Zack Kopplin is one of those all-too-rare individuals who is willing to spend time and energy to make a difference. As a Baton Rouge high school student, he recognized that the recently passed Louisiana Science Education Act constituted terrible educational policy. His conclusion was certainly not unique in that a host of scientific organizations have made exactly the same determination. The difference between Zack and so many others, though, was his desire to take productive action. I told his impressive story in a recent Huffington Post essay.
Zack's efforts deserve widespread attention and I can think of no better way to help than by providing Zack with a forum to share his thoughts directly with readers. Here's what Zack has to say:
My state is addicted to creationism!Louisiana doesn't remember the lesson it was taught back in 1987 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Edwards vs. Aguillard, invalidated a Louisiana law requiring creationism be taught alongside evolution and ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in public school science classes.
In 2008, the Louisiana Legislature passed a new creationism law, making us second-time offenders. We are the only state with a creationism law on the books.
Named the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), the law pretends to promote critical thinking. In reality, though, it is stealth legislation designed to sneak the unconstitutional and unscientific teaching of creationism or its offshoot, intelligent design, into public school science classes.
Because the Edwards decision established that creationists cannot legally foist their religious views on public school students directly, the creationist zealots are now trying misdirection. Their new legislation employs code language like "critical thinking" and "teaching the alternatives" in order to pretend to be promoting something noble. But creative language doesn't change the fact that they are simply pushing their religious agenda into the science classroom.
And LSEA doesn't change educational and scientific realities.
- Teachers are already supposed to teach critical thinking.
- There are no scientific alternatives to evolution.
The sole purpose for the Louisiana Science Education Act is to insert creationism into a public school science classroom.
Even as the bill's proponents toss around their education-friendly phrases like "critical thinking," they have on numerous occasions openly identified the true aim of the law: to teach creationism as science.
Senator Ben Nevers, the sponsor of the Senate version of the LSEA said,The Louisiana Family Forum suggested the bill ... They believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory.Jan Benton, the Livingston Parish School Board Director of Curriculum, also openly admitted to her board that the law's purpose was to allow "critical thinking and creationism" in science classes.
If these so-called "leaders" were serious about academic freedom, they would not have scrapped the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education's original rules about implementing the LSEA which expressly prohibited the teaching of creationism because it lacks scientific merit.
The true intent of this law, rather than the rhetoric associated with it, is clear; sneaking unconstitutional and unscientific creationism into public school science classrooms.
This hurts Louisiana kids. We want jobs, but if we are taught creationism, we will not get them. There are no creationist jobs. Check any major job finding sites like Monster or CareerBuilder, and they will tell you, sorry, there are zero creationist jobs. On the other hand, if you search those sites for biology, you will find over a thousand jobs. Louisiana students need to be taught evolution, not creationism, to get jobs.
This law is also hurting Louisiana tourism, which is one of Louisiana's most important industries. Louisiana's anti-science reputation is scaring away major science conventions which bring thousands of people and millions of dollars to our state. One organization, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology actually pulled a convention that was scheduled for 2011 as a protest. Others are simply looking elsewhere when they're considering locations.
Louisiana wants to develop a 21st century biomedical industry through the New Orleans Bio District and the Shreveport Biomedical Research Foundation. But Louisiana's reputation has created a negative business environment that is chasing away scientists and entrepreneurs. Louisiana won't be able take a place at the forefront of the biomedical industry if we don't repeal this law.
Louisiana's creationism law must go. It is killing Louisiana jobs and hurting Louisiana kids.I'm a senior at Baton Rouge Magnet High and I'm leading an effort to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act. I encourage everyone who cares about education to help out by joining the repeal's Facebook page and by going to www.repealcreationism.com to get involved. Invite your friends to join us.
If enough of us care, we can help Louisiana kick its addiction and join the modern world.
As I wrote at the outset, Zack Kopplin is an impressive individual. I hope his passion resonates with many of you and that his words spur you to action. Although Zack's battle is over one awful Louisiana law, he is fighting for all of us who care about high quality science education. As amazing as it might seem in this, the second decade of the 21 century, nine creationist bills have already been introduced in various U.S. state legislatures. Help fight this madness.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
High-school student fights to repeal Louisiana creationism law ...
Repealing the Louisiana Science Education Act - Creationism in ...
Creationist rumblings in Louisiana | NCSE
Louisiana School District Flirts with Creationism | Center for Inquiry
School Board might OK teaching creationism | News | 2theadvocate ...
Sunday.
This is why from a scientific standpoint they are doomed to failure, as they never learn from the mistakes of their predecessors and so all they can hope for is to continually apply political pressure on local school boards rather than presenting a valid scientific case to support their position. But then, both sides already know creationists don't have a scientific case and never have. They couldn't care less about science and to them that's not what this is all about. And this is why they never understand why they always lose.
Not quite the same as the s**ts and giggles we get from Rasmussen - Gallup is definitely closing in on that level of notoriety.
"Thus living substances and nonliving materials of the earth have a close relationship. To distinguish one from the other we must consider the differences in ORIGIN, chemical composition, structure, and function... Life is SELF-perpetuating. Life arises from LIFE. Biologists call this the principle of biogenesis". p. 18 ibid
"Certainly, living organisms have NOT arisen suddenly from non-living materials. LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE."p. 19
Then, to show how ignorant science and man was about this, it goes on to say, "Would it surprise you to learn that this concept of biogenesis is a rather recent concept?" p. 19 Yes, because real science discovered it. Now, a-theists must try to negate it, for they know evolution falls on this one point alone. And, they cannot, and have not been able to break this law of "nature".
How do you decide what is alive ? A very big microscope ?
I agree that life arrives from life but like to add that also "life creates" ,no deity required.The living matter provides its own "evolution" and ,intelligently ! Example :check out the hela cells, they even know how not to die !!
A living creature is composed of living cells,bacteria,water,you name it.These cells and bacteria, before they ever got lumped together to form, say a human,lived by themselves for millions of years and are therefore quite capable to fend for themselves (eat,reproduce,fight,think,communicate ,create and what more)
Dead material is really only "dead", as per our definition of being "dead" It normally decays,thereby creating something else.Obviously it was not really dead.
In the end,this does not scientificly exclude a creator. But raises doubt about setting all this up sitting on a flat earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
The Urey-Miller experiments demonstrated, in 1953, that amino acids could form from non-living materials that occur on Earth. In 2008, reanalysis of their the materials from their original experiment using more advanced technologies found even more amino acids than were found in 1953. In the past few months additional research using a modified form of the Urey-Miller experiment that accounts for the influence of volcanic activity found even more amino acids. Although these experiments have not demonstrated the development of life from non-living materials they do demonstrate that the building blocks of life can be formed from non-living materials.
Why do you write atheist with a hyphen? What is its significance and what differentiates atheist from a-theists?
The rejection of creationism is the rejection of a real, influential, personal, and powerful God.
So I must want to say I am very proud of Zack Kopplin and his standing up for what is right and conforming to reality. And, thanks again, Dr. Zimmerman for fighting the good fight.
Another helpful thing was that I took an overseas job (hence the internet problem) and my long and continued absence from church naturally added and abetted the process of serious critical thinking about YEC and Evangelicalism.
I know two types of creationists. The "Intelligent" kind, who understand evolution and science, do not deny the world is billions of years old, and believe that a creator is as plausible an answer for why we exist as coincidences to an infinite order of magnitude generated by a "big bang" ( IE what existed before the big bang?)
I also know the "dumb" kind. The type who believe that Genesis is to be taken literally, the world was created 6,000 years ago, and Jesus must have buried dinosaur bones to fool us.
Are we railing against both types here?
I abhor the idea of teaching things contrary to proven science (IE carbon dating, half lives, etc), but if Louisiana wants to put a line in their books following the Big Bang that says 'Some people believe that a creator is responsible', let them.
We are talking billions of years ago, and science is constantly discovering new things. Chemists lived with the Bohr model of the atom for about 100 years. Even though it wasn't correct, it still led to many more scientific discoveries.
My favorite question to ask this type of person - and you must ask it very seriously, with no hint of patronization - is " So, do you believe that Jesus rode a dinosaur, or just buried all those bones after the resurrection to mess with the non believers?"
Some of the responses I've received would have been truly youtube worthy.
The "Intelligent" kind---who understand that Genesis is a metaphor, and not literal history---do not need to go to war with Science, in order to hold onto their faith.
The "dumb" kind---who continue to insist that the Bible is inerrant, and that it is an accurate historical and "scientific" record of the Universe---do.
Because their beliefs are so rigid, that if one aspect of them come into question...the whole edifice might come crashing down.
You risk severely handicapping your youth if you don't underpin their education with a strong foundation in the pure sciences -- especially now -- as our work is becoming increasingly more global and our children will have to compete on the world stage.
The vast majority of Americans who are observantly religious, do not need to go to war with Science. As a poster here suggested, they see religion as answering the WHO...and Science answering the "HOW" and the "WHEN". So there is room at their table for both Faith and Reason.
The people who are driving this is a small---but militantly vocal, and highly-poltically (re)active---religious minority, who hold to the doctrine that The Bible is literally true...and innerrant. So---like all rigidly closed systems of thinking---there is no room for any new information to enter. Therefore they perceive Science as an existential threat to their Faith.
When the truth is that it is not. Just their need to for Biblical literalism.
But this group has grown increasingly powerful, politically, and is steadily coming to dominate the Republican Party. Which is why---despite having run on a platform of turning around the economy---most Republican elected officials seem more concerned about reigniting our "Culture War".
Which is these people's OTHER big political issues. As they insist upon making their sectarian understanding of religion, morality, and government the laws of the land....
...and the First Amendment be d*mned.
We do have our share of fundamentalists--especially in the western provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia. In Ontario you will find bible literalists in evangelical sects in small-town Ontario as well as in certain ethnic communities in the larger cities. The latter communities often also being comprised people whose primary language differs from the surrounding community. Canada's population is primarily urban and fundamentalism often withers in heterogeneous populations where encounters with other beliefs are likely.
What is different is that culture war issues have not played a significant role in our political since the 1980s.
For example, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in 2003 that the law defining marriage as being between people of opposite sex was unconstitutional and there was no significant pressure placed on the government to introduce new legislation.
Similarly, in 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to interpret proposed legislation that removed the opposite-sex requirement from marriage and it found that legislation constitutional.
None of the elections since those cases featured same-sex marriage as an issue. In contrast, cultural war issues are still significant issues in US elections.