Louisiana governor signs creationist bill

[robertm]

In other words... there is absolutely nothing wrong with senate bill 733?

Did you read the bill? The bill is useless for anything except ID propaganda. The bill was designed by the Discovery Institute. The same exact organization that tried this crap in Dover Pennsylvania in 2005. That bill was shot down as creationism legislation. So they took a different approach, changed creationism to Intelligent Design and made it in the name of 'academic freedom' instead of god.

The bill is useless if it is only meant for what they say it is. So why did it pass?

You think it is coincidence that Gov. Jindal supports Creationism, the Dis.Inst. is one of the bill's main proponents, and the LA Family Forum (a christian organization) is the other main proponent? I think not.

 

[Hurkyl]

Did you read the bill? The bill is useless for anything except ID propaganda.

So... you're saying that ID propaganda falls under the category of "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner"? And you further assert that any other sorts of materials (e.g. scientific textbooks) do not fall under that category?

Again, that seems very uncharacteristic of you...

 

[jostpuur]

Moridin and robertm are saying that creationists are saying that ID falls under the category of "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Moridin and robertm are saying that creationists are saying that ID falls under the category of "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner".

I'm sure that there are all sorts of laws and systems in place in various states that could potentially allow what ever group of crackpots you want to mention to try to get their material in schools. If they're going to try, and the people who are in charge are going to allow it, then there really isn't much you can do about it whether this bill exists or not.
The point is that the actual content of the bill is not at all biased and so there is really no sound reason to argue against it except to invoke paranoia (keeping in mind that paranoia doesn't mean one is wrong). If the system works the way it should then there is nothing to worry about. If it doesn't they can and will get their pants sued off and nothing in the bill will save them.

 

[Moridin]

Moridin and robertm are saying that creationists are saying that ID falls under the category of "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner".

No, we are saying that it is a well-made excuse in order to bring in creationist material, not that ID is instructional materials that help students.

 

[Moridin]

Analysis of Lousiana "Academic Freedom" bill - http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/analysis-of-lou.html

 

[jostpuur]

Moridin and robertm are saying that creationists are saying that ID falls under the category of "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner".

No, we are saying that it is a well-made excuse in order to bring in creationist material, not that ID is instructional materials that help students.

Sorry if you got a feel of getting words put into your mouths, but I don't think I was making a big mistake in that post anyway. Looks like misunderstanding, actually. Did you notice the bold part? The context was this:

It seems uncharacteristic of you to consider creationist materials helpful in understanding, analyzing, critiquing, and reviewing scientific theories in an objective manner...

So... you're saying that ID propaganda falls under the category of "instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner"? And you further assert that any other sorts of materials (e.g. scientific textbooks) do not fall under that category?

Again, that seems very uncharacteristic of you...

 

[loseyourname]

Well, that's too bad. I know a lot of people had hope that Bobby Jindal would become a national rising star in the Republican Party. If this is really a bill to allow teachers to teach creationism (I didn't read it), then he's pretty much relegated himself to never being more than regionally relevant.

 

[robertm]

This kind of professional crap they use to fool so many people: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453"

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, that's too bad. I know a lot of people had hope that Bobby Jindal would become a national rising star in the Republican Party.

They must not have known about his Evangelical, pro-ID background.

When I read the language of this bill, I was struck by two things:

First, it seems the framers can't give a hoot about critical thinking and analytical abilities in subjects other than science.

And second, compare this with a hypothetical Respect the Children Bill that requires all people, specifically including registered pedophiles, to show love, care and respect for all children they come near. Who going to argue that it is a good thing for people to be hateful, careless or disrespectful towards children?

 

[vociferous]

Was this signed before or after the bill that legally required pi to equal 3?

 

[csguy]

Was this signed before or after the bill that legally required pi to equal 3?

It depends on how a cubit is interpreted.

 

[island]

TheStatutoryApe is exactly correct. Paranoia will destroy ya, but the wording of the bill, which typically works in conjunction with the science standards, will keep creationism out of the classroom, or there will be an enforcible violation of their own law. The clueless neodarwinian antifanatics are finally going to get put on the spot, and this is what they really don't want to face:

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=f4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cf&plckPersonaPage=PersonaBlog&plckUserId=f4af536be6e34501aa356a4a76ef99cf

 

[RocketSurgery]

Wow these Xtians are really trying to bring down the Scientific Age and bring us back into the Dark Ages.

If you don't want to believe in science then you should not be able to use equipment or tools invented by scientists or engineers (like computers).

 

[Hurkyl]

Wow these Xtians are really trying to bring down the Scientific Age and bring us back into the Dark Ages.

Yes, heaven forbid we teach our students critical thinking skills.

If you don't want to believe in science

Who said anything like that? (I mean other than the conspiracy theorists)

 

[Gokul43201]

Who said anything like that? (I mean other than the conspiracy theorists)

When you say "conspiracy theorists", does that include young Earth creationists? I only ask because Ben Nevers admittedly introduced this bill on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, which is a tax exempt Christian lobby that promotes young Earth creationism.

 

[RocketSurgery]

I'm sorry if my comment seemed to be pulled out of thin air but I keep hearing about these creationists and other extremists who either claim that science has no merit, that science is evil, or think that having an "idea" is the same thing as having an experimentally tested theory. To be clear (now that I'm no longer intoxicated by anger) I don't think religion or faith is necessarily bad. The problem seems to arrive when people confuse "belief" and "knowledge". If you believe in God then that is fine. But if you think you have actually seen him and know his message that is when you have crossed the sanity barrier.

Basically I have a problem with any group of people who feigns scientific credibility, claims science is evil, or claims that a theory is "just a theory with no facts", But they have no problem using the internet, or driving cars, or using microphones at their little speeches. Like someone said, "I have no problem with people who are stupid... We should educate them... It's the ignorant people I have an issue with... They are stupid on purpose!"

I can only hope that education will always be a priority in this country.

 

[vincentm]

Yes, heaven forbid we teach our students critical thinking skills.

There's no critical thinking about ID, it's a lack of thinking.

 

[Hurkyl]

There's no critical thinking about ID, it's a lack of thinking.

I wasn't talking about ID. I was talking about Louisiana Senate Bill #733 -- the thing everybody is complaining about.

P.S. ID is an abbreviation for "intelligent design" -- not for "lack of thinking".

 

[robertm]

I wasn't talking about ID. I was talking about Louisiana Senate Bill #733 -- the thing everybody is complaining about.

P.S. ID is an abbreviation for "intelligent design" -- not for "lack of thinking".

If this bill really is just for teaching critical thinking skills, then how do you explain the fact that the only proponents of the bill are the LFF and the Discovery Institute? Not one single respected scientific society gave their support, and a great deal of societies personally wrote the Gov. expressing their dissent. Need I remind you that the D.I. came up with the term 'Intelligent Design'?

 

[WarPhalange]

 

[robertm]

Haha. Ouch, caught in the act.

 

[vincentm]

I wasn't talking about ID. I was talking about Louisiana Senate Bill #733 -- the thing everybody is complaining about.

P.S. ID is an abbreviation for "intelligent design" -- not for "lack of thinking".

Just like ID itself the bill is a wedge argument to have ID taught...thus, same difference.

 

[Hurkyl]

If this bill really is just for teaching critical thinking skills, then how do you explain the fact that the only proponents of the bill are the LFF and the Discovery Institute?

Fallacy: guilt by association. You are trying to discredit the bill not upon its own merits, but upon your opinion of its proponents.

Not one single respected scientific society gave their support, and a great deal of societies personally wrote the Gov. expressing their dissent.

I only see the following possibilities:
(1) A great deal of societies are against the idea we should teach critical thinking skills to students
(2) A great deal of societies are having a knee-jerk reaction, opposing a good ideal simply to spite a group they dislike
(3) You should have no trouble cribbing their letters to form an argument supporting your position that is free of obvious fallacies.
(4) You don't understand precisely what they are dissenting against.

 

[Hurkyl]

Just like ID itself the bill is a wedge argument to have ID taught...thus, same difference.

If you believe that ID constitutes instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, I don't really understand why you are objecting to the bill.

 

[vincentm]

If you believe that ID constitutes instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, I don't really understand why you are objecting to the bill.

ID is a poor argument, and intellectual laziness, nothing analytical about it.

 

[Hurkyl]

ID is a poor argument, and intellectual laziness, nothing analytical about it.

So if you believe that ID does not constitute instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, I don't really understand why you think this bill allows it.


(Incidentally, and this is tangential to the thread so I will say it once and probably not continue discussing it -- the fact that some adherents to ID are lazy, non-analytical, and poor arguments does not constitute proof that ID itself has those qualities. If such an argument were valid, it would also apply to scientific theories)

 

[vincentm]

So if you believe that ID does not constitute instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, I don't really understand why you think this bill allows it.

In which manner can ID successfully and logically provide sound criticism of well established, understood, experimentally sound theories, such as Evolution, let alone Biology itself?

(Incidentally, and this is tangential to the thread so I will say it once and probably not continue discussing it -- the fact that some adherents to ID are lazy, non-analytical, and poor arguments does not constitute proof that ID itself has those qualities. If such an argument were valid, it would also apply to scientific theories)

Please list the qualities of ID then.

 

[Hurkyl]

In which manner can ID successfully and logically provide sound criticism of well established, understood, experimentally sound theories, such as Evolution, let alone Biology itself?

You earlier claimed that LA Senate Bill #733 allowed the teaching of ID; that would imply you already had a positive answer to the question you ask in this quote. So why do you ask?

 

[NeoDevin]

You earlier claimed that LA Senate Bill #733 allowed the teaching of ID; that would imply you already had a positive answer to the question you ask in this quote. So why do you ask?

It doesn't directly allow it (according to the wording of the bill), but the ID proponents will attempt to use it to include creationist materials in the classrooms. Whether they're successful or not depends on the parents/courts/judges.