Guess who wrote this frite? Right. Zack Kopplin.
The Louisiana Science Education Act, passed by the state legislature in 2008, permits science teachers to use supplemental materials to “critique” evolution, opening a backdoor that these teachers are using, as intended, to teach creationism. Such lessons are allowed under this Louisiana law, but they are illegal under federal law.
All it will take is for one Louisiana parent or student to sue the state for endorsing religion in public school.
And they didn’t because …
On April 22 the Louisiana Senate Education Committee voted on a bill to repeal the Science Education Act, referred to by many on both sides as the “creationism act.” This was the fifth vote since 2010, and legislators voted 4–3 to keep creationism in Louisiana classrooms.
Or else, it is just okay nowadays to criticize Darwinism?
We all know that Darwin’s metaphysical naturalism is in ruins. The big thing is how to bury it.
(Especially when so many “religious” people are rushing to save it. But one digresses.)
Also, what about the racism, based on Darwinism, for example? Why does that never matter when Darwin’s sacred name is invoked?
I (O’Leary for News) was only once in Louisiana, about forty years ago. But I sure got the impression that Darwinian racism should not be a big sell there.
Does anyone want to discuss this? Like. Why are U.S. politicians pushing for a Darwin Day? Can’t someone just put this garbage out of its misery? O’Leary for News
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Did you miss the part about teachers openly teaching Creationism in the science classes?
Seversky:
Why? You got a problem with it? If Darwinism is allowed in our public schools, so should creationism. Bravo, Louisiana.
Teaching the critiques of evolutionary theory should not be conflated with Creationism, yet it seems that the Ouachita Parish school system was teaching both. As a reminder:
rhampton7 reminds us:
While I don’t believe that the book of Genesis should be taught in school, I think it is appropriate to teach that there is indeed a lot of very powerful evidence that the universe was designed and created. So pure creationism (without bringing in any religion into the picture) is a perfectly legitimate subject in the classroom. People everywhere should vote on this stuff. If the unfriendly Darwinists start jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth, pull up a chair and enjoy the show. LOL.
To this day there are folks in Louisiana who consider blacks “savages” in the Darwinian sense. Inferior race. I’m sure they teach their kids THAT part of Evo Theory.
http://www.kalb.com/home/headl.....e&c=y
Mapou,
The scientific theory of Intelligent Design does not argue for 1) a creator of the universe, or 2) that the designs detected originate from a universal creator. To be clear, Creationism in this case is understood to mean:
to repost from the ‘lemonade out of lemon’ Luskin thread:
As shocking as it may seem to some people, neo-Darwinism is more properly defined as a religion rather than as a science.
And thus, since neo-Darwinism is more properly defined as a religion rather than as a science, it is, regardless of whether it will ever be enforced or not, constitutionally illegal to teach neo-Darwinism in the public school classroom.
To prove that neo-Darwinism is primarily a religion masquerading in scientific clothing is fairly easy.
The reason Darwinism is best defined as a religion rather than a science is because Darwinian evolution is not founded on a rigid mathematical basis, as other overarching theories of science are, but was originally founded, and continues to be founded, primarily on (bad) theological presuppositions.
Moreover, Charles Darwin’s college degree was in theology, not in math. In fact, Charles Darwin himself said that he found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’:
Here is a excellent video, based in large measure on Cornelius Hunter’s book ‘Darwin’s God’, that reveals some of history and faulty theological reasoning behind Darwin’s theory:
Not so surprisingly, it was the liberal ‘unscientific’ clergy of Darwin’s day that eagerly to jumped on the Darwinian bandwagon, whilst the conservative ‘scientific’ clergy reacted against the book:
In was not until the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism came along, around 1940, that neo-Darwinism had some semblance of rigid a mathematical basis so that it could be considered a proper science instead of a pseudo-science.
Ironically, the presuppositions behind the mathematical model of the modern synthesis are now, empirically, called into question:
,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
of note: Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.
Moreover, when the mathematics of the modern synthesis, i.e. population genetics, are applied in a rigorous manner to neo-Darwinian claims, ironically, the mathematics of population genetics actually falsifies neo-Darwinism as being a true description of reality (i.e. falsifies it as being a true science):
Thus, since neo-Darwinian evolution is based primarily on theological presuppositions, however faulty those presuppositions may be, and is not based on a rigid mathematical basis, (in fact, as was shown, mathematics falsifies neo-Darwinism), then neo-Darwinian evolution is not even a proper science in any meaningful sense of the word ‘science’ and, as such, fully deserves to be called a religion to the full extent, and meaning, of the word ‘religion’.
And it is therefore, obviously as a religion, illegal to teach neo-Darwinism in a public school classroom.
Unfortunately, it is one law that I have scant hope of ever being enforced properly.
supplemental quotes:
Of related interest: The Supreme court has ruled that, for first amendment purposes, atheism is, in fact, a religion:
Here are several examples of Darwinian atheists themselves violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by openly proselytizing their own atheistic religion in the classroom:
Also of interest, it simply is impossible to do science without presupposing Theology on some level. i.e. In order to do science in the first place, one is forced to presuppose that the universe is rationally ordered and that we have rational minds that are able to comprehend that rational order.
Verse and Music:
Its good to see Louisiana not be intimidated .
The truth is what should be taught. if thats not settled the people should decide which options are taught.Only the people should decide these things. its freedom and rights to run ones own home.
Evolutionism etc always loses in competition, to some degree, with creationism so they would worry.
Discovery folks should change and demand trith and freedom and creationism in schools. Yes the bible.
otherwise in subjects about accuracy in origins banning the bible means OFFICIAL STATE OPINION the bible is not truth.
Thats illegal for the state to say.
Where is a lawyer when you need one/!
Thanks, BA, for the excellent quotes and references.
ppolish:
To this day there are folks in Louisiana who consider blacks “savages” in the Darwinian sense. Inferior race.
As a former resident of the Pelican State, folks have considered blacks as an inferior race long before Darwin was born. Heard about slavery?
The usual part-fear (being, themselves, physically inferior) and part-wishful thinking.
Both the Nazis and Japanese fondly thought they were a master-race, physically as well as intellectually. But we’re still waiting for the next Big White Hope to become the World Heavy-weight Boxing Champion – the ultimate sporting prize in he eyes of the same – and most of mankind, if it comes to that.
And then the Williams sisters go and thrashed all-comers off the tennis-court, and well they don’t do too bad at sprinting, middle-distance and long-distance running, and a lot of other sports. Dart, indoor carpet-bowls and synchronized-swimming, not so much.
BA77 pointed out that there have been plenty of authoritative studies carried out clearly attesting that neither are they in no wise inferior intellectually, given a comparable life-environment.
Oh the humanity! So, Severeky, aside from your precious church state rule, what’s wrong with it? May the best theory win!
After all, you have the science on your side.
Oh wait….
Teaching Creationism is no worse than teaching evolutionism. We don’t see what the issue is.
If it was up to us we would have biology classes teach biology, present the evidence and leave the spin off of it. Then have open discussions as to what mechanisms can account for the evidence, see if those mechanisms can be tested and then test them.
It is a category mistake to regard Science in terms of methodology, doctrines, and ideology. Similar category mistakes are made in regards to Christian faith. I propose that Science should be most basically understood as a collaborative search for truth. It should be sociologically treated as fundamentally a civilizational project, rather than as a body of knowledge or a method of discovering knowledge. It is a sociological category error to think of Science according to hierarchical and bureaucratic norms, as is routinely done in academia, government, and the mass media.