences.

And I obviously answer points, although it seems that just mocking you lately gets better results.

When I give full posts involving substance you skip over various parts, change the subject, etc. We'll do an experiment: pick one of the non-personal topics I've commented on which involve you in some way and concentrate on it. I'll argue every point, support it, etc. We'll see if you stick to your primary method of support: repeated assertion. Or, better yet, randomly change the subject because you get bored (or whatever it is that causes you to practice such dishonest argumentation, intentionally or not).

You know what I mean by "attempts at literary wit".

From The Sunday TimesJune 15, 2008

All that a school needs to succeed is a head who's good with a razorSimon Jenkins
The item hardly made the morning news. Government inspectors had discovered 14 "failed" schools that had suddenly become successes. Some bright spark thought it worth asking why. The answer came as a bolt of lightning: that all had benefited from something called leadership. It was the one common thread.

When stuck for an answer to a problem, I turn to the maxim known as Ockham's razor. It states: "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora," or do not apply many things to a task that can be done with few. It was brilliantly "razored" by the American marines to KISS, "keep it simple, stupid".

In modern state education, Ockham's razor is tantamount to knife crime. It lacks bureaucratic complexity. Its application demands no expertise, no grand staff, no research budget, no office blocks with atriums. Its mere mention endangers thousands of nonjobs, threatening to send former teachers now screwing up the school system back where they belong, in the schools.

Not a week passes without these people inventing for ministers a new and expensive quick fix for bad schools, an academy, a foundation, a trust, a "please look at me, I'm a minister" initiative. There is not a shred of evidence that any of these upheavals work, but each has its dedicated bureaucracy, its budget and its spin doctor.

Now along comes Ofsted, the schools inspectorate, and lets the cat out of the bag. If you want a good school, get the right head.

Well- I said my rants don't compare to your's--so we're even. Will the truth depend on who says it last?

Why would I ever think of asking around. What question would I compose?

I do read them myself and I like run-on sentences. They test the readers interest.

What results have you in mind? I obviously understand that you think you obviously answer points. You mock a bit genteely though. And predictably.

You pick something.

I do. Attempts at literary wit.

Your whole position is mere name calling.

Gov. Jindal on intelligent design
(By R. Reese Fuller, The independent Weekly, June 16, 2008)

When it comes to "intelligent design," Gov. Bobby Jindal told Face the Nation yesterday that he doesn't think it's an issue that should be decided on the federal or even state level, but on the local level. Jindal told host Chip Reid:
"As a parent, when my kids go to schools, when they go to public schools, I want them to be presented with the best thinking. I want them to be able to make decisions for themselves. I want them to see the best data. I personally think that the life, human life and the world we live in wasn't created accidentally. I do think that there's a creator. I'm a Christian. I do think that God played a role in creating not only earth, but mankind. Now, the way that he did it, I'd certainly want my kids to be exposed to the very best science. I don't want them to be - I don't want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness. The way we're going to have smart, intelligent kids is exposing them to the very best science and let them not only decide, but also let them contribute to that body of knowledge. That's what makes the scientific process so exciting. You get to go there and find facts and data and test what's come before you and challenge those theories."

In a letter last week to Louisiana Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's CEO and the publisher of Science magazine Alan I. Leshner wrote of the "Louisiana Science Education Act":
"The bill implies that particular theories are controversial among scientists, including evolution. But there is virtually no controversy about evolution among the overwhelming majority of researchers. The science of evolution underpins all of modern biology and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific studies in fields that include cosmology, geology, paleontology, genetics and other biological specialties. It informs scientific research in a broad range of fields such as agriculture and medicine, work that has an important impact on our everyday lives. Backers of the bill, including the Louisiana Family Forum and the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, are longtime supporters of attempts to teach creationism or intelligent design as science. The judicial courts have ruled that both of these are religious concepts that do not belong in public school science classrooms. In fact, it was Louisiana's own "creation science" law that the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1987."

"Here. Read these three sentences. I've been told they don't make sense, so what do you think I'm trying to say?"

spendius wrote:
You pick something.

How about your repeated insistance that evolution should not be taught in local areas where it is opposed (you cry foul)?

In a letter last week to Louisiana Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's CEO and the publisher of Science magazine Alan I. Leshner wrote of the "Louisiana Science Education Act":
"The bill implies that particular theories are controversial among scientists, including evolution. But there is virtually no controversy about evolution among the overwhelming majority of researchers. The science of evolution underpins all of modern biology and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific studies in fields that include cosmology, geology, paleontology, genetics and other biological specialties. It informs scientific research in a broad range of fields such as agriculture and medicine, work that has an important impact on our everyday lives. Backers of the bill, including the Louisiana Family Forum and the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, are longtime supporters of attempts to teach creationism or intelligent design as science. The judicial courts have ruled that both of these are religious concepts that do not belong in public school science classrooms. In fact, it was Louisiana's own "creation science" law that the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1987."