Slate.com is all upset that repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008 was was rejected yet again in a 3-2 vote in the State Senate.
19 year old Rice University Student Zack Kopplin has been leading the charge to get this “outrage” done away with once and for all, with help from the usual suspects. What’s interesting to note is the reason that one Senator, Elbert Guillory, D-Obelousas, who essentially cast the deciding vote, gave for his vote against repeal.
Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could “lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures.“Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man—in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed—if I had closed him off and just said, ‘That’s not science. I’m not going to see this doctor,’ I would have shut off a very good experience for myself,” Guillory said.
Okay, I’ll admit, that seems a bit far fetched and bizarre to me. But, the writer of the Slate article, Phil Plait, adds fuel to fire with this little tidbit:
…Senator Guillory , here is the reality of what you saw, and it pertains to creationism as well: It really wasn’t science. It may be belief, it may be religion, it may even be an outright con, but of all the things it is, as you yourself said, it’s not science , and it shouldn’t be taught in science class. Your vote was wrong. It was wrong on the evidence, it was wrong for the children of Louisiana, and it was wrong for the state of Louisiana.
So according to Plait (writer of the Slate article), “Creationism” (and likely he really means ID) is on the same scientific level as the bone throwing Shaman sitting on the ground. So here’s a question for Plait – and its a purely scientific one, so he shouldn’t have too much trouble answering it. “Mr. Plait, how do you know scientifically (on the normally accepted view of scientific), and not philosophically, metaphysically or theologically, that the properties of biological systems are such that any apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle?” Perhaps some ID critic here can proxy for Mr. Plait and provide a purely scientific answer to that question.
This is, after all, all “just science”, right?