Louisiana governor signs creationist bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moridin
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the recent signing of Louisiana's Senate Bill 733 by Governor Bobby Jindal, which allows educators to use supplemental materials in public school science classes, particularly regarding topics like evolution, cloning, and global warming. The implications of this law on science education and the potential introduction of religious beliefs into the curriculum are explored.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the bill will enable the introduction of religious beliefs into science classes, particularly creationism, undermining scientific education.
  • Others argue that the law could allow for a broader range of educational materials, potentially enhancing science education if used appropriately.
  • There are claims that the bill is influenced by organizations like the Discovery Institute, which some participants view as having ulterior motives to promote creationism.
  • Some participants emphasize the need for vigilance among parents regarding the materials used by teachers to ensure there is no creationist bias.
  • Concerns are raised about the adequacy of current textbooks and whether the bill addresses any real deficiencies in science education.
  • A few participants express frustration over the political motivations behind the bill and its implications for the separation of church and state.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the implications of the bill, with some viewing it as a threat to science education and others seeing potential benefits. There is no consensus on whether the law will be used to promote religious ideas or if it will genuinely enhance educational quality.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the law's wording may allow for misuse, leading to concerns about the introduction of non-scientific theories into the curriculum. The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the motivations behind the legislation and its potential impact on education.

  • #31
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
robertm said:
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...
 
  • #33
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".
 
  • #34
jostpuur said:
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.
 
  • #35
jostpuur said:
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.
 
  • #37
Moridin said:
jostpuur said:
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:

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

Hurkyl said:
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...
 
  • #38
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.
 
  • #40
loseyourname said:
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?
 
  • #41
Was this signed before or after the bill that legally required pi to equal 3?
 
  • #42
vociferous said:
Was this signed before or after the bill that legally required pi to equal 3?

It depends on how a cubit is interpreted.
 
  • #43
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
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).
 
  • #45
RocketSurgery said:
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. :rolleyes:

If you don't want to believe in science
Who said anything like that? (I mean other than the conspiracy theorists)
 
  • #46
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
  • #47
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.
 
  • #48
Hurkyl said:
Yes, heaven forbid we teach our students critical thinking skills. :rolleyes:

There's no critical thinking about ID, it's a lack of thinking.
 
  • #49
vincentm said:
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".
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Hurkyl said:
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'?
 
  • #51
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
WarPhalange said:


Haha. Ouch, caught in the act.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
  • #54
robertm said:
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.
 
  • #55
vincentm said:
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.
 
  • #56
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
  • #57
vincentm said:
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)
 
  • #58
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
  • #59
vincentm said:
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?
 
  • #60
Hurkyl said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Creationist bill passed by Louisiana House of Representatives
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
10K
News Florida law lets anyone challenge what’s taught in science
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
News Is Louisiana Setting a National Precedent with SB 733?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Taxpayers funding Christian anti-science private schools
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K