I salute the thuggishly devious hypocrisy of conservatives.
Should intelligent design be taught in high school. You bet! I've been for it for decades. Topics like creationism and astrology have had a place in Fogelin's Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic throughout it's run of seven editions. It was the text for a class in a gifted children's summer program I worked with back in the '80s.
If critical thinking were actually taught with real-world examples, American children would have a better chance of recognizing unscientific and vacuous arguments. But, of course, we can have nothing of that. The teacher who values his next paycheck will know which way to slant these arguments. The stupid children will have learned nothing of science and critical thinking. At best, Louisiana will have taught the brighter children how better to lie.
Like I say, thuggish. Forcing teachers to promote a dogma over actual education. But deviously "open" because dissecting topics like creationism and astrology in class _could_ be very valuable.
Joining GOP's Bold March Backwards, Bobby Jindal and Louisiana Democrats Pass "Stealth Creationism" Education Bill
While American progressives propose forward-looking plans for improving American public education, whole sectors of America nonetheless stubbornly persist in a bold march backwards. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has just given a green light for a new, national "Stealth Creationism" initiative by signing into Louisiana state law a "stealth" Creationism bill, SB 733. [vote this story up on Digg here and here]
Barbara Forrest, author of [with Paul R. Gross] Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design describes the national controversy surrounding the bill in a Thursday, June 26, 2008 Talk To Action story:
The stealth-creationist SB 733, the "Louisiana Science Education Act," which in its pre-amended version as SB 561 was entitled the "LA Academic Freedom Act," received final passage in the Louisiana legislature on June 16, 2008, and is now (June 26) on Gov. Bobby Jindal's desk. The governor can either sign it, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it. Gov. Jindal, who in his June 15 appearance on Face the Nation reiterated his previously voiced support for teaching intelligent design (ID) creationism, is expected to sign the bill. At the behest of the LA Coalition for Science, e-mail petitioners from across the country and national scientific organizations have urged him to veto it. Both the New York Times and National Review columnist John Derbyshire have also publicly called for Jindal to veto the bill. Since Louisiana's passage of SB 733 could be a bellwether for such "academic freedom" legislation, advocates for science education and church-and-state separation in other states had better start preparing now.
A June 21, 2008 New York Times editorial noted that "All that stands in the way of this retrograde step is Gov. Bobby Jindal." But, the boyish Louisiana Republican Governor, who has professed his belief in exorcism, was unwilling to stand in the way of SB 733 and, along with Democrats in the Louisiana State Legislature, joined the GOP in its bold march backwards towards the days of when Medieval concepts such as Geocentrism, phlogistan and the "Four Humors" held sway and public witch-burnings were a popular source of village entertainment.
Bill Barrow, writing for The New Orleans Times-Picayune, yesterday, addressed the implications of the new LA education law:
Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act.
Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming.The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the power to prohibit materials, though the bill does not spell out how state officials should go about policing local instructional practices.
A subject of considerable debate, but receiving few "nay" votes, in the legislative session that ended Monday, the bill is lauded by its supporters as a great step forward for academic freedom.
Critics call it a back-door attempt to replay old battles about including biblical creationism or "intelligent design" in science curricula, a point defenders reject based on a clause that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine .¤.¤. or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
The Kitzmiller et. al v. Dover Area School District discredited, shredded even, "Intelligent Design" but ID partisans have managed to get an D bill through the Louisiana state legislature and facts have nohing whatsoever to do with this new efforts that's backed by Christian right heavyweight groups such as child-beating advocate Dr. James Dobson's 200-plus million dollar a year nonprofit Focus On The Family and by key Reconstructionist USD history falsificationist David Barton. SB 733 is about the stealth advancement of theocratic Christian nationalism and it's probably more or less a codification of what's already typically getting taught in Louisiana public schools but the bill will silence a minority at least, of teachers who still pay attention to science rather than push the US even faster down the slope towards developing-world and Third World status by foisting incoherent and Medieval "Intelligent Falling" and "Intelligent Grappling" on America's public school students.
[below: the first segment of a NOVA documentary on the landmark Kitzmiller et. al v. Dover Area School District court case that discredited Intelligent Design and threw it out of Dover, PA public schools. For the other 11 segments (posted on YouTube) see: here]
As Barbara Forrest continues:
"The stealth-creationist SB 733, the "Louisiana Science Education Act," which in its pre-amended version as SB 561 was entitled the "LA Academic Freedom Act," received final passage in the Louisiana legislature on June 16, 2008, and is now (June 26) on Gov. Bobby Jindal's desk. The governor can either sign it, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it. Gov. Jindal, who in his June 15 appearance on Face the Nation reiterated his previously voiced support for teaching intelligent design (ID) creationism, is expected to sign the bill...The bill was sponsored by Sen. Ben Nevers (Bogalusa, LA), who has a history of promoting creationist legislation. In 2003, he introduced his unsuccessful HCR 50 (pdf), which encouraged school systems to "refrain from purchasing textbooks that do not present a balanced view of the various theories relative to the origin of life but rather refer to one theory as proven fact." Like SB 733, this measure was also a stealth creationist bill that would ostensibly promote "critical thinking."
Nevers introduced SB 733 on behalf of the LA Family Forum (LFF), the Louisiana affiliate of Focus on the Family. However, the fact that this bill is the fruit of the collaboration between the LFF and the Discovery Institute (DI), a Seattle think tank that serves as command center of the ID creationist movement, gives this bill national implications. Virtually every significant creationism outbreak in the United States for almost the last decade has been the product of DI's aggressive execution of its "Wedge Strategy" for getting ID into public school science classes. (See Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, 2007.) Typically, as in previous ID flare-ups in Kansas and Ohio, DI operatives arrive on the scene once pro-ID efforts are well under way, assuming a high public profile after the initial spadework has been done by state or local Religious Right groups. DI has run true to form in Louisiana, where its proxy, the LFF, has promoted creationism -- both young-earth and ID (pdf) -- for years in preparation for this year's targeting of Louisiana."[emphasis mine]
[vote this story up on Digg here and here]
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
How come a Governor of one state can make such a big stink? This guy means nothing nationally. I am sure all the good ole boys are for chemical castration until its one of them who gets injected for knocking up their daughter, just as they are all for teaching creationism as long as the doctor who is treating their cancer believes in actual science. As far as exorcism goes, we all know how horrific a possessed teen can be, especially one who makes their bed rise in the air and projectile vomits all over their sheets. Puberty is a bitch.
Mr. Jindal would make the perfect VP choice for the GOP.
That is if they want a similar successor to Cheney, dumb as a doorknob and meaner than a junk yard dog who has not been fed for a few days.
BO has stated he's a Christian. Therefore, he must support Creationism, no?
for an idea to be recognized as a theory, there has to be a way to disprove it.
How do you disprove the idea of creationism?
ID is fiction and should be taught as such.
Wrong. Dead wrong. Totally wrong. Science is verifiable and repeatable by definition. A thory is just a theory, sometimes wrong. So, what you are saying is that to prove intelligent design, we have to disprove the human species exists.
Intelligent design is all around you. Open your eyes.
HuffPost's Pick
You don't understand the first thing about theory.
A theory can never be proved, it can only be disproved.
Like Einstein said about relativity. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. "
Fo ID to be a valid theory there must be a way to disprove it. But you can't.
P.S. Try as they might evolution has not been disproven. The evidence keeps confirming what Darwin first theorized.
In fact the evidence has all gone to show that the predictions of Darwin, who knew nothing about DNA or the mechanisms of genetics, have come to pass.
Listen, the problem with ID is not that it may or may not be true. There are certainly many belief systems in the world about how the earth was created and human life began, and given that they are BELIEF-systems, who are any of us to discredit their validity or value? The problem with ID is that it is a vehicle for teaching CHRISTIAN creationism in public schools in place of science (which is a whole other way of thinking about the world that many people feel is vital for children to comprehend to be functional people in this world). Now, if we are, in addition to biology, to teach creationism, then in order to be constitutional (in my mind) we would have to teach all of the religious ideas of creationism present in US society. I think you would be hard pressed to come up of a coherent curriculum or sufficient class time for that. Plus you might as well just create an extra class called religion, and leave the biology class be. The fact is that no child in public school should have ANY religion crammed down their throat, especially when it is not being balanced by a diversity of perspectives. Cont...
There are many things that I'd prefer be taught in public schools, and there is much that I dread being shoved down my child's throat (teaching that I plan on questioning and undoing through parenting). However, I have the same choices as all of these ID-inclined parents. If I don't like the supposed "ideology" of the public school system, I can home-school, I can send my kid to a private school, or I can work to provide them with a diversity of perspectives in addition to what they learn at school in the capacity of a parent. Public school is inherently a difficult system to manage, because everyone wants something different from it. However, according to the constitution we live in a country that separates church and state, therefore, this kind of curriculum has no place in the public school system. Deal with it.
HuffPost's Pick
According the physicist on the Colbert Report last week one of the big mysteries in astrophysics is that they have added up all the mass in the universe and it does not weigh enough.
They have created a theory about dark matter to account for the discrepency. Except the dark matter appears to be invisible and impossible to measure.
Colbert thought they had just under measured everything. Which the physicist agreed was another theory.
But they are all wrong.
They have forgotten to weigh the turtle on whose back the universe rests.
That's what my religion teaches me. And from now on all public schools should teach my beliefs.
They are true after all. My faith tells me so.
You just cured my atheism... where do I sign up?
I caught the turtle reference.
Pretty fair theory. And just a theory not factual science. I was unaware of your religion, is that the one where turtles are holy? And Colbert is an authority, personally I thought Jay Leno was.
Stephen Colbert is the authority on TRUTHINESS.
The trouble with Darwin or the THEORY of evolution is that people now see that the so called science changes frequently. Hard science by definition is verifiable and repeatable. Evolution is not science despite claims to the contrary. It is only as good as the information we have today.
Creationism and intelligent design does not to be done stealthily. Unless evolution can be brought into the real science fold, such as DNA has, and become verifiable and repeatable , educated people will continue to realize how much evolution lacks as science. It fails the definition of science. This reason alone has turned many to creationism and intelligent design.
Intelligent design is in fact hard science. How else do you explain mathematics? And the order of life, each species in its order. And how two of each (in nearly all cases) were created of all species ? Those are hard science facts, and they existed before modern humans, and evolutionism.
HuffPost's Pick
I see, Az, that you're capitalising the word "theory". That, I assume, is to point out the idea that it is not fact, just a made-up idea.
Somebody needs to explain the scientific use of the word "theory".
Examples....
Your computer works courtesy of lots of tiny transistors which, in turn, work because of quantum THEORY.
Planets and stars eclipse at slightly different times than one would expect because of the THEORY of relativity.
Your coffee stays in the cup because of the THEORY of gravity.
That's right.... gravity is a THEORY. Would you like to put it to the test by stepping off your roof?
All these THEORIES produce repeatable results to experiments, mathematical prediction and consistency. ID has none of these features. I'll see your "hard science" and raise you a THEORY.
DNA was predicted by Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Science is constantly changing as new information becomes available. But none of the evidence devleoped over the past century and a half has disproven Darwin.
As for the rest of the post. You seem to be rather muddled in your thinking.
Am I missing satire here?
Totally bloody worthless. Graduate level study of genetics buries any hint at creationism, or any derivations thereof. Google "bootstrapping genetics" for starters. Or, easier, how about "testicular feminization." Point blank, the Christians want to justify their male dominated power structure of the Bible, while totally ignoring what science continues to discover. Naturally, there are so few religious people who are hard scientists, because the scientific evidence cannot co-exist with such theories. And, even if Darwin conceded he had questions, he wasn't privy to the testing we have now, which only further support many of his writings.
Another Christian hater who forgets nearly all if not all past scientists were practicing Christians in varying degrees. To say different is well, bloody stupid. The bible is a human owners manual, not a male dominated power structure. My oh my, too bloody much indoctrination and no facts.
This type of drivel is what turns educated people into Republicans and Christians.
Hard scientists are indeed Christian and overwhelmingly so in percentage. And Hindu, and several other religions as well. This is a bloody brainless post demeaning the thousands of hard scientists who are Christian who have given us so much. You owe them an apology.
Per your comment, "This type of drivel is what turns educated people into Republicans and Christians," I give you 1 Timothy 2:12, from the Bible (NASV):
"But I [Paul] do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
AzRealProgressive, it is this sort of drivel that drives educated people (women and men) away from Christianity and Republicans.
By the way, how would the Christian categorize a person with androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS)/testicular feminization? Male or female? It makes a difference in the whole 1 man + 1 women marriage debate, no? Note, "women" with AIS cannot bear children, nor do they menstruate. And, they bear a Y chromosome, which carries genes only men have.
Nevermind, I am sure no one of with a religious *agenda* will bother bringing this question to their flock's attention for debate. Too much sticky, analytical, objective thought required of your sheep. And we wouldn't want the sheep to wander, now would we?
BTW, I am not a Christian-hater. Just a B.S. hater. Ideally, there's a difference.
Right, Dr. James Dobson is a Christian and a Scientist. The bible is not an owners manual, (perhaps you would care to point out what page tells me about priapism) it a code of justice designed to control the unruly masses by a handful of power hungry, scared, corrupt and hypocritial liars.
Perhaps you forget that if scientists of the past criticized christianity or God and did not toe the line that the powers that be desired these so called christian scientists were tortured, burned, and derided as heretics.
In a country that is majority christian it is no wonder that they represent the highest numbers of scientists. They also represent the most people who are incarcerated, who rape, who use drugs, who lie, who cheat on their spouses, who have abortions, who do not pay their taxes and so on and so on.
You are so right about the gifts of these scientists without whom we could not have the debate that wastes time, effort and money which of course is the debate surrounding intelligent design. Thank you Christian scientists for not researching cancer, or diabetes or any of the things that could possibly improve our lives instead focusing on an issue that is the epitome of science.
The ironic point is that the Catholic Church has made its peace with Darwin. Darwin DOES NOT specifically prove or disprove God. He only shows that species evolve over time. That is, they ARE HISTORICAL. Big deal. Apparently it is to these literalists. It's so stoooopid. I have lectured on Darwin as part of 19th century history. I do not specifically comment much on the validity of the science BUT I will not broker any pseudo-scientific crap about it, either. Darwin practiced valid science and his breakthroughs continue to be supported if not reinforced right up to this day. I will shut down anyone who suggests otherwise. I won't put up with it. When that student can show me a PhD in evolutionary biology THEN I will listen.
"Believing" or "disbelieving" in Darwin's theory of natural selection (it is not called Darwin's theory or evolution) is like believing or disbelieving in Antarctica. Darwin's concepts are the foundation of modern biology and augment central issues in many sciences. We have antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, for example, that represent fairly straightforward examples of natural selection.
If I were to pick the two scientific concepts with the most supporting evidence, they would have to be Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. To disagree with that is to throw out the mountains of evidence that have been systematically accumulated in both cases. Evidence that has been discovered, peer reviewed, accepted by the scientific community, and published in journals. The sheer weight of these journal articles could be used for comparison to any other scientific concept. If you choose not to buy into the science that's fine but let scientists do their science and don't disrupt the teaching of scientific product or process.
How can a highly developed anatomical part, like an eye, have been created through natural selection? Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Those that believe the earth is 6000 years old run into trouble because they run out of time. Scientists believe that natural selection has had about 1 billion years longer than that to operate.
It is very difficult to find someone who disagrees with Darwin that has actually read Darwin.
Creationists and fundamentalists are a major reason why Europeans consider Americans a bunch of weird nutcakes, though George Bush certainly has not helped to correct this image.
Actually, truly, why does anyone living in Europe, care what Americans think? Millions of Anericans believe the same about Europeans. And could care less.
A post Christian society in Europe does not seem to be working out so hot. And if history is any lesson, the Europeans are of course dead wrong again.
That is why we left there in the first place.
Bobby Jindal has one of the finest minds of the century ... the 14th century.
DARWIN HIMSELF NOTED...
That there were gaping holes in his theory -- specificially, that it is difficult -- even impossible in some cases -- to explain the development of complex and biological structures and behavior by natural selection for advantageous mutations alone. (Some structures, such as the eye or wing would require dozens of such improbable mutations to occur simulataneously in order to be "selected" by natural processes; the development of such structures simply could not have arisen from the kind of incremental evolution that Darwin describes in "The Origin of Species." And contemporary neo-Darwinism does not do much better.)
Thus far, Creationists of the Intelligent Design school are correct. Their truly breathtaking leap of illogic occurs with their "Therefore" Intelligent Design is the ONLY alternative explanantion. Not so fast! The only truly logical conclusion to draw from this gap in evolutionary theory is this. To date, we simply CAN'T EXPLAIN how complex biological structures developed in the first place in order to be "selected for." In fact, not only is Creationism bad science (actually, non-science), it's bad metaphysics as well, and as such was pretty thoroughly refuted by 19th-century philosophers....
The entire "we have no way to explain the complex structures" line is so 50-years-ago.
As a matter of fact, from blind cave fish to light-sensitive patches on flukes, to other apparati at various stages of "sight" throughout the natural world, we have a very good idea of how eyes, lungs, livers, and everything else developed.
Problem is, the Churchpeoples learned the "complex structures" argument and passed it down the line, without examination or revision., and still use it. Science constantly revises itself when new facts come to light through research... research that is often conducted in attempt to disprove an emerging/existing theory! Religion cannot revise itself because it is ideological. It was wrong then, and will continue to be wrong, whereas there is hope for science.
Observation with constant updates is all science really is, and the primitives have so much trouble with that.
This is sure to have the Darwin (and science worshippers in general) in a flaming rage and ready to start a jihad in the courts. Jindal will be their version of Satan.
Posted June 27, 2008 | 11:55 AM (EST)