What's the Big Deal?

[Accountable]

Not sure where to put this

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Evolutionists Fear Academic Freedom

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

Saturday, July 05, 2008



Celebrate the courage of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in the fight for freedom. He has shown tremendous courage in signing the Louisiana Science Education Bill, an important blow for academic freedom.

"Our freedom to think and consider more than one option is part of what has given America her competitive edge in the international marketplace of ideas,” said biology scientist Caroline Crocker to the Louisiana House Committee on Education. "The current denial of academic freedom rights for those who are judged politically incorrect may put this in jeopardy.”

Crocker was testifying on the bill allowing supplemental materials into Louisiana public school science classrooms about evolution, cloning, global warming and other debatable topics. The legislature went on to unanimously (35-0) pass the bill. Now it has become law because of Gov. Jindal’s courage.

One would think legislation which allows an environment that promotes “critical thinking” and “objective discussion” in the classroom would please everyone -- it did the bipartisan group of legislators in Louisiana -- but such is not the case. The New York Times felt threatened by the legislation, calling it “retrograde,” naming its editorial on the topic, “Louisiana’s Latest Assault on Darwin.” They were attempting to pressure Gov. Jindal to not sign the law, using a number of tactics including implicit ridicule, subtle belittling insults and untruths.

The law is straightforward and clearly restricts any intent to promote a religious doctrine. There is no mention of either intelligent design or creationism. Darwinism is not banned and teachers are required to teach students from standard textbooks. But the Times calls the legislation a “Trojan horse” because the state board of education must, upon request of local school districts, help foster an environment of “critical thinking” and “open discussion” on controversial scientific subjects. This allows teachers to use supplemental materials to analyze evolution and show views other than Darwin’s theory. It allows evolution to be criticized, and the law protects the rights of teachers and students to talk freely about a wide range of ideas without fear of reprisal.

The Times’ fear is that objective discussion “would have the pernicious effect of implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not.” They called any school district “foolish” if they “head down this path.”

Evolutionists use a variety of methods to silence alternate viewpoints. They say people are trying to “inject religious views into science courses.” Besides calling it a “retrograde step”, the Times used implicit ridicule of Governor Jindal, saying, “As a biology major at Brown University, Mr. Jindal must know that evolution is the unchallenged central organizing principle for modern biology.”

Many reputable scientists and scholars disagree with Darwin’s theory of evolution and certainly challenge it. Evolutionists say they don’t want biased religious views forced on students. Ironically, Darwin’s evolutionary theory is based is atheistic naturalism, a religious belief.

Dr. William Provine of Cornell University explained his and Darwin’s shared atheistic beliefs in this way: “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.”

Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."

Academic free speech rights for Louisiana’s public school students and teachers are now guaranteed because of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature. Trying to strike a modicum of balance to the scientific discussion in classrooms and allow students to hear more than one view, Gov. Jindal acted wisely. Other states are considering similar legislation. Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics. This freedom will in turn strengthen our country.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And now the other point of view:

[Accountable]

Editorial

Louisiana’s Latest Assault on Darwin

It comes as no surprise that the Louisiana State Legislature has overwhelmingly approved a bill that seeks to undercut the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The state, after all, has a sorry history as a hotbed of creationists’ efforts to inject religious views into science courses. All that stands in the way of this retrograde step is Gov. Bobby Jindal.



In the 1980s, Louisiana passed an infamous “Creationism Act” that prohibited the teaching of evolution unless it was accompanied by instruction in “creation science.” That effort to gain essentially equal time for creationism was slapped down by the United States Supreme Court as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. State legislators, mimicking scattered efforts elsewhere, responded with a cagier, indirect approach.



The new bill doesn’t mention either creationism or its close cousin, intelligent design. It explicitly disavows any intent to promote a religious doctrine. It doesn’t try to ban Darwin from the classroom or order schools to do anything. It simply requires the state board of education, if asked by local school districts, to help create an environment that promotes “critical thinking” and “objective discussion” about not only evolution and the origins of life but also about global warming and human cloning, two other bêtes noires of the right. Teachers would be required to teach the standard textbook but could use supplementary materials to critique it.



That may seem harmless. But it would have the pernicious effect of implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not. In school districts foolish enough to head down this path, the students will likely emerge with a shakier understanding of science.



As a biology major at Brown University, Mr. Jindal must know that evolution is the unchallenged central organizing principle for modern biology. As a rising star on the conservative right, mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, Mr. Jindal may have more than science on his mind. In a television interview, he seemed to say that local school boards should decide what is taught and that it would be wrong to teach only evolution or only intelligent design.



If Mr. Jindal has the interests of students at heart, the sensible thing is to veto this Trojan horse legislation.

[BTS]

Question ac:

So if the bible should be out because it has no scientific backing per se,

then should global warming be taught with out sound scientific backing?



Just a thought. Seems it has crept into the curriculum without any real scientific background. Only theories.

Heaven forbid (pun intended) that any religious teachings were inserted with out scientific proof.

[Nomad]

Critical multi faceted <---;) thinking sounds good to me.

People are so afraid of change sometimes.

Life itself mandates change, why even try to suppress it ?

[Galbally]

I am not sure I still fully understand what the full intent of this law is?

Is it saying that school children should be taught to look critically at scientific concepts and be able to make their own value judgements based on evidence, logic, and rationality. Is this not the purpose of science class in the first place?

Or is it going to be used to put forth the very tired argument that you can use religious doctrine to argue about biology in science class? Of course if these children recieve a proper scientific education, they will be able to realize themselves that creationism is a load of nonsense, and represents the complete intellectual failure of fundamentalist religion to come to terms with small problems like...the facts.

Perhaps they should also teach the children about the lessons implicit in "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins in Bible Class, together with The walls of Jericho, the Burning Bush, and Lot and his charming wife. Then let the kids critique the bible for themselves as well, like how did Noah fit every species on earth in a wooden boat, and create a viable breeding stock from just 2 individuals of each of the billions of species. But no, something tells me that won't be happening.

[yaaarrrgg]

Galbally;909272 wrote: ...

Or is it going to be used to put forth the very tired argument that you can use religious doctrine to argue about biology in science class? Of course if these children recieve a proper scientific education, they will be able to realize themselves that creationism is a load of nonsense, and represents the complete intellectual failure of fundamentalist religion to come to terms with small problems like...the facts.




Fundamentalist Christians here have been trying to find a back door into science class for about 50 years or more. It's not enough that they just believe their own demented version of reality ... they want it to be called "science." The ideas to course can't withstand scientific scrutiny, so they're trying to find a back door through law.

[Accountable]

:wah:

[yaaarrrgg]

I was trying to recall the state that passed the infamous "pi" bill, which tried to legislate mathematical facts. Lo and behold, it was my own state Indiana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Although I looked at how Indiana ranked compared to other states, and we are actually doing a good job teaching science. I'm wondering if we learned from embarrassment ... that you can't legislate facts, just to circumvent academic scrutiny. It opens the flood gates to every quack theory and crank out there.

Are we going to teach new age crystal healing along side of modern medicine? The ancient four elements (earth, water, air, fire) next to modern atomic theory? Maybe we could have a whole course on free energy and UFO conspiracy cover ups.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;909766 wrote: Are we going to teach new age crystal healing along side of modern medicine? The ancient four elements (earth, water, air, fire) next to modern atomic theory? Maybe we could have a whole course on free energy and UFO conspiracy cover ups.
Yeh, western medicine and science are far superior to anything else out there, huh? Everything else is quackery. :rolleyes:

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;909779 wrote: Yeh, western medicine and science are far superior to anything else out there, huh? Everything else is quackery. :rolleyes:


Some primitive medicine is good ... it needs to go through the same rigorous testing as everything else though. You'd be surprised at the number of natural herbs and foods that cause liver or kidney damage when taken in large quantities. And a lot of it has absolutely no real benefit.

Recently I've gotten interested in distilling essential oils from herbs like spearmint ... but it's something to handle with care. They can be toxic in those concentrations.

ETA: The idea though, that we can legislate what is or is not a cure is just ludicrous. That's something that needs to come from the science of medicine. Lawmakers aren't in a position to dictate the results of that science.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;909813 wrote: The idea though, that we can legislate what is or is not a cure is just ludicrous. That's something that needs to come from the science of medicine. Lawmakers aren't in a position to dictate the results of that science.
So you're against the FDA? Good for you!

[Accountable]

I just heard about this. I haven't seen it yet. It was a NOVA special

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial



Enjoy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2613200911

[Accountable]

rjwould;910194 wrote: I watched that when it was first broadcast and enjoyed viewing it again. A few people in my wifes office whom are residents of Dover were intimately involved in the case. I recently watched an interview of Judge Jones on the case and it was quite interesting. I checked youtube for it but came up empty.
Is this it? It's the Extras section.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/extras.html





Nobody's addressed my question, though.