Louisiana's state senate unanimously voted to pass a landmark academic freedom bill that would protect the right of teachers to discuss scientific theories supporting and critiquing evolution.
"This is great news for the science teachers in public school classrooms in Louisiana, and it's great news for science education in the whole State of Louisiana," said Wade Warren, professor of Biology and Cavanaugh Chair in Biology at Louisiana College, according to the U.S. think tank Discovery Institute. "Not all DNA and fossil evidence support a Darwinian view of life. This bill gives teeth to the freedom of a public school science teacher to ask their students to objectively analyze the scientific data."
The state senate on Monday approved the Louisiana Science Education Act 36-0 after the bill passed the House of Representatives last week with a 94-3 vote. The bill encourages "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."
Teachers would also be allowed to use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students "understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."
As the bill awaits final approval by Gov. Bobby Jindal, opponents are protesting the measure, claiming it is a "disguised attempt" to get intelligent design and creationism into public school science classes, as the Louisiana Coalition for Science alleges.
Alan Lesher, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest scientific society, challenged the academic bill, saying it implies there is a controversy about evolution among scientists.
"But there is virtually no controversy about evolution among the overwhelming majority of researchers," Lesher, also executive publisher of Science journal, wrote earlier. "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.”
Lesher also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court already declared a Louisiana "creation science" law unconstitutional in 1987.
As the academic freedom bill made its way through the house and senate this month, the Discovery Institute, which advocates intelligent design, has cautioned against "false claims" that the academic freedom bill would permit the use of religious materials in science classes.
The measure specifically states 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."
Opponents at the Louisiana Coalition for Science still say the proposed law is in clear violation of the Establishment Clause contained in the Constitution, which prohibits sectarian doctrine, and that the aforementioned disclaimer "sidesteps" that violation.
Casey Luskin, an attorney and program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute, defended the bill's constitutionality, noting that "the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that it is permissible for schools to teach scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories."
Comments
ccccccc
Please know that first I respect your service to our country. Secondly know that such service does not give you the right to call others (many who have also served) disloyal just because they disagree with you.
Also please know that I am sorry for what ever pain and anguish you have suffered in your life that has driven you to such in your own words "hatred".
Perhaps you could actually read the posts your reacting to and find that not everyone is your enemy. You might also think about how effective it has been in your life when people have attempted to convince you of something by belittling and insulting you. As a person who accepts the scientific validity of the theory of evolution and simultaneously the existence of a transcendent reality I find that your comments only serve to eliminate the possibility of open discourse and the acceptance of the theory of evolution.
It is unfortunate that the actions you take clearly harm the chances of acceptance of the position you claim to advocate.
cccc... despite your perpetual ranting I will take the risk of once again posting to you as if you were a rational person. It seems that in making your posts you do not even take the time to read what is written before you lash out. You may note that as soon as I saw that your posts to me had been flagged I posted to you on the 29th at 2:01 am stating my position on censorship and in fact urging others not to flag your comments.
You may also note that I have persistently defended science, the scientific method and the theory of evolution. Further you will note if you bothered to check that on multiple other threads I have persistently defended the right of individuals to freedom of speech and all other constitutionally protected rights.
My point in stating this is not to assert my virtue but rather to point out as others have that your wild generalizations and emotional outbursts are proven as unfounded and inconsistent with (ironic as it might seem) an evidence based belief system. Maybe you could spend some time reflecting on what drives you to abandon rational discussion and scientific methodology in this debate about a scientific subject.
cccccc,
If you are not going to contribute to the intelligent discussion (such as between steveh2o + viking, why post? When you continue to repeat the same childish venom + foolish claims ("Every biologist in the world would agree with me.") after being given proof to contrary, you only make yourself look bad.
The creationists who flag my comments accomplish two things. They prove to me that they are idiots, and they make me hate them even more than I did before.
The existence of creationists is an insult to hundreds of thousands of scientists. To be a creationist, a person has to believe all scientists are liars. The creationists owe scientists an apology.
viking, what would you call a flat-earther? Probably you would just ignore him. What if there were millions of flat-earthers and they demanded that science teachers teach their students the earth is flat. That's might make you mad enough to call them morons, and of course they are morons.
Now maybe you understand why I have no respect for creationists, especially creationists who want to force their stupidity into science education.
Every biologist in the world would agree with me. Creationists and flat-earthers are equal, equally stupid.
If you have a problem with that, instead of complaining about it, for God's sake why don't you educate yourself? Your belief in magical creation is disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.
viking: "It is unfortunate that the level of debate and discussion that some can muster consists of a retreat into name calling when they encounter things that are beyond their knowledge, or experience. apparently its difficult for some to discern the difference between the easter bunny and Descartes."
viking, it's unfortunate that creationists (was it you?) like to censor people who they disagree with. What's the problem? Why are creationists so cowardly? What are they afraid of? I thought here in America we have freedom of speech. The creationists don't respect any part of the First Amendment, do they? They don't respect the Establishment Clause and they don't respect freedom of speech. I didn't serve in the US Army so some creationist traitor could censor my comments.
By the way, viking, there is absolutely no difference between the easter bunny and your magical sky fairy. They both have an equal amount of evidence, none. And they both are ideas for children or for adults who don't want to grow up.
200 years ago it was normal to be a creationist, but today creationism is a mental illness. A creationist has to have no desire to learn anything. He has to have no desire to think. He has to have a strong desire to live in a fantasy world. A creationist has to be too cowardly to accept reality. A creationist has to be brainwashed. To be a creationist it helps a lot to be stupid. And definitely a creationist has to be insane. These people think a magical fairy made millions of different creatures out of nothing. They are willing to ignore mountains of evidence to believe this childish insanity. I just can't imagine anyone more hopelessly out of their minds than the creationists.
Another problem creationists have is their strange desire to stick their breathtaking stupidity into science education. It's obvious these people are terrified of evolution. In Florida where I live we have brand new science standards for our public schools that make evolution one of the big ideas of science. Before the word "evolution" wasn't even in the science standards. We used to have the worst science standards in the nation, and now we have perhaps the best science standards in the nation. This is good, right? Of course it's good, but the creationists in Florida went nuts. They couldn't stand the idea that biology was going to be properly taught for the first time in Florida's history. Throughout Florida pastors and preachers and other religious idiots complained constantly about the new science standards. The Florida State Board of Education unsuccessfully tried to destroy the new standards, then our moron Florida politicians unsuccessfully tried to destroy the new standards with the same kind of bill which was passed in Louisiana.
What's the problem with creationists? Why are they so afraid of science? And why are they so proud of their stupidity? When will they learn to respect the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Will creationists ever grow up? I doubt it.
Another problem creationists have is their love for censorship. Nobody loves to censor the truth more than the creationists, which is exactly what I would expect from the most cowardly people in the world.
Thanks viking
They seem quite consistant to me, our basis for understanding the world arises from evolutionary processes that have produces a brain which is able to understand the world about it in a way that for instance by cat does not. Its not a step up or anything like that, its just another step in the eveolutinry process.
I think that philosophy whilst useful can sometimes tie itself up in knots, the world has moved on since Kant (how many catergories?) and Hegal but still philosphers (maybe not so much these days though) debate this subject.
An earlier thought therefore is that the arguement for Gods existenece just gets more complex as time goes on, it is beyond the grasp of the "man in the street", why do you think that is.
Steve
Hi Steve,
I guess the way I think about this is that for everyday situations a common sense understanding of Mind and rationality works just fine in the same way that Newtonian physics works just fine most of the time. The problem is that when you push reductionist materialism to its logical conclusions in relation to Mind and Reason it becomes apparent that under this world view framework these concepts are illusionary. While the roots of this problem in recorded history go back to Aristotle things really got going in a formal analysis way with Hegel and Kant during the early 18th century. Of course there are significant bodies of scholarly study around the issue of the competing philosophical models of materialism and idealism. I am not suggesting that philosophy has a definitive proof of one understanding of reality over another. Rather I am pointing out that the fundamental assumptions of science and our common sense understanding of Mind and Reason break down and are ultimately not logically consistent with reductionist materialism.
I am also pointing out that serious and rigorous philosophical study can lead to a logical conclusion that rejects materialism as an inadequate world view to understand such experienced phenomena as Mind and Reason. This means that far from being equivalent to a belief in the Easter Bunny a view of reality which admits something beyond nature is logically and rationally valid.
ccc...,
Just wanted you to know that I did not flag your comments. while I might deplore the level of discussion sunk to when name calling becomes the mode I never flag comments directed at me regardless of the content. While I may oppose the substance with all my power I defend the right of you or anyone to say it to me. The only exception I make is when illegal, racist, etc comments are made regarding innocents such as Children. Further I would urge others to leave such posts as ccc's unflagged in that the posts themselves are the best evidence of the paucity of the arguments of such a commentator.
hi steve got to go right now will be back with I hope will be clearer speech on this later.
It is unfortunate that the level of debate and discussion that some can muster consists of a retreat into name calling when they encounter things that are beyond their knowledge, or experience.
apparently its difficult for some to discern the difference between the easter bunny and Descartes.
It must just be me, but the way I see it is that the ability to understand the world to rationalise it is simply part of our evolution, with no need to appeal to anything outside of it. I know its a really simple statement but it seems really obvious to me when I think about it. As I wrote it must just be me.
What I find really interesting is that arguaments for God seem to be so complicated these days.
Steve
Hi steve,
What these philosophers are demonstrating is that the logical extension of pure materialism or naturalism is a conclusion that what we refer to as mind and rationality is in actuality just an illusion. That the common sense understanding of such are in actuality just physiological states and have no inherent validity.
This demonstrates that a purely naturalistic philosophy or belief system is fundamentally self defeating and internaly inconsistent. Since naturalism is exemplified by the scientific method (by the way no I support the SM strongly) the capacity for rationality is fundamentally necessary for naturalism to be valid. But naturalism itself taken to its logical end denies the capacity of rationalism as an illusion.
The alternative is that rationalism itself is like the properties of numbers and fundamental rules of logic not a contingent phenomena. If human beings have the capacity for rationality (in a formal sense not just sensory informed self interest behavior patterns imitating rationality) then by the rules of naturalism this can not arise from nature. If it does not arise from nature then whence does it come. For convenience sake we call this source supernature (not meaning ghost and goblins etc. but rather beyond or outside of the natural universe). This demonstrates to many that Science far from being antithetical to a belief in something beyond nature actually requires it for its underlying assumptions to be valid (though as AO has repeatedly correctly point out science has no capacity for examining questions realated to Supernature such as the existence of God)
viking
I enjoy reading your posts but have to on this occasion ask if it would be possible to have the below in plain english, I can't make head or tail of it.
Regards
Steve