State frees teachers to criticize evolution

It tool a law to allow freedom of opinions in Education.

State frees teachers to criticize evolution
Global warming, origins of life, cloning also may be scrutinized

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal this week signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, which allows school districts to permit teachers to present evidence, analysis and critique of evolution and other prevalent scientific theories in public school classrooms.

The law came to the governor’s desk after overwhelming support in the legislature, including a unanimous vote in the state’s Senate and a 93-4 vote in the House.

Full Story

As usual, the left are the ones who want to stiffle dissenting opinions. Yet they say us on the right want to censor people. The Orwellian doublespeak is mind boggling.

It is a good step forward!

I’d encourage anyone interested to also check out the documentary ‘Expelled’ if it’s playing at a theatre near you. It is truly eye-opening!

It’s been tried before. And it’s been shot down. In Louisiana. The problem is that it is an attempt to support a religion (creationism), and singles out one science but not others.

On January 11, 1985 Judge Duplantier entered a summary judgment ruling the Balanced-Treatment Act to be a violation of the establishment clause, because the concepts of creation and a creator are necessarily religious and therefore unscientific. In his ten-page written opinion, Duplantier stated that “the teaching of ‘creation-science’ and ‘creationism,’ as contemplated by the statute, entails teaching tailored to the principles of a particular religious sect or group of sects,” and the statute "promotes the beliefs of some theistic sects to the detriment of others."
grisda.org/origins/12038.htm

The problem is obvious; they are trying to find some way to circumvent the Bill of Rights without breaking the law.

Not possible.

BTW, here’s some information on “Expelled” and some of the issues brought up in the film. After you read it, you will perhaps have some understanding why the Anti-Defamation League criticized the movie for it’s attempts to downplay the causes of Hitler’s Holocaust.

Wrong. The Left has perverted the Bill of Right to squash discussion of opposing viewpoints. The Constitution says Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion that the left wants.

It’s no more than a smokescreen to get religion into the public schools-primarily the Fundamentalist Protestant religion.

Good grief, Catholics should be the first in line objecting to religion being brought into the public schools. It sure won’t be Catholcism that they bring in! It’s going to be the kind of fundamentalist Christianity that refers to the Church as the Whore of Babylon.

Sounds much ado about nothing, other than just PR. The state board of education can prohibit material, and religious instruction is prohibited, thus up for challenge. It sounds like it probably only gives explicit the latitude to do what could all ready be done implicitly.

(Barbarian point out that attempts to violate religious freedom in this manner have already been ruled illegal)

Wrong.

No, it’s quite true. The Supreme Court settled that during the previous attempt.

The Left has perverted the Bill of Right to squash discussion of opposing viewpoints.

Turns out that the establishment clause protects public school children from religious indoctrination. Re-labeling as “discussion of opposing viewpoints” has been tried. The courts weren’t fooled.

The Constitution says Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion

Actually, it says both.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Government can neither establish a religious doctrine (freedom from religion) nor prohibit the free exercise by individuals (freedom of religion).

that the left wants.

Freedom is not just a leftist thing. Libertarians and many traditional conservatives also support the Bill of Rights, including religious freedoms. And there are leftists who don’t favor religious freedom.

I donlt have a problem with this as long as they have good support for their criticisms. In other words spouting creationism/intellegent design arguments that have been disproven or found lacking wonlt cut it.

This Bobby Jindal is showing me a few things. He’s not afraid of nothin’…

…except offending the fundamentalists.

I figure he’s decided McCain’s not going to pick him, so it doesn’t matter what people in the rest of the country think.

But he would like to be re-elected.

The problem of course is that in science, opinion and viewpoints really don’t matter…. evidence does

A science classroom isn’t an Op Ed page or a literature class.

And the notion that every opinion matters in every case is kind of silly.

There is no Left or Right in science and science is not normative
What is … is

Actually, it says neither of those

It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” which is what requiring that creationism be taught essentially will do.

Once again nothing Left or Right about it
The text is fairly clear.

What this really does is set individual teachers and schools up for lawsuits that they will lose. Teachers will teach “criticisms” of evolution, this will result in a handful of lawsuits, and when they go to court it will turn out that the “criticisms” are simply re-cycled creationist material presented for the sole purpose of evangelizing a particular religious view (Hence, unconstitutional).

It’s a good step towards recognizing the diversity that exists among science teachers.

16% of US science teachers are creationists

Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in US schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science – and especially evolutionary biology – tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles.

…“However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48% – about 12.5% of the total survey – said they taught it as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species”.”

A scientific critique of evolution should be welcomed. HOWEVER Intelligent design and creationism isn’t SCIENCE, it’s philosophy.

So if a teacher wants to teach that the Holocaust never happened, he’s entitled to do that, in the name of “diversity?”

That kind of relativism would make students think that the truth was whatever their current teacher said it was.

As someone once said “you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.”

I think a bargain can be reached. Christian Fundamentalists can come into the science classroom and talk to kids about creationism if scientists can come to church on Sunday and lecture about evolution from the pulpit.

More likely, Wiccans and Raelians, and every other religion would want their religious objections to science presented.

But creationists don’t think of that.

I’d like to see the proof of that.

Technically, because the stated goals of ID are theistic, it’s a religion.

In fact, it’s the official doctrine of Rev. Moon’s “Unification Church.”

TWO BAD WAYS TO ATTACK INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND TWO GOOD ONES
Author: Koperski, Jeffrey1

Source: Zygon, Volume 43, Number 2, June 2008 , pp. 433-449(17)

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing

Abstract: Four arguments are examined in order to assess the state of the Intelligent Design debate. First, critics continually cite the fact that ID proponents have religious motivations. When used as criticism of ID arguments, this is an obvious ad hominem. Nonetheless, philosophers and scientists alike continue to wield such arguments for their rhetorical value. Second, in his expert testimony in the Dover trial, philosopher Robert Pennock used repudiated claims in order to brand ID as a kind of pseudoscience. His arguments hinge on the nature of methodological naturalism as a metatheoretic shaping principle. We examine the use of such principles in science and the history of science. Special attention is given to the demarcation problem. Third, the scientific merits of ID are examined. Critics rightly demand more than promissory notes for ID to move beyond the fringe. Fourth, although methodological naturalism gets a lot of attention, there is another shaping principle to contend with, namely, conservatism. Science, like most disciplines, tends to change in an incremental rather than revolutionary manner. When ID is compared to other non- or quasi-Darwinian proposals, it appears to be a more radical solution than is needed in the face of the anomalies.

“The bottom line is this: The future use or suspension of methodological naturalism depends on what is discovered. If the best explanation for some new phenomenon is design, even supernatural design, it would still count as a scientific explanation. It borders on academic incompetence to pretend that science has strict boundaries and then gerrymander those boundaries to keep out the riffraff. Philosophers of science in particular should know better.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.