I got an email from a lefty friend of mine titled “Emergency Help Requested In Louisiana”. The help requested? Send letters to Bobby Jindal decrying this bill and asking him not to sign it.
Frankly, considering the gaps in macro-evolution theory, science either needs to admit this theory is not perfect and “we just don’t know” or make room for other ideas. But, in liberalism in its current form, there is no room for other ideas. Darwinism is the underpinning for the ideological left, meaning that if we can perfect our environment, we can perfect man.
I’ve known too many people to believe we can ever perfect man.
Drell's Descants 
Critics of this bill are correct that there is a religious motivation, but that is because the citizens of Louisiana are deeply religious. They want something to balance the religiously taught evolutionary views in their schools.
The classroom is the right place for this debate, but problems will arise when teachers take sides instead of presenting the various views objectively. Evolutionary theories are often refuted by one of 2 simple facts. The same goes for young earth creationism, which is based on a false reading of Genesis. See http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/04/bishop-usher-goofed.html
In my opinion, since this is really a metaphysical discussion, it should be moved from the Science classroom to the Philosophy classroom. Unfortunately, Philosophy is almost never offered in public schools, must less required.
There are serious flaws with ID and with the overall framework of evolution. The flaws are most apparent when looking at the evidence concerning human communities and their very early (80,000 to 100,000 years) technologies and enterprizes. Evolutionists therefore tend to concentrate on animals, plants and geological changes.
This school year I substititue taught for a biology teacher in a public school. He is a Bible-believing Christian and I asked him how he handles the evolution-creation debate. He said that he focuses on what is verifiable change over time, but his students generally think that science has proved that humans evolved from apes. He points out that there is no physical evidence to prove this. I asked him about the timeline in the textbook. It shows human technology beginning about 20,000 years ago. He had no idea that sophisticated mining operations have been discovered, involving thousands of tools, in the Lebombo Mountains of South Africa, dating to 80,000 years ago. See http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/10/mining-blood.html
Leapin’ lamas of the Bahamas!! How would you like it if I insisted that ‘alternate’ rules for admissability of evidence in court must be taught in law schools, because there’s always “room for other ideas”? How well does that “the Devil made me do it” defense work?
I’m a chemist (biochemistry background) who believes in the “Creator of all that is, seen and unseen”. But neither fundamentalist “Creationism” nor it’s ‘natural’ stepchild “Intelligent Design” have any place in science. To push science beyond it’s limits, into theology, destroys it’s meaning and usefulness. Science cannot tell us ‘all Truth’. Religion cannot tell us how the mitochondria work. Mix them together, and you can’t tell anything.
Of course, gravity is only a theory, but it is taught as fact. Perhaps the legislature will take a look at that while they are at it.
It is also worth noting that an electrical engineer friend told me that his La Tech prof. pointed out that electricity is just a theory. He quoted him as saying, “no one has seen an electron, it could be that it’s not electrons at all, but tiny angels”.
There’s lots of good stuff there for the legislature to get busy on this election year.
But, evolution does not explain everything. There are gaps in the fossil record, and it has yet to explain how life got started. Yet, macro-evolution is accepted as fact rather than theory. Moreover, evolution continually invades the realm of theology through many of its spokespeople insisting on atheism as a tenant behind evolution.
John, moreover, law is the expression of the legislative will. The rules are set by the legislature in Louisiana, and by the Supreme Court with approval by Congress on the federal level. So, what do law schools teach? Whatever the rules actually are. However, evolution is not a rule, it is a theory.
I do agree with you, however, that you shouldn’t mix science into theology or other fields. Tell that to the evolutionists who then mix science into theology (atheism premised on evolution), politics (Marxism premised on evolution), and sociology (Nazism premised on social Darwinism.)
Lefties? You are mixing up science and politics. I’ve been voting Republican most of my life and I completely accept the proven scientific fact of evolution, or what creationist hicks call macro-evolution.
“There are gaps in the fossil record”
So what? The fossils are not necessary to prove all life is related. The newer evidence from molecular biology proves beyond any doubt evolution is a fact, including the fact that chimpanzee apes and human apes are closely related.
Instead of lying about science, and making a fool out of yourself, why don’t you google “evidence evolution” and get to work. Be careful to avoid the liars for Jesus.
You creationist hicks are a disgrace to the human race. You should grow up, educate yourself, and face facts. Animals, including people, were not magically created by the Christian Sky Fairy.
I don’t expect a lazy willfully ignorant everything-is-magic creationist like you to study science. Just keep your breathtaking stupidity out of our schools.
LOL.
Now see there, Brad — I’m certain you’re now convinced by the rational, tightly argued, well-reasoned defense of macro-evolution by your eminently reasonable commenter above Bobxxxx.
RE: “You creationist hicks are a disgrace to the human race. You should grow up, educate yourself, and face facts. Animals, including people, were not magically created by the Christian Sky Fairy.
I don’t expect a lazy willfully ignorant everything-is-magic creationist like you to study science. Just keep your breathtaking stupidity out of our schools.”
With such brilliant discourse, Brad, one wonders how you have withstood the forces of reason and science for so very long. ; > )
Well, Brad, we don’t know everything about anything. But, evolution is a well-tested and proven theory. The only good I see in bobxxxx’ (is quad-x more depraved than xxx?) post is that you check out the basis for this statement. Those who say that atheism is a ‘tenet’ of evolution know nothing about Darwin and the history of the theory. These later ‘philosophical accretions and abstractions’ to the Theory of Evolution are just as ridiculous as those in theology who want to “put God in a box” and tell everybody else ‘this is how He works…and no other way’. Do Einstein, Meiter and Hahn get blamed for the atomic bomb? Do we say their ‘theories’ were wrong because of it?
No, religion cannot determine our science. It can and should inform our decisions on how to use science. But once you admit supernatural causes, whether true or not, into the scientific method, you may as well shut off the Bunsen burner and lock the lab door–you’re done.
On the legal front (which I’m admittedly fairly clueless about…), what if 75% of our legislators believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and wanted the laws to admit ethereal revelations from His Noodly Omniscience into courts, with the same weight and standing as video evidence? Surely you would stand against it, even if you, yourself, were a Noodlite?
We don’t need the expense and embarassment of defending this if the gov. signs it.
John Delmore, there are many evolutionary models, so to speak of evolution as “a well-tested and proven theory” is meaningless. Of which theory are you speaking? You would need to be more specific were we to discuss the merits and weaknesses of evolution.
I’ve always been curious about how Moses knew of the scientific order of creation a few thousand years before Darwin. Let’s see, in short order he tells us that first there was nothing, then a whole lot of something but without order. Then order came to the something, and light appeared (i.e, the Sun reached critical mass and ingnited). Then we get an account that water had to exist, in which the first life forms appeared. Then life moved onto the land and into the air. Last on the scene were humans.
Hmmm. That sounds strangely like a mixture of the Big Bang theory and most of the evolutionary theories I’ve studied.
And no, evolution is not a “proven” theory. There is no such thing. Once “proven” it is regarded as fact. We either have a theory of evolution or we have a fact of evolution.
The only pressing question I have is, Why? Why is this so important? How have evolutionary theories helped mankind? Do we make better telephones with this so-called knowledge? Does it make our government run smoother and reduce corruption? Can it make our streets safer and the pavement last longer?
The only answer I can come up with is that one group wants to silence another, and for no benefit other than silencing. I am the first to criticise the original 1920s (was it the 20s? I forget) legal attempts to silence the evolutionists. That was wrong. It is likewise wrong to swing the pendulum to the other extreme simply because a group of people don’t like to hear what another group of people have to say.
It seems to me the only difference between creationists and evolutionists is causation. That things happened in a certain order we are all in agreement.
Causation and different philosophical lens for viewing reality. Many use evolutionary theory to justify the falleness of Man; “this isn’t sin, this is nature.” Evolution is used as an excuse to overthrow God-established and fixed boundaries in the natural order. Most modern attacks on Christ and the Church, on the Bible’s authority and on the Tradition of the Fathers, is predicated on evolutionary theory or relies on it for support.
The objection to this is not that the theory of evolution is the only explination but that you cannot teach faith and call it science.
The point is that Science, depending on which discipline you employ, doesn’t support the bigger evolutionary view. For example, as humans migrated from Africa and met and married other humans, their DNA should have become more complex. The fact is that Native Americans and Mongolians, both migratory peoples, have much less complex DNA than Africans. This is but one of many facts of Science that don’t align with evolution.
Uh….Go Irish? 😛
Wow. I never imagined this thread would get quite so out of control.
I am not a creationist hick. I do believe in Micro-evolution. I even believe that we are likely related to apes genetically, as well as other animals. I also believe in dinosaurs.
However, evolution has not been tested, as the theory has not been actually observed. Frankly, it is not observable. Someday, I think man will discover something scientifically that will show that evolution didn’t quite have it all figured out as far as how life came into being and how life grew.
I also recently read an article about how it may be possible that some of our genetic material may be from outer space, in that certain elements of our DNA may have arrived on earth via meteorites. Wouldn’t that be something?
My main problem with evolution theory is that is believes we came into being by random chance, survival of the fittest, and so on. I believe that works on a micro scale, but I don’t believe that works on the macro-scale.
Moreover, I do not understand the hostility that not believing in the orthodoxy of evolution engenders. Why am I being called a hick for this post? I’m not sure what the business is about on Noodlites. Sure, I might stand against whatever something is as a bad idea, but I wouldn’t ignore the law either, as legislatures often do ridiculous things all the time. Just look at what Congress recently did with lightbulbs.
Oh, one other point – it is the political left that is up in arms about this bill, and for reasons other than science.
“Of which theory are you speaking? You would need to be more specific were we to discuss the merits and weaknesses of evolution.
Common ancestry and descent with modification are universally accepted. The only controversies involve the relative strength of the numerous observed mechanisms. What alternatives would you have these “academic freedom” bills propose? Where is there an alternative narrative that fits the evidence and, more importantly, who is to decide what constitutes a valid scientific objection to current evolutionary theory? The individual teacher, the Discovery Institute, some Louisiana politicians, you, me? I can guarantee you it would not be even a minor consensus of research biologists.
“For example, as humans migrated from Africa and met and married other humans, their DNA should have become more complex. The fact is that Native Americans and Mongolians, both migratory peoples, have much less complex DNA than Africans. This is but one of many facts of Science that don’t align with evolution.”
This doesn’t make sense on any level. If the ancestral population moved out of Africa, as the genetic evidence shows, where would they find existing populations to breed with? I would think that the older, less isolated populations (i.e Africans) would show more variability.
There is little enough time to teach the basics of evolutionary theory in a high school classroom, let alone respond to every inadequate objection someone dreams up.
From Alice:
“Critics of this bill are correct that there is a religious motivation, but that is because the citizens of Louisiana are deeply religious. They want something to balance the religiously taught evolutionary views in their schools.
…
In my opinion, since this is really a metaphysical discussion, it should be moved from the Science classroom to the Philosophy classroom. Unfortunately, Philosophy is almost never offered in public schools, must less required.”
This just about says it all. I have no problem with Creationism being taught in Philosophy classes, Comparative Religion classes, sociology classes, Literature classes, or any other class where it could conceivably be appropriate. (cover your ears LOL) BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE AND HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE CLASSES. I don’t care what people ‘want’–science is not a popularity contest. Should we teach the ancient Egyptian belief that Atum masturbated the universe into existence if we get enough people who ‘want’ it taught? Would that make it “science”? I hope I know the answer…
Are there problems with evolution? Well, sure: there’s much debate over the mechanisms–natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, genetic drift–these and more are still being investigated. But the overall concept has been ‘proven’ to the satisfaction of hundreds of thousands of researchers over the last 150 years (my assertion, I don’t have ‘hard numbers of researchers’, but it’s gotta be at least a couple of hundred thousand). For the mainstream science line, visit http://www.talkorigins.org/ . You’ll find enough science to keep you busy for years.
Are there problems with the way evolution is taught? Yes. Your example of people thinking that evolution says we “came from apes”, something evolution has NEVER said, is but one example (evolution says that we and apes came from a common ancestor).
But the solution to these problems is not the abandonment of science, which is exactly what teaching ID “as science” would be–the solution is more science and better teaching.
Just so everybody knows what is being discussed as far as showing in a classroom type environment … I’ve posted this video.
The Video – Louisiana Coalition for Science – is afraid of!
You can decide if you think it is something that you would let your child watch.
Thank you, Wayne! That short clip show exactly the kind of ridiculous poofery that should not be allowed in a science classroom.
He start off saying that “as far as anyone can tell” by “reasonable application of logical thought” that it “appears that DNA had to have been designed”. Perhaps he should check out the science journals…
“A Christian and an atheist visit the zoo”??? Jeepers, it even sounds like the start of a bad joke. But science??? He wonders if an antelope can evolve into a giraffe. That’s about as far as it goes…
Then he pitches his book.
Then he demonstrates that random mutation can’t produce a better Google ad than an intelligent designer. I suppose he intends that to mean that random mutation can’t produces a better adapted organism. But he leaves selection entirely out of the equation. Let’s see a demonstration where the ‘non-sensical’ or ‘lethal’ mutations don’t survive, as is the case in real, living organisms.
So which DO you want your children taught? The falsehood that “as far as anyone can tell, DNA had to have been designed”, the bad joke, the book pitch or the irrelevent demonstration?
Where is the science?
Come on, people! I believe God created everything that is. I don’t know “how”, and I don’t look to science to find out. Do you know “how” Christ is present in the consecrated Host? Do you think science can tell you? Will going to the communion rail help you make a new polymer? Design a new drug?
In the begining God created……works for me and nothing else is needed.
RE: “I have no problem with Creationism being taught in Philosophy classes, Comparative Religion classes, sociology classes, Literature classes, or any other class where it could conceivably be appropriate. (cover your ears LOL) BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE AND HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE CLASSES.”
Oh I think Alice Linsley is just fine with that. But her point was that she thinks that evolution should be taught in Philosophy classes as well . . . since it isn’t “science” either but merely a philosophical theory.
Sarah, with all respect, those who think the ToE is ‘merely philosophical theory’ are simply wrong. As are those who try to frame it as a ‘religion’.
RE: “Sarah, with all respect, those who think the ToE is ‘merely philosophical theory’ are simply wrong.”
I’m sure that you think so, John. But with all due respect, those who think that way have failed to make their caes to many many many people, unlike, you know, those who believe the laws of gravity, medicine, the periodic table, and such. There is very little resistance to those beliefs in the US [some “tiny minorities”], but immense resistance to ToE, in fact, more than I had dreamed, even a year ago. I recently read a poll of students in a secular school and I was stunned that the majority casually believed that ToE was simply false and went on with their lives and studies. And it extends beyond undergrad — my father had a major in chemistry, went on to med school and is a successful physician with two additional board certifications in specialties — doesn’t believe in ToE. My brother — quite easily — finished his PhD in chemistry at the University of Chicago . . . never needed ToE in his research or teaching — and he did both, on scholarship — doesn’t believe in ToE.
Fact is . . . the reason why there’s so much shouting from the ToE crowd is that they’re quite conscious of how they failed in convincing a whole lot of quite educated — and secularly so — people who simply don’t believe it . . . and the ToE folks are frustrated.
Hence the shouting and name-calling, as with Bobxxxx. That and, of course . . . it’s Deeply Deeply Deeply Important that everyone believe in evolution — or at least be quiet about their non-belief — and it’s vexing when folks don’t believe things that are Deeply Deeply Deeply Important . . . like, you know . . . religious beliefs and foundational worldviews and such . . . ; > )
If evolution and intelligent design are competing theories, perhaps we should ask what predictions does each theory make with respect to body of evidence in the natural world.
When we examine the fossil record and the molecular biology record, does intelligent design make any predictions that can be used to prove it true or false?
Does intelligent design explain any aspect of the natural world better that current evolutionary theories?
If a theory doesn’t make predictions that can be tested, it’s not a useful scientific theory.
If a theory cannot be tested (e.g. proven true or false), it’s not a useful scientific theory.
If intelligent design supporters want to be taken seriously, they need to do the scientific work to support their theories.
Sarah wrote:
-snip-
“Fact is . . . the reason why there’s so much shouting from the ToE crowd is that they’re quite conscious of how they failed in convincing a whole lot of quite educated — and secularly so — people who simply don’t believe it . . . and the ToE folks are frustrated.”
Sarah,
The problem here is one for the folks who are promoting intelligent design (ID) theories as potential replacement for evolutionary theories.
As you may well know, the word “theory” when used by scientists doesn’t mean the same thing as “theory” when used by laypersons.
For those working in science, a theory is a testable model of the natural world that is capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.
In this specialized usage, “theory” isn’t the opposite of “fact.”
For the scientist, theory is framework that is used to explain the facts we know today and to also provide clues for potential new facts that scientists may learn from nature.
A non-biological example is the theoretical prediction of cosmic microwave background radiation — the theoretical physicists made a prediction that an echo left over from the Big Bang would be present.
In the 1960s, this prediction was accidentally confirmed by two Bell Labs physicists who were attempting to track down the source for background noise in a microwave radio antenna.
So — what facts in the natural world are better explained by ID theories than evolutionary theories? What predictions does ID theory make that a future scientist can discover to confirm ID theory?
One final thought — for Louisiana’s future in high-tech biological industries, do you think a state government move towards supporting ID theories will help us or hurt us economically?
From where I’m sitting as a Louisiana parent (one teen, one young adult), this proposed law will hurt us educationally and economically. It tells the rest of the world that we don’t value reason or science.
If I were a high-tech biological research firm, would this make me more or less likely to consider Louisiana as a business location?
Sarah, I too get very frustrated when this subject degenerates to shouting and name calling (this ain’t my first rodeo). There’s no need for it. But the fact is that people do hold things “Deeply Deeply Deeply Important”, and their reasons are not all the same. Personally, it’s not important to me whether everyone [i]believes in[/i] ToE or not. I don’t hate Creationtists for their ‘blasphemy’ or just wish they’d ‘just shut up’. I do know that their beliefs are not science–and therefore do not belong in a science classroom. And, while your brother may be well-insulated from any application of ToE, your father uses the benefits and proceeds of it every day in his practice, whether he “believes in it” or not.
That’s because ToE is the very foundation of modern biology and all the benefits derived from such disciplines that Darwin could hardly have imagined as biochemistry, bioinformatics, disease and pest management in both medicine and agriculture, and gene therapy. The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering.
This isn’t about “my beliefs are ‘better’ than your beliefs”. This is about what science is (and is not) and whether it, and the benefits derived, is important and desireable.
Wayne from Jeremiah Films,
Thanks for posting that. I see what we are dealing with.
No, I would not let my children see it. It is deeply flawed logically, and will not be a part of my children’s education.
Louisiana can’t afford to move forward with this sort of thing.
Please stop.
Please.
I’m not against teaching ID and evolutionaru models in the philosophy classroom. I am against teaching an inaccurate interpretation of Genesis, such as in “young earth” creationism.
“Someone, somewhere, sometime did something for no apparent reason” is not even a ‘model’, in the scientific sense. ToE, warts and all, is science. ID is not.
Even ID proponents get it wrong when the claim to use the scientific method ( http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154 ). Notice that in the first step, observation, they start off with “The ways intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described.” This assumes the causal agent putatively to be hypothesized and tested later. It is not consistent with science.
RE: “A non-biological example is the theoretical prediction of cosmic microwave background radiation — the theoretical physicists made a prediction that an echo left over from the Big Bang would be present.
In the 1960s, this prediction was accidentally confirmed by two Bell Labs physicists who were attempting to track down the source for background noise in a microwave radio antenna.”
Now see, that’s an excellent example of an untestable theory — the theory being that the Big Bang caused the cosmic microwave background radiation. But in fact, making a hypothesis that 1) there was a Big Bang and 2) if there was, there would be cosmic microwave background radiation no more “proves” or even tests the Big Bang theory than my making a hypothesis that 1) the color Blue is really the Higher Power that we’ve all been looking for and thus, 2) if the color Blue is indeed the Higher Power we’ve all been looking for there would be more of the color Blue in the world than any other color, [see the sky]. It proves — and tests — precisely nothing other than a correlation, which of course does not imply causality.
RE: “So — what facts in the natural world are better explained by ID theories than evolutionary theories? What predictions does ID theory make that a future scientist can discover to confirm ID theory?”
As with the theory of evolution there would certainly have to be masses of scientists working on the basis of the ID theory to determine that. But even then ID is not actually a testable theory, and thus is unprovable in the scientific world — as is ToE, since we can only predict correlations, not actually test it in a controlled environment.
RE: “One final thought — for Louisiana’s future in high-tech biological industries, do you think a state government move towards supporting ID theories will help us or hurt us economically?”
I’m expecting you don’t know economic development or corporate recruitment that well. The high-tech biological industries will no more make their decisions based on the teaching of ID as a theory in public schools than they will make their decisions on how many Baptists there are as a percent of the population. Somehow I suspect that the high-tech biological industries will be basing their decisions on incentives, tax rates, quality of life for basing their workers, infrastructure, and hosts of other things about which [ahem] Louisiana will need to worry.
RE: “That’s because ToE is the very foundation of modern biology and all the benefits derived from such disciplines that Darwin could hardly have imagined as biochemistry, bioinformatics, disease and pest management in both medicine and agriculture, and gene therapy. The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering.”
Well, no, it’s not. One of my other brothers majored in biology then went on to med school [a practicing physician now]. All that ToE does is offer a possible explanation for the facts observed in genetic science like mutation, inheritance, selection, and crossover. But there are, of course, plenty of other explanations for “the movement and development of genes”, which my brother can use as explanatory. The use of math equations based on the ToE explanation for already observable data does not “prove” ToE either.
In short, there’s no reason for anyone to hold to ToE in order to be a perfectly acceptable and successful scientist either in the pure sciences or the applied sciences.
And now I see that we have veered into the debate over ToE versus [whatever other explanation people wish to use as their foundational worldview] and I find such debates tedious and boring, since what would have to change for the various sides to actually reach an agreement would, in fact, have to be a Deeply Deeply Important Foundational Worldview no matter the side.
I don’t hold a brief for ID — don’t particularly care about it, nor wish it to be implemented. Since nobody has to actually believe any of those theories of origins in order to be a great scientist, I can’t actually get worried about it one way or the other.
It’s been real and . . .
Cheers,
Sarah
“Now see, that’s an excellent example of an untestable theory — the theory being that the Big Bang caused the cosmic microwave background radiation. But in fact, making a hypothesis that 1) there was a Big Bang and 2) if there was, there would be cosmic microwave background radiation no more “proves” or even tests the Big Bang theory than my making a hypothesis that 1) the color Blue is really the Higher Power that we’ve all been looking for and thus, 2) if the color Blue is indeed the Higher Power we’ve all been looking for there would be more of the color Blue in the world than any other color, [see the sky]. It proves — and tests — precisely nothing other than a correlation, which of course does not imply causality.”
Well, I think Sarah’s bailed, but I must point out why this ‘reasoning’ is incorrect. As presented here, both ‘theories’ are mere tautology. But the presentation doesn’t reflect reality. In the “Blue Power” case, what’s presented is about all you can say–I say there is a “Blue Power”, so if there’s a lot of blue, it must be true. It would be the same thing as saying “There’s a lot of blue, so blue is obviously ‘special’, and therefore must be the ‘higher power'”. Which is no more than paganism.
On the other hand, the BBT was proposed to fit observed data–like the Hubble distribution, the Redshift Distance Law, Einstein’s General Relativity and the general expansion of the known universe–and was found to predict an unobservable (at the time) consequence: the cosmic microwave background. It was nearly two decades before the technology was available to ‘see’ this radiation, but it was confirmed. That’s a lot different than saying “There was a big bang that would have caused this radiation, this radiation exists, therefore the big bang is true”–which would be comparable to Sarah’s “Blue Power” scenario.
Intelligent Design is just another name for bad theology parading as science. It simply is NOT science … and is not accepted as science by ANY serious scientist.
Although I appreciate the concerns of… ? (that alone merits some discussion) I must respectfully disagree with the excellent Brad Drell here.
The problem it seems to me is [i]what exactly would the implications/results of this law be?[/i] To whit…
1) Teacher presents “evidence” (and how much of this alleged evidence stands up to scrutiny? some perhaps but not all or even most) that somehow challenges evolutionary theory. Or say the idea that previous life forms “evolved over time”.
2) **This is the kicker***. Okay what then? If evolutionary theory is in (y)our opinion inadequate to explain, then what is the alternative? I have yet to hear a single supporter of this law give a straightforward answer to this question: [b]What alternative theories/explanations would then be discussed that are not religious?[/b] (Besides extraterrestrials – which only begs the question.)
3) So far as I can tell the instant you supply “evidence” to challenge or discuss “alternative explanations” you cannot do anything but present religious ideas as scientific explanations. I am still waiting for supporters of this law to demonstrate otherwise.
4) How many people who testified in favor of SB 733 were not Christians? were not evangelical Christians? were not evangelical Christians who believe in creationism? Hmm? Is there anyone who is not a Christian who likes this law? If not – what does that suggest?
5) To a scientist who said “I might need to leave Louisiana because of the widespread hostility to science” one of the committee members retorted “I am not going to give up my belief just to keep some scientist here”. Excuse me “belief”? Which belief?
6) The, uh, evolution of this law from who first proposed it to who sponsored it to how it changed back and forth alone make painfully clear what the underlying agenda is [i]despite[/i] the alleged safety of the legal language (contra that law prof up in Shreveport).
7) I acknowledge and understand concerns about how “well gee whiz atheism is being taught in the form of evolutionary theory”. It is unclear to me that the way to address alleged anti-theistic statements in a public school classroom is… well… getting pro-theistic statements in there.
8) I recite the Apostles’ Creed each day from my BCP and my religious interpretation of the biological evidence is that there is an intelligent designer behind it all. I am not a “lefty” thank you Brad. But what I believe is not the issue. The issue is whether this law is fair and just.
9) Oh – the smoking gun in my opinion is the list of example issues to be discussed (evolution, origins of life, global warming, cloning) but the one that really raises a red flag is actually… no not “evolution”… but “cloning”. Where pray tell in Louisiana science curricula does one discuss cloning? Why would this even get mentioned? What “controversy” is there over cloning – besides its [i]moral[/i] implications? Ding ding ding.
Thank you, I have just been looking for info approximately this topic for ages and yours is
the greatest I have came upon till now. But, what concerning the
conclusion? Are you sure in regards to the supply?