Creationist bill passed by Louisiana House of Representatives

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moridin
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The Louisiana House has approved a controversial bill allowing science teachers to supplement textbooks with additional materials on topics like evolution and climate change, raising concerns about the potential inclusion of creationism in public school curricula. The bill, which passed with a 94-3 vote, aims to promote critical thinking but has been criticized for potentially undermining scientific rigor by equating scientifically validated theories with non-scientific beliefs. The Senate must approve an amendment allowing the state education board to review materials deemed inappropriate, though it would not require a review of all supplemental content. Critics argue that this legislation could lead to the teaching of anti-scientific ideas alongside established scientific theories, while supporters claim it allows for a more comprehensive educational approach. The discussion highlights the ongoing debate over the separation of science and religion in education and the implications for students' understanding of scientific principles.
Moridin
Messages
692
Reaction score
3
This is bad news.

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-39/1213222164265360.xml&storylist=louisiana

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A proposal that would let science teachers change how they teach topics like evolution, cloning and global warming in public schools was overwhelmingly approved Wednesday by the Louisiana House.

The bill by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, would let teachers supplement school science textbooks with other materials. The House voted 94-3 for the measure.

The Senate already has agreed to the bill, but it heads back to that chamber for approval of a provision that would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to prohibit supplemental materials it deems inappropriate. Nevers said he will ask the Senate to approve the amendment. He stressed that the amendment does not require BESE to review all the materials. The state board would only step in if someone raised a question about whether the material was appropriate.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/LA/95_creationist_bill_passed_by_lou_6_12_2008.asp

On June 11, 2008, with less than two weeks left in the legislative calendar, the Louisiana House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 733, a bill which opens the door to creationism in public school science classes. The bill, sponsored in the House by Rep. Frank Hoffman and in the Senate by Sen. Ben Nevers, purports to "promote[] 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."

The Associated Press (June 12, 2008) reports that "The Senate already has agreed to the bill, but it heads back to that chamber for approval of a provision that would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to prohibit supplemental materials it deems inappropriate. Nevers said he will ask the Senate to approve the amendment. He stressed that the amendment does not require BESE to review all the materials. The state board would only step in if someone raised a question about whether the material was appropriate." Meanwhile, the Alexandria Town Talk (June 8, 2008) observes that "State lawmakers are looking at a hectic two weeks as the 2008 legislative session draws to a close with many major issues yet to be settled." Outstanding legislation includes next year's budget, infrastructure construction bills, a voucher proposal for New Orleans public schools, and other controversial legislation.

I predict that we will be seeing more of these as time goes by.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Finally some equality in the curriculum.
 
Stevedye56 said:
Finally some equality in the curriculum.

Actually, this bill promotes inequality in the curriculum by exposing students to anti-scientific ideas that has not passed the rigor of scientific analysis in the slightest (creationism) and pretending that they are equal to ideas that have passed the rigor of scientific analysis with flying colors (evolution).

Creationism is just as much of alternative to the fact of evolution as Holocaust revisionism is to the fact of history.
 
Stevedye56 said:
Finally some equality in the curriculum.
Sure, it's always wise to balance science with crackpottery. :rolleyes:
 
If creationism can't be taught then why should the big bang be allowed?
 
Doc Al said:
Sure, it's always wise to balance science with crackpottery. :rolleyes:

If that is your take one it then that's fine. However, I disagree even though I am probably the only person in this forum to do so.
 
Moridin said:
Actually, this bill promotes inequality in the curriculum by exposing students to anti-scientific ideas that has not passed the rigor of scientific analysis in the slightest (creationism) and pretending that they are equal to ideas that have passed the rigor of scientific analysis with flying colors (evolution).

Creationism is just as much of alternative to the fact of evolution as Holocaust revisionism is to the fact of history.

Wait wait wait. So the Big Bang HAS passed all of these "tests"..
 
Stevedye56 said:
Wait wait wait. So the Big Bang HAS passed all of these "tests"..

Big Bang? That's a non-sequitur. Big Bang Theory <> Theory of Evolution.

If religion insists on inserting itself into science, we should get equal time. I should be allowed to teach Sunday school (btw, I'm an atheist).
 
I think that a soon as science starts to solve problems that it can't then a debate arises. I pose this question to everyone: What happens with the CERN program if NO new information is found after full operation of the LHC? Is it a dead end? Or, is there a cover made up for why nothing was found?
 
  • #10
Stevedye56 said:
If creationism can't be taught then why should the big bang be allowed?
The former is NOT SCIENCE, the latter IS. In a SCIENCE class you teach SCIENCE. End of discussion.
 
  • #11
Does this mean somebody finally can teach the students what's really true instead of that science nonsense? I mean obviously true stuff like my own theory of the 256-dimensional fairies and the invisible flying juju in the skies.

Stevedye56 said:
If creationism can't be taught then why should the big bang be allowed?

Excellent question, maybe because christian creationism is based on the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days, and is also in the middle of the universe. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the origins of the universe, only how it evolves from a very early stage. And it also doesn't have a pro Human/Earth bias.
 
  • #12
the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old

It does ?
What version?
I have several and I must have missed that tid bit of fact in all of them.
 
  • #13
Gokul43201 said:
The former is NOT SCIENCE, the latter IS. In a SCIENCE class you teach SCIENCE. End of discussion.

Almost agree, that is if science is about falsifiability. The creation "hypothesis" can be considered falsified. But is the big bang falsifiable?
 
  • #14
  • #15
Andre said:
Almost agree, that is if science is about falsifiability. The creation "hypothesis" can be considered falsified. But is the big bang falsifiable?

If red shift was observed not to occur, or if the ultra specific predictions concerning the cosmic background radiation was not confirmed, it would be pretty hard to advocate the big bang.
 
  • #16
Alfi said:
It does ?
What version?
I have several and I must have missed that tid bit of fact in all of them.

It can be calculated from Old and New Testament genealogies. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. Naturally, this data is inconsistent with every dating method that exists.
 
  • #17
Alfi said:
It does ?
What version?
I have several and I must have missed that tid bit of fact in all of them.

ask a young Earth creationist for the details.
 
  • #18
Stevedye56 said:
I think that a soon as science starts to solve problems that it can't then a debate arises. I pose this question to everyone: What happens with the CERN program if NO new information is found after full operation of the LHC? Is it a dead end? Or, is there a cover made up for why nothing was found?

LHC finding nothing that can advance scientific understanding is impossible by definition, since even a failure is information that can be used to advance our evidence-based models to a higher degree of accuracy.
 
  • #19
Andre said:
But is the big bang falsifiable?
At different stages of its development, the theory was falsifiable by different kinds of experiments. With more and more agreement and/or refinements, tests of falsifiability become harder and harder to perform, but are not, in theory, impossible. For instance, the "Big Bang" would have been falsified by observing chemical abundances much different from what we have. But at the same time, there are modifications that the theory is undergoing that refines details about the early universe, and these modifications have come about precisely because earlier explanations of these details have been falsified.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
It's not wether evolution/big bang/climate change is or isn't taught that matters.
(None of these were covered in science when I was at school - it was just learn the periodic table and Newtons laws.)
What is important is teaching kids the idea behind scientific method rather than "because god said so"as the answer to everything.

Otherwise where do you stop? If kids can answer 'it's God's will' to every school science question, can they write that in their degree, when they are in medical school, when they are signing off on a new aircraft design?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
I hope they will teach about Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
  • #22
Borek said:
I hope they will teach about Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The possibility is certainly there.

mgb_phys said:
What is important is teaching kids the idea behind scientific method rather than "because god said so"as the answer to everything.

Yes I agree, that is the most important aspect.
 
  • #23
Stevedye56 said:
Finally some equality in the curriculum.

Come on, are you joking me? Should we start teaching kids alchemy while were at it to balance chemistry.
 
  • #24
Gokul43201 said:
At different stages of its development, the theory was falsifiable by different kinds of experiments. With more and more agreement and/or refinements, tests of falsifiability become harder and harder to perform, but are not, in theory, impossible. For instance, the "Big Bang" would have been falsified by observing chemical abundances much different from what we have. But at the same time, there are modifications that the theory is undergoing that refines details about the early universe, and these modifications have come about precisely because earlier explanations of these details have been falsified.

I may be misunderstanding the concept of falsifiability, but doesn't tests of falsifiability become easier with more and more agreements and refinements, because the predictions are so specific, such as CMBR?
 
  • #25
*-<|:-D=<-< said:
Does this mean somebody finally can teach the students what's really true instead of that science nonsense? I mean obviously true stuff like my own theory of the 256-dimensional fairies and the invisible flying juju in the skies.



Excellent question, maybe because christian creationism is based on the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days, and is also in the middle of the universe. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the origins of the universe, only how it evolves from a very early stage. And it also doesn't have a pro Human/Earth bias.

No it does not. There is no statement about how old the Earth is, although it does state that it was made in 6 days.
 
  • #26
Andre said:
Almost agree, that is if science is about falsifiability. The creation "hypothesis" can be considered falsified. But is the big bang falsifiable?

How could you consider it falsified- because you don't believe it? The Big Bang is falsifiable you obviously haven't looked very deeply into it. If the Big Bang DID happen how do you get from there to life. If the humanity is so smart then why can we not figure out cancer? Why have we not found cure for illness. Why can't we live forever?
 
  • #27
Stevedye56 said:
If the humanity is so smart then why can we not figure out cancer? Why have we not found cure for illness. Why can't we live forever?
Some might ask the same about a certain omnipotent and omnibenevolent someone.
 
  • #28
You must have not gone to New York when Nima Arkani-Hamed was giving his presentation about the CERN program. Not believing in creationism he clearly shot down the fact that it was impossible for the universe to expand as rapidly as the big bang model represents. If the leading physicists at Princeton and the CERN project are refuting all of your evidence I don't know what you have to go on...
 
  • #29
*-<|:-D=<-< said:
ask a young Earth creationist for the details.

Oh, so you don't have them. But you heard the from someone who heard that from someone?
 
  • #30
maybe because christian creationism is based on the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days,

It can be calculated from Old and New Testament genealogies.Ah ..So, it is just a complete lie that the bible has anything to say about the age of the universe or this particular planet in it.

The bible is to truth of origin ; as Harry Potter is to the truth about magic.

I would much rather Harry Potter taught in schools than a bible. Even though they are both fictional.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Moridin said:
It can be calculated from Old and New Testament genealogies. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. Naturally, this data is inconsistent with every dating method that exists.

No it can't. It can be calculated that the world is going to end tomorrow if you want. I could calculate that the Earth is 15 minutes old if I wanted to. There is no direct statement on the age of the earth. I would like to see your calculation.On a side note to the admins I haven't figured out the multi quote thing yet so I am sorry for cluttering this thread.

Otherwise where do you stop? If kids can answer 'it's God's will' to every school science question, can they write that in their degree, when they are in medical school, when they are signing off on a new aircraft design?

Certainly not, that does not demonstrate understanding of a topic it just shows an un-willingness to learn. If I wanted right now I could just write that I do not believe in Biology because the Bible says that it is incorrect. However, I do not because that would be obscene. Just because I do not believe in the theory of evolution does not mean that I will avoid it at all costs. I think that it is ridiculous to say that people would refute something because "the bible doesn't say so". If the person is taking that approach they clearly are looking for a way out. I love physics I think every aspect is interesting. However, I do not believe that it has the origin and or evolution of life.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Creationism is not science and has no place in a science class. If you want a creation story to be told it has to be done in a religious education class. End of story. What is the problem here?
 
  • #33
Alfi said:
maybe because christian creationism is based on the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days,

It can be calculated from Old and New Testament genealogies.


Ah ..So, it is just a complete lie that the bible has anything to say about the age of the universe or this particular planet in it.

The bible is to truth of origin ; as Harry Potter is to the truth about magic.

I would much rather Harry Potter taught in schools than a bible. Even though they are both fictional.

So you think a book that has been transcribed hundreds and hundreds of times with errors only in punctuation is a made up fairy tale..
 
  • #34
Stevedye56 said:
So you think a book that has been transcribed hundreds and hundreds of times with errors only in punctuation is a made up fairy tale..

Again, a non-sequitur. The number of times a book has been transcribed has nothing to do wtih the veracity of the first copy.

In any case I'm not aware of evidence that the bible has been transcribed so many times with no major errors or revisions.
 
  • #35
I can't say I'm surprised. I was taught both evolution and creationism in 10th grade biology by the great Louisiana public school system. We also learned about the possibility of humans coming from space. All three of these were considered possible "theories" in this class. I blame the heavy, heavy catholic influence in Louisiana especially the further south you go. (I lived 90 miles south west of New Orleans.)
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Stevedye56 said:
If the humanity is so smart then why can we not figure out cancer? Why have we not found cure for illness. Why can't we live forever?

Compare what we know today with what we have known 100 years ago. Ask your questions in 100 years from now. Just because we don't some answers yet, doesn't mean we will not know them in the future.

It also doesn't mean we will know them, but that's another story.

And judging Earth age from Bible is not that hard. There are long lists of genealogy in Genesis, like


  • Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad.
  • And after he became the father of Arphaxad, Shem lived 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
  • When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah.
  • And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
  • When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber.
  • And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
  • When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg.
  • And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.
  • When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu.
  • And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.
  • When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug.
  • And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.
  • When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor.
  • And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.
  • When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah.
  • And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.
  • After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.

that tells who lived how long and so on. It is not a rocket science to add these numbers to trace time between Christ and Adam and Eve. That's not very accurate, but it gives around 6000 years.
 
  • #37
Stevedye56, the genealogies are right there as well as the age of the people. It is all in the bible.
 
  • #38
Moridin said:
It is all in the bible.

Trick is, it takes an atheist like me to read it :wink:
 
  • #39
This thread looks like its skating on thin ice. I suggest people only comment on the original article and not how to calculate the age of the Earth from the bible lest it be locked by the mentors.
 
  • #40
Stevedye56 said:
So you think a book that has been transcribed hundreds and hundreds of times with errors only in punctuation is a made up fairy tale..
Strawman.
 
  • #41
Moridin said:
Stevedye56, the genealogies are right there as well as the age of the people. It is all in the bible.

*SIGH*

The bible does not ever claim to be a second by second, minute by minute relation of events that have happened.

It is easy to bypass whis by simply stating that not all "facts" are meant to be taken literally, but are meant to convey a different message. Such as, in this case, a lineage.
 
  • #42
It's kind of hard to just write off several billion years of lost time.
 
  • #43
And to respond to Borek's request.

In my opinion, creationism should not be taught in school.

Perhaps the bible might be examined in a class on comparative religions, or maybe a literature class.

That's it.
 
  • #44
Wow this is ridiculous. I am clearly just getting shot down on what I know is right so I am done here.
 
  • #45
Gokul43201 said:
Strawman.

Might want to re-read these:

Guidelines on Langauge and Attitude:
Foul or hostile language will not be tolerated on Physics Forums. This includes profanity, obscenity, or obvious indecent language; direct personal attacks or insults; snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to "put down" another member; and other indirect attacks on a member's character or motives.
 
  • #46
Originally Posted by Stevedye56 View Post

So you think a book that has been transcribed hundreds and hundreds of times with errors only in punctuation is a made up fairy tale..
YES.

And I believe it should stay out of public schools.
I also believe the members of government have better things to do than waist time on bills like this one.

oh btw - 'strawman' is a type of argument, not a put-down on the poster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
Stevedye56 said:
Wow this is ridiculous. I am clearly just getting shot down on what I know is right so I am done here.

You make a claim

No it can't [be calculated from Old and New Testament genealogies].

And are shown very clearly how to calculate it, thus being proven wrong. Then you claim to know you are right? I'm sorry but I don't follow your reasoning.
 
  • #48
Vid said:
It's kind of hard to just write off several billion years of lost time.


Huh? It's easy, and makes me ask you to perhaps open a book or two by intellectual christian thinkers. Unless you think that this is a new question that has never EVER been examined?

I believe there is a passage in the bible, where Kermit says something like "A thousand years to you is but a moment to me."
 
  • #49
I just want to point out that while the assumption here is that this opens the door for creationism to be taught in the classroom, the wording of the bill is simply allowing additional materials beyond the textbook to be used. This could also have a beneficial side. A lot of textbooks inadequately teach the subject of evolution, which is why so many people with no science education beyond high school are easily misled into believing other nonsense like Creationism. This would give a good teacher some flexibility when a student asks about some of these misconceptions to bring in further sources on evolution to explain how much more there is to the theory and to clarify points of common confusion and misunderstanding so students are better armed to not be so gullible about the Creationist's arguments.

I agree it also allows for exploitation by Creationists, but as long as there is a review process in place in the case of complaints, let's hope sane parents will complain and demand review of the material if their kid starts to get taught Creationism in school.
 
  • #50
Stevedye56 said:
Gokul43201 said:
Strawman.
Might want to re-read these:

Guidelines on Langauge and Attitude:
Foul or hostile language will not be tolerated on Physics Forums. This includes profanity, obscenity, or obvious indecent language; direct personal attacks or insults; snide remarks or phrases that appear to be an attempt to "put down" another member; and other indirect attacks on a member's character or motives.

Strawman is not a put down, he is characterizing the quality of your argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
 

Similar threads

Louisiana governor signs creationist bill
2
Replies
88
Views
12K
News Florida law lets anyone challenge what’s taught in science
Replies
30
Views
3K
News Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act 2005/2007
Replies
7
Views
6K
News Is Louisiana Setting a National Precedent with SB 733?
Replies
11
Views
4K
News Congress restricts Establishment Clause of 1st amendment
Replies
23
Views
4K
News House approves flag-burning amendment
2
Replies
72
Views
8K
News Bush's Support of Torture: Global Impact and Un-American Reputation
4
Replies
180
Views
20K
News US suspends Habeas Corpus for all noncitizens
Replies
5
Views
4K
News The Obama Administration is Violating the Law
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Does Releasing Petition Signers' Names Violate First Amendment Rights?
Replies
12
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top