Creationist bill passed by Louisiana House of Representatives

  • Thread starter Moridin
  • Start date
  • #1
664
3

Main Question or Discussion Point

This is bad news.

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

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 [Broken]

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:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
397
0
Finally some equality in the curriculum.
 
  • #3
664
3
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.
 
  • #4
Doc Al
Mentor
44,882
1,129
Finally some equality in the curriculum.
Sure, it's always wise to balance science with crackpottery. :rolleyes:
 
  • #5
397
0
If creationism can't be taught then why should the big bang be allowed?
 
  • #6
397
0
Sure, it's always wise to balance science with crackpottery. :rolleyes:
If that is your take one it then thats fine. However, I disagree even though I am probably the only person in this forum to do so.
 
  • #7
397
0
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"..
 
  • #8
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
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).
 
  • #9
397
0
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
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
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
107
0
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
Alfi
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
4,464
65
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
664
3
  • #15
664
3
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
664
3
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
107
0
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
664
3
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
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
17
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
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,774
12
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
Borek
Mentor
28,327
2,713
I hope they will teach about Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
  • #22
107
0
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
2,985
13
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
664
3
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
397
0
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.
 

Related Threads for: Creationist bill passed by Louisiana House of Representatives

Replies
88
Views
10K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
99
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
88
Views
10K
Replies
22
Views
4K
Top