Is Louisiana Setting a National Precedent with SB 733?

[Alex48674]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2736,We-Urgently-Need-Your-Help-Now,Barbara-Forrest-and-Louisiana-Coalition-for-Science

by Barbara Forrest and Louisiana Coalition for Science
Please help stop the Discovery Institute from boldly introducing religion into public education.

SB 733, the LA Science Education Act, has passed both houses of the legislature, and the governor has indicated that he intends to sign it. But we don't have to be quiet about this. There is something that you and everyone else you know who wants to help can do:

The LA Coalition for Science has posted a press release and an open letter to Jindal asking him to veto the bill. http://lasciencecoalition.org . The contact information is at the LCFS website.

We want people all over the country to do this, as many as possible, since Louisiana will be only the beginning. YOUR State could be next. Here are the talking points:

Point 1: The Louisiana law, SB 733, the LA Science Education Act, has national implications. So far, this legislation has failed in every other state where it was proposed, except in Michigan, where it remains in committee. By passing SB 733, Louisiana has set a dangerous precedent that will benefit the Discovery Institute by helping them to advance their strategy to get intelligent design creationism into public schools. Louisiana is only the beginning. Other states will now be encouraged to pass such legislation, and the Discovery Institute has already said that they will continue their push to get such legislation passed.

Point 2: Since Gov. Jindal's support for teaching ID clearly helped to get this bill passed in the first place, his decision to veto it will stick if he let's the legislature know that he wants it to stick.

Point 3: Simply allowing the bill to become law without his signature, which is one of the governor's options, does not absolve him of the responsibility for protecting the public school science classes of Louisiana. He must veto the bill to show that he is serious about improving Louisiana by improving education. Anything less than a veto means that the governor is giving a green light to creationists to undermine the education of Louisiana children.

You can pull additional talking points from the LCFS press release and our online letter if you want them.

Now we have to get the message out to people. People can contact the governor and and also contact their friends, asking them to do the same. We need to create a huge network of e-mails asking people to do this. Where they live does not matter at this point. What is happening in Louisiana has implications for everyone in the nation. The Discovery Institute does not intend to stop with the Pelican State.

Thank you,

Barbara

Please write an email to the governor, as a student in Louisiana, I fear that my high school diploma will be laughed at when I go to collage.

It doesn't matter if you live out of state or even out of country.

 

[DrClapeyron]

How can you talk about precedence? It's Louisiana where civil law is the standard, you guys have no precedence, it's almost like Europe.

 

[Alex48674]

How can you talk about precedence? It's Louisiana where civil law is the standard, you guys have no precedence, it's almost like Europe.

It's not that bad, just when stuff like this comes up, and then you really really have to fight it.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Change your system. Here in Texas local school boards set cirriculum standards not Austin because these things are founded upon precedence.

 

[OAQfirst]

Wasn't this already addressed by the law?

On June 19, 1987 the Supreme Court, in a seven to two majority opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan, ruled that the Act constituted an unconstitutional infringement on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, based on the three-pronged Lemon test, which is:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

However it did note that alternative scientific theories could be taught:

We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught. . . . [T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.

The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom," that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possesses and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

 

[Alex48674]

Wasn't this already addressed by the law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

Basically, yes it was. What essentially happened though, is creationism changed its name to intelligent design, and presented itself in the Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District case as a whole new theory. Interestingly enough, one of the reasons it was found out was because of errors in the textbooks they were presenting. The textbooks actually had copy and pasting errors where parts of the words of creationism and words associated with it were only halfway deleted with new "intelligent design" words pasted in.

It's quite interesting if you can find the full video on the case. I think it was eventually ruled out because of the case you mentioned and was established as creationism in new silk. Also the funny thing is that once this was established in court, the intelligent design people started using the words interchangeably.

 

[Gokul43201]

A link to the Senate Bill can be found here: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/LA/396_louisiana_antievolution_bill_p_4_29_2008.asp

 

[cristo]

Teaching the "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory in schools... ?

I came across this article today and was, quite frankly, utterly amazed!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/04evolution.html

DALLAS — Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”

The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”

Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.

...

The article goes on to reveal that the chair of the state education board, along with six other members of the 15 strong board are creationists. Furthermore, the chair is one of these "young earth" creationists. This quote sums it up for me:

Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event — thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion. “I believe a lot of incredible things,” he said, “The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe.”

Why should someone who's scientific views are quite clearly clouded by religion be allowed to make decisions that will influence what children learn about science? Does this education board not believe in seeking expert advice, rather than deciding things that they know nothing about, themselves?

[Edit: I've merged this with another thread on the topic]

 

[WarPhalange]

I'm all for teaching strengths and weaknesses. I can see it now:

Evolution weaknesses: Doesn't explain how life began.*

*It doesn't attempt to, though...

And then you have

Intelligent design weaknesses: It's not science.

Or just a huge list explaining the flaws.

 

[daveb]

http://legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=498719" is the link to the legislature page withthe actual text of the act.

 

[drankin]

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2736,We-Urgently-Need-Your-Help-Now,Barbara-Forrest-and-Louisiana-Coalition-for-Science



Please write an email to the governor, as a student in Louisiana, I fear that my high school diploma will be laughed at when I go to collage.

It doesn't matter if you live out of state or even out of country.

I doubt you will have to worry about your diploma being laughed at. If you can demonstrate that you have sound understanding of the theories of evolution, you aren't going to be blacklisted from going to a college of your choosing. I personally know a young woman who was homeschooled by the wife of a church pastor who received a full ride scholarship to Harvard. Your fears are unwarranted.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I doubt you will have to worry about your diploma being laughed at. If you can demonstrate that you have sound understanding of the theories of evolution, you aren't going to be blacklisted from going to a college of your choosing. I personally know a young woman who was homeschooled by the wife of a church pastor who received a full ride scholarship to Harvard. Your fears are unwarranted.

I would tend to agree with you but you never know. I worked at an acredited college where the majority of the credits they awarded were not honoured by more than a handful of colleges in the entire country. And those were probably mostly the ones owned by the same corporation.