Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Education|Thu, Jun. 12 2008 03:16 PM EDT

Academic Freedom Bill Sweeps through La. House

By Alexander J. Sheffrin|Christian Post Reporter

The Louisiana House of Representatives voted 94-3 Wednesday to pass a bill that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.

The measure, which is expected to cruise easily through the upper house, is the latest measure in a series of “Academic Freedom” bills that have swept across several states, including Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan. A similar measure was also under review in Florida earlier this year before stalling in the state’s legislature.

Lawmakers say that the efforts to pass the bills are a response to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.

Louisiana’s version of the bill, the “Science Education Act,” will help to supply teachers with supplementary textbooks that will give greater freedom in the classroom to analyze and critique existing scientific theories concerning evolution.

Supporters of the bill said that the measure would be an important step in securing safe academic environments where “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories” would be welcome.

“This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, in a statement.

Detractors of the bill, however, claim that the recent measure is nothing more than a masked agenda to install religion in schools.

In a statement, Americans United said that it would not rule out legal action against the bill on the grounds of violating the separation of church and state.

“Americans United and other groups contend that [the] ‘supplemental materials’ (textbooks) are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries,” the group said.

“The measure is being pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other Religious Right forces,” the group added.

West, however, denies this assertion, noting that the language of the bill is clear, objective, and fair.

“Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on,” he said.

“The proposed Louisiana law expressly states in Section 1C that it ‘shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion,’” he continued.

“Americans United conveniently neglects to mention that section of the bill,” he said.
In total, at least six states have considered passing "Academic Freedom" legislation this year, according to the Discovery Institute.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The academic bill of rights resolution sailed through the georgia with a sweeping of vote.the system of fundamental forces and natural constaints essentially requires that life. the bills are a response to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging. thank you
    ===============
    danica
    <a href="http://www.treatmentcenters.org/louisiana">Louisiana Treatment Centers</a>

  • Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "What arguments from Behe, for instance, are busted flushes? "

    Oh, I don't know, the bacteria flaggella, the blood clotting cascade system, and on and on Basically all the instances which he espouses are IC (Ireducible Complex) and which were show in Dove rin 2005 (3 years ago already) to be, well, not quite so IC after all. I have been saying to you for quite some time HAWK that though Behe's arguements sound legit to most laymen, they don't work to well under critique. Here, review this 9 part series, only 1 1/2 hour long, and research more on them if you'd like. I know they have some archieved on Panda's Thumb.org as well.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=PaHcsGzyp4A

  • Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve,

    Have a great weekend. I suppose we have pretty much exhausted this thread and won't be back. Sure to catch up with you elsewhere, however.

    Your banded iron formations sound interesting. I do miean that as I do have an interest, to some extent, in geology, as an engineer.
    Here's a couple sites to look at for your studies and consideration; maybe they're busted flushes. The truth will finally prevail one way or the other.
    http://www.icr.org/article/203/
    http://www.halos.com/

    God Bless
    Hawk

  • Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Been there, done it, see other forum.

  • Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I've just added this discussion to the article:
    "The Video - Louisiana Coalition for Science - is afraid of!"
    http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/news/062008b.html

  • Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I would define a busted flush as an arguement that really no longer holds water, it has had its time, it maybe held sway for a long time, it maybe had great influence but now, well best to say its time has past and the world has moved on, its normally at this satge that those who held that point of view and once had power through it start to use the "balanced enqiry etc.." arguement.

    I propbably would enjoy that book but I have a reading list as long as your arm...I'm really enjoying studying / reading on "banded iron formations" at this time, they testify to the time when free oxygen levels started to rise (due to bacteria) in the atmospshere of the Earth.

    Its all in the rocks.

    Steve

  • Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The LA legislation conforms to Darwin's statement, not that Darwin's statement was the cause for the legislation. The philosophy behind it is pretty much what an open academic environment is all about, or at least should be. You used the term "busted flushes" so it is only natural to determine what a "busted flush" is in your view. Sorry that you took my previous question so hard

    God Bless

    Hawk

  • Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve
    You'd probably enjoy reading Nigel Brush's The Limitations of Scientific Truth. He earned his PhD at UCLA and is an assistant professor of geology at Asland University in Ohio. He has done archaeological, geological and environmental work around the world.

  • Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    All you asked me was if I had any problems with it, and I told you what I honestly thought, who said I was talking about Behe? I was just commenting on what I have over many years observed.

    What I did find interesting is the desire to use quotes of Darwin as if they are some sort of holy scripture, its not a view I hold too myself.......

    Steve

    Flagged myself

  • Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What arguments from Behe, for instance, are busted flushes?

  • Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    P.s Yeah, I do have a problem with that quote because some people hide behind it when their arguament is a busted flush............

  • Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks for the reccomendations, but my reading list is full with books for my geosciences degree, I'm doing it not just talking about it.
    :-)
    Steve

  • Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    RAVI ZACHARIAS - ATHEIST KILLER EXTRAORDINAIRE....

    http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Watch.aspx

  • Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve,
    I can understand why you gave up the ministry with the overwhelming barrage of evolutionist explanations (anywhere from excellent to just so stories) from a field that purports to be totally factual, [assuming that's how you saw things]
    That is a problem with creationism and the truth of scripture when facing the scientific stories of the day.
    The fact is, there are many qualified scientists educated to the PhD level who have been fully exposed to the exclusive claims of Darwinism in their formal education; yet these scientists were not convinced of the claims and interpretations for Darwinism and accepted ID as a better explanation for certain aspects of life (even in the face of firing or ostracism). It is reasonable for a layperson to conclude that there is validity to ID and there are profound shortcomings with Darwimism.
    I suggest Nigel Brush's The Limitations of Scientific Truth if you haven't read it already. It places a proper perspective of science with the rest of the body of knowledge. Brush is a Christian scientist and applies an even handed analysis from God's perspective.
    Behe's The Edge of Evolution places an excellent balance to the state of Darwinism and ID at this time without the dogmas of naturalism or supernaturalism impossed.
    Here is an excellent link that addresses ID Theory and the Discovery Institutes position of science education.
    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453
    Please note the statement attributed to Charles Darwin at the beginning pages of this pdf file and tell me if you have any problems with it.

    God Bless
    Hawk
    .

  • Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dear CP readers.

    Some may have noticed that a large number of comments have disappeared from a number of articles. We would like everyone to know that we are currently in the process of launching our new site within this week and experienced a minor glitch. We apologize for the inconvenience and hope to be able to restore the comments to the site.

    Thank You
    CP Admin

  • Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God"

    No it doesn't evolution simply states biological changes over time, for all we know god poofed the replicating organics and from that point it they began evolving. Or the system of fundimental forces and natural constaints essentially requires that life come about, just as it requires gravity to come about.

    The premise of no god being involved is how science works, as in the scietific method we're not allowed to explain X by appealing to 'god dun it' or ' a miracle happened here'.

    This is how ACTUAL knowledge is gained. We could simply wrongly appeal to 'god dun it' to explain how rainbows form, or how electricity and magnitism works, which as you note explains nothing. OR, we can used science reductionism to find what causes and controls electricity, magnitism and rainbows.

    "philosophy of naturalism "

    it's called the scientific method, and some of the fruits of it you're using right now.

  • Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    HAWK49,

    " intelligent design and coincide with many qualified scientists who have acknowledged ID or Biblical creation in life and the cosmos using their scientific knowledge, reasoning and logic"

    Ok, so you're refering to the Disco Institutes (what have they discovered by the way?) 'list of 700 scientists who desent darwin'. Now, you should also know that NCSE did a similar signing by scientists, and they have over 800, and they are only featuring those with the first name of 'Steven'. So, the NCSE has a list of 800+ scientists, all using the same first name would agree with evolutiionary theory, just to give you an idea of how many others agree with it based just on the name. Also, the list the Discovery Inst. uses has only a handfull of biologists, most are mathmaticians or engineers, nothing to do with biology at all.

    Ok, Hawk here is your chance, blow me out of the water with the great facts as presented by Hovind, AIG, ICR, Discovery Institue or whoever else you can dig up. You cna copy and paste directly from AIG for all I care, but I will show you how frivolous their arguements are on just these 2 topics.

    Explain the following vids using the 'designer did it hypothesis' in 1) Scientific & 2) Falsifiable manner. Cheers.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

  • Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    HAWK

    Don't mind cut and paste, don't like it when it just covers up lazyness.......

    Naturalistic evolution makes no assumptions about the existenece of God (unless you believe everything AIG says). Naturalistic evolution deals with the bio diversity on this planet, the existence or non existence of God does not come under the remit of naturalistic evolution.

    One of the reasons I left full time Christain minisitry was because I could not continue peddling this scientific falsehood to people, when I stopped it I slept well.

    We have the same evidence its just at the end of the day you have come to the wrong conclusion.

    Steve

    Flagged myself, somehow it suddenly submitted twice, but then we all have the same submit button?

  • Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You give up your freedom when you say that a reasonable alternative to evolution cannot be taught. "

    Doc, you speak as if the ID hypothesis is as well tested and equally, or more supported by all forms of evidence compared to evolutionary theory, but this isn't so. ID makes no claims for extinct life forms and their explanation for new emerging life forms which become extinct is as follows: 1) designer poofs/makes X organism. 2) X organism goes extinct. 3) Designer comes back and respawns another organism, organism X1, which is very, very similar to the now extinct organism X. The sort the species to species evolution many creationists say is impossible.

    This process is what ID hypothetical implies as they (save for Behe) implicitly say no common descent has occurred or can occur. So the only logical explanation using their 'designer did it' hypothesis is that the designer periodically comes back all the time and instantly poofs a revision of the extinct organism into a habitat. Hmmm, call me weird, but how does one define a design 'intelligent' much less the designer intelligent if some 99% of everything he's ever made is extinct?

    Now this is just one branch of evidence, paleontology, which can’t be explained at all using the ID hypothesis. Wouldn't a truly intelligent designer make something which wouldn't require his constant nanny supervision and would live on without his periodic care taking? One would think so.

    Now, have we ever even observed anything remotely like this? Animals poofing into existence? And even the founder of ID, Philips has openly and repeatedly stated, ID as a hypothesis doesn’t have the same level of explanatory power nor the same amount of evidence to back it. So why then should we teach it I n classes? We should teach what is BEST supported by evidence.

  • Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve,
    Don't like the cut and paste? Oh well. When it fits I'll use it. J's remarks about the elephant in the living room are spot on wrt intelligent design and coincide with many qualified scientists who have acknowledged ID or Biblical creation in life and the cosmos using their scientific knowledge, reasoning and logic. This is the worldview I have accepted as I too see the elephant in the living room.
    The other theories from qualified scientists? Try Discovery Institute, AIG or CRI for starters and read what scientists who rely on other than the philosophy of naturalism to interpret the facts and observations.

    "Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began. Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe. Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are very different. The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted."


    God Bless
    Hawk

  • Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I am all for an alternative to evolution being taught when one comes along.

  • Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve, This sounds so Orwellian.:-) You lose freedom by granting those who wish to teach about intelligent design the legal permission to do so? You have it backwards. You give up your freedom when you say that a reasonable alternative to evolution cannot be taught.
    No you are not the rebel I referred to. I was talking about me since I live in the part of the British Empire that rebelled. :-)
    Academic freedom is such a weird concept these days. If you walk on a college campus you are free to speak if you are a liberal democrat pro abortion, pro gay rights, anti Christian. You are free to speak in the science department if you swear allegiance to evolution. Unless you toe the line and are politically correct, you really dont have academic freedom.
    That is where this conversation began. The Freedom to dissent. The Freedom for intelligent people to look at what is being taught and disagree.
    I will stick with Freedom since I am the great great great great grandchild of rebels.
    Paul in his letter to the Galatians 5:1 Stand firm in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.
    runningdoc

  • Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:09 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    runningdoc

    The academic freedom acts actually destroy freedom as it makes all teaching in science a matter of personal opinion, everything becomes relative, which is quite ironic for those who like to concentrate of absolutes so much.

    Thank you for your compliment about being a rebel ( ah, you where talking about me.....:-p)

    Steve

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    All this stands completely counter to faith, and religious assumptions cannot withstand any of these rigors. But evolution can, and does, and has. For 150 years so far the greatest minds of the modern age have collectively failed to controvert the essence of evolution. It is a study which neither requires nor desires faith, and doesn’t even permit it, nor is it needed, because evolution is easily indicated and evidenced, measured and tested myriad ways without it –and even against the harshest scrutiny. And remember that evidence must be objective, meaning that it can still be verified whether you want to believe in it or not. Evolution has all that in spades, and is a unifying theory which has enhanced our knowledge of many different aspects of biology enormously, and that’s why so many religious as well as non-religious scientists endorse it.

    Believe what you want about the supernatural realm. But those beliefs have to rely on faith because there’s no way to know whether any of it is true or not; because science can’t look at the metaphysical. It can only help us understand the material world we can actually study.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Science is completely opposite in every respect. Rather than any need-to-believe, science is driven by a desire to understand. And the only way to improve your understanding of anything is to seek out errors in our current position and correct them. You can’t do that if you claim your initial assumptions are already infallible, and you can’t even begin to seek the truth if you won’t admit that you might not already know it, or that you don’t know it all perfectly already.

    While scientists themselves may be religious men of many different faiths, their methodology was designed to be the antithesis of faith because it requires that all assumptions be questioned, that all proposed explanations be based on demonstrable evidence, and that all hypotheses be must be testable and potentially falsifiable. Blaming magic is never acceptable because miracles aren’t explanations of any kind, and there has never been a single instance in history when assuming the supernatural has ever improved our understanding of anything. In fact such excuses have only ever impeded our attempts at discovery. This is one of many reasons why science depends on methodological naturalism; because unlike religion, science demands some way to determine who’s explanations are the more accurate, and which changes would actually be corrections.

    Science is a self-correcting process which changes constantly because its always improving. Only accurate information has practical application. So it doesn’t matter what you wanna believe. All that matters is why we should believe it too, and how accurate your perception can be shown to be. So you can’t just make up stuff in science (like you can in religion) because you have to substantiate everything, and be able to defend it even against peers who may not want to believe as you do. Be prepared to convince them anyway. Its possible to do that in science because science is based on reason. That means you must be ready to reject or correct whatever you hold true should you discover evidence against it.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    According to a consensus of every authoritive or definitive source available anywhere -including theologians, dictionaries, scriptures, hymns, sermons, -everything; faith can be accurately defined as a complete and unwavering conviction; a positive belief –which is not dependant on evidence, and will not change because of evidence.

    “That is unreasonable, and it's unscientific. That is the definition of blind faith;
    I believe something even though there is no evidence to support it.”

    Faith is often a belief in things which are impossible according to everything we know about anything at all. The belief is sacred, meaning that it is never to be questioned or critically examined, but must be believed no matter what. Skeptical inquiry is strictly forbidden, and apologetics exists only to obligately rationalize away any criticisms so that they may be dismissed without consideration.

    In other words, faith assumes its own conclusions, believes impossible things without reason, and defends those beliefs against all reason to the contrary. So it can’t help but be wrong to some degree to start with, and any errors will never even be acknowledged, much less sought out or corrected. So that situation can never improve. However wrong it already is is however wrong it will forever be. So faith offers no way to discover the real truth about anything, but it’s a great way to stay wrong forever and never admit it –even to yourself.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 8:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    “ Unlike the Bible which does not change”

    And that is the principle strength of Science. It continually appeals to more and more testing, more and more evidence and uses a form of philosophical reductionism to strip away ignorance to reveal ‘what is’ in all cases. The revelation of ‘truth’ isn’t an instant process; it’s a slow, long term and collective one in which an idea which is well supported and continually passes the same tests and future tests can be based on such tests to produce falsifiable results. Therefore, this process is a knowledge building process, collectively removing bad and wrong ideas, observations, and errors and improving on those ideas which are most supported and tested.

    In Newton’s day, Gravity was understood to operate in an instant manner across all space and time and only till certain technology became available and the great mind of Einstein figured out gravity doesn’t quite work this way. He found out about ‘relativity’ in which there is a fundamental speed limit for all matter in the Universe, namely the speed of light ( c).
    Did Einstein’s discovery destroy gravity? Absolutely not, rather it enhanced it. It revealed where Newton was indeed correct and expanded further on it to reveal more about our Universe as it actually is.

    “Science comes and goes”

    And yet all the fruits of science all still here. Our entire western civilization is founded on such knowledge.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Dear Steve, British science is committed to what it thinks the truth is at this moment. Given time a good bit of that truth will change.. Unlike the Bible which does not change.
    The sad thing is that you seem to value freedom less than you do the changing truth of British science. I will take Freedom anyday. Science comes and goes. Once it is gone, Freedom is hard to get back.
    But, then what would expect a rebel to say anyway. :-)
    runningdoc

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I should also add that the beauty of education in England is that you cannot teach your kids that the Earth is flat because it simply is not true, no matter what a parent might think.

    British science education...committed to the truth, not teaching both sides.

    Steve

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Steve, that remains the beauty of living in the United States. Freedom to educate your children that the world is flat without a bureaucrat to tell you otherwise"

    Yes, but if its not flat, its not flat, sod what the bureaucrat or anybody else says says, period.

    Kind regards

    Steve

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "flagged myself for inappropriate use of the English language."

    it's ok, you can say it, soccer/footbaaaallll isn't a sport, nothing foul there =)

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In the words of one famous football manager

    " Football...Its not a matter of life or death,it's far more important than that....."

    Steve

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve, 3of 4 of my kids played footballllllll/soccer, two in college and I still dont understand the game too much. runningdoc. flagged myself for inappropriate use of the English language.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, The meaning is not there. It was not there when the constitution was written. The people who wrote it did not view it the way it is interpreted today. My undergrad degree is in history. I can refer you to some good books on the subject, or you can take my word for it.
    BTW, taxes for public education do not pay for the public library, museums, city parks and the like. Those come in separate taxes in the state of Indiana and most other places.
    I sent all of my children to private Christian schools and paid the taxes and did not complain. I was financially able to do that. Most parents are not. The taxation or the education without academic freedom to discuss ID is tyranny.
    runningdoc

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    NO!!!!!!! Its not soccer (spits) its footballl!!!!!!!!!!!!
    LOL
    Steve

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steveh20,

    in the states we call it soccer, and its not really popular here. if we hear 'football' we think NFL football.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve, that remains the beauty of living in the United States. Freedom to educate your children that the world is flat without a bureaucrat to tell you otherwise. We can homeschool our children here and many do. Their children do not seem to suffer much as a result. My son inlaw was homeschooled through High school and went right on in to college in engineering. He now works on aircraft engines for a company you may be familiar with, Rolls Royce Engine.
    I know of no one here who wants to teach their chidlren about a flat earth, and frankly I think you can be a great doctor, accountant, lawyer, teacher, nurse, investment banker, and research scientist and believe in a very Intelligent Designer.
    I know lots of them. runningdoc

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    “The phrase, separation of church and state does not appear in the US constitution”

    No duh, but it’s meaning and implicitly is there and in other articles. I do agree with you, at least partly. If the kids aren’t going to use the govt system for public education, the parents shouldn’t be required to pay the regular taxes for such a public education. They also wouldn’t be able to use other such public educational institutions also, like museums, libraries and recreation (sports) parks, as they aren’t contributing to funding it. I guess it doesn’t matter too much, there is the YMCA.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Runningdoc

    Thanks for the reply.

    I appreciate that as a cousin across the Atlantic I have in some ways "no" right to comment on your education system. Now, I don't wish to set up a straw man but I am going to use an extreme example here, but I am sure you will understand the spirit I use it in. What if some parents wish to use the voucher to send the kids to a school that teaches the world is flat? Its a point of view which certain skewed evidence will support, the important fact being, its what the parents want. How do we (all) cope with that, where is the line drawn? I will nail my colours to the mast, I do believe there is a line, I believe that on some scientific subjects there are no "two" points of view, there is only one.

    As an aside it Italy 1 France 0 in the Euro 2008 football tournament, how I love the beautiful game....If anybody wants to talk football, I'm up for it

    Steve

    Flagged myself, poor grammer

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:51 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Steve, the solution is a voucher. Let people educate their children the way they see fit with their own tax dollars or dont tax them at all. The founders did not forsee a public education system that would be funded in the way that education currently is funded by mandatory taxation. Thus, they would not have forseen the conflict that might arise from a revisionist historical interpretation of the 1st amendment and the establishment clause. The phrase, separation of church and state does not appear in the US constitution. Thomas Jefferson authorized the printing of Bibles to give to the Indians while he was President, If I remember correctly.
    Let everyone pick their own school and take their voucher to it. Then nobody will be mad about Christmas programs or Easter vacation or what the teacher said in biology.
    runningdoc

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    runningdoc

    Thanks for that, I'm sure you will understand that due to not a having a seperation of church and state issue in England the points you raise concerning tax dollars etc.. are peculier to America and not here.

    What happens to those who don't want their tax dollars giving an audience to ID proponants?

    Reagards

    Steve

    Steve

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve, currently the only thing being taught in the classroom of public schools is the billions of years to do this model. My education started in 1955 so, I have listened to origins explained in a variety of ways by the teacher in charge. I had teachers remind me at the end of the educational movie, that Genesis one tells us that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I have had zoology professors tell me that God used evolution to create things the way they are. I had professors for whom god was not an issue.
    The problem with the current education structure is that as long as the child is in control of the public education system which currently only teaches evolution, the parent has no option if they are going to recoup the tax money they pay for their childs eduction.
    Thus I said, public educators want me and other taxpayers like me to guarantee them an audience with our tax dollars.
    The folks in Louisiana are probably just as smart as anyone posting on the website.(at least they have something important to do) They want their children to understand that there are good numbers of people who disagree with the religious evolutionary dogma. They do not want their children educated in a setting where God is part of the null curriculum.
    runningdoc

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Should add, back to writing my paper on the origin of Banded Iron Formations, 2.5 Ga...

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Hawk

    I think the thing I find so disrepuatble about your cut and pasteing is the lack of knowledge you have concerning this subject, you can speak so little from personal knowledge, from personal study of this subject that have to resort to this.

    I can respect those who disagree with me but have studied, who have put in the hard work, who have sat the exams and know the joy of sucess and the tears of failure, who can write from experience. But cut and pasters, they show them selves for what they are, lightweights in a field of heavy hitters.

    Feel better now.

    Kind regards

    Steve

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html"

    well, it seems HAWK/Parrot's source has been found. Oh dear, direct parroting again.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Your right, I do know, but one hopes that it may not be so....

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    “if it starts with evolution and then moves on to other scientifc matters in the classroom.”

    You know it. Consider how the Imams of the Islamic golden age instantly removed any advancement in science simply for theological reasons. Those here would no doubt act in the same manner should they gain controls of school curriculums. Some whom I am spoke with don’t see an issue with the BB theory, while others (those most ignorant of science) somehow see it as a disgrace as it doesn’t involve god directly forming planets, stars as such.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So you take one mans personal opinion retarding the structure of DNA and for you it supersedes all others views regarding its origins? Not very logical Parrot, not logical at all. But by this logic I could surmise that b/c Francis Collins suggests DNA is and does evolves means it must be true, but this too is a logical fallacy. Facts determine what is and what isn’t, not a persons personal views on the matter.

    Who is the scientist in this conversation, I notice you left the name simply as ‘scientist’. ‘Ok, so he’s a molecular biologist, or so we’re told, but what’s his name? and why does he go by 'J', what, does he work at the' Men in Black'?

    Again I ask, please explain how such evidence as provided earlier by me can be explained by the notion of ID. Explain it using the ‘designer did it’ hypothesis and in a scientific manner. Good luck.


    “Let the students decide each of the merits based on the facts and reasoning’

    So let me get this straight. You would be open to teach both sides, in everything then? Should we teach both sides in classes in regards to astronomy and astrology? Or in chemistry and alchemy? Should we teach both sides with regards to the outcome of such well-known events like the Civil War, or the Holocaust and simply just leave it up to the kids to decide? Would you be open to churches doing this type of ‘teach the both sides’ by teaching Christianity alongside numerous other religions?

    Does it sound logical or reasonable to simply ‘let the kids decide’ in matters of scientific accuracy instead of the current method where only the BEST supported theories which are supported are facts, heavily critiqued and tested are to be taught? You want kids to decide, kids who lack the very basic understandings on how to determine if something is or isn’t scientific, that’s not very smart. The professors and experts as they battle it out to support theories are those we should teach in classes.

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I suppose AOX, that I really want to know if the issue with evolution is really the thin edge of the wedge, if it starts with evolution and then moves on to other scientifc matters in the classroom.
    Steve

  • Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    HAWK

    What does this article with J prove?

    All it says is that a journalist has an interview with J (a molecular biologist) who has a particular point of view, we know nothing about J what so ever etc...

    Can you come up with something better?

    Steve

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links