The battle over science education could soon spill into the courts in Louisiana, where looming legislation would allow teachers to bring up scientific criticisms of evolution, global warming and other hot-button topics.
The state House approved the bill Wednesday on a 94-3 vote. Because the Senate already approved a near-identical measure, supporters expect the upper chamber to pass this bill also.
A spokeswoman for Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal would not say whether he will sign the bill, saying only that he will review it when it gets to his desk.
“It’s not about a certain viewpoint,” said supporter Jason Stern, Vice President of the Louisiana Family Forum, a conservative group pushing the bill. “It’s allowing [teachers] to teach the controversy. It’s an academic freedom issue.”
[i]”He said the bill’s aim isn’t to inject “intelligent design,” but to let teachers freely present the strengths and weaknesses of evolution and other topics, he said.[/i]
Nonsense. Of course that’s the aim. The proponents of this sort of legislation are simply lying when they say that it isn’t.
And why not? All these subjects are not sacrosanct so that they are above criticism.
Everyone knows the science of physics was settled by Newton’s Principia. New heresies muct not be allowed in the mi- I mean, classroom.
Teaching controversy is one thing. That’s fine. The proponents are simply lying, however,when they are saying that they are truly interested in teaching the controversy. It’s their dissembling and dishonesty that sticks in my craw.
I have been watching this fairly closely. There is little question in my mind that the bill is chock full of ulterior motives – primarily to get creationism (or at least hints thereof) into public school classrooms. Who is behind this? What did people say during committee hearings? (Pretty much nothing but conservative Christians who kept referring to their “beliefs” – ding ding ding.)
For those of you who think oh gosh of course we should discuss controversies and so on let me remind you that we are talking about [i]public school[/i] classrooms. Do I believe the universe was created by God? You betcha. Do I think science suggests a Creator? Yup. But I think it breathtakingly inappropriate to get such religious interpretations of the evidence (and the alleged evidence is itself controversial – how about discussing [i]that[/i]?) into public school science curricula.
Gordion – I understand your jibe but the physics that came after Newton, how much of it is religious? That is the issue. Stick to the issue. The issue is not “evolution versus creationism”. The issue is whether the bill is an attempt to get religious ideas (of a particularly conservative evangelical Protestant bent at that) into public school classrooms. Oh – and under false pretenses.
I know the players. I have read some of the testimonies and debate. There are strong faithful Christians at the church where I serve who teach biology at the university down the road – and they have provided some “inside” information on this – and they are horrified. I have written letters to the editor (one published) and a few posts on my weblog about how foolish this is.
Dallasite is dead one. What really frosts my mug is not even the constitutional issues. It is the dishonesty. (That includes someone from the Louisiana Family Forum showing up during a Sunday fellowship meal claiming he was looking for a place to buy lunch. You have got to be kidding me.) But hey – it’s all for God right?
Um… “dead on” as in “very correct”. Doh.
There are likely to be ulterior motives – tell me what goes through a legislative process without them. Additionally, there should be no need for such a bill. However, the degree to which some have been ostracized and even penalized for teaching that evolution (and other theories) has significant flaws is astounding – and is reflective of a degree of fascism (to use an over-the-top descriptor) we see in other ‘liberal’ elements of society. So I can see a need for such a bill, flawed as its ulterior intentions may be.
Apparently, in some people’s minds, dissenting viewpoints must be forbidden from the classroom, and anyone who can be reasonably supsected of wanting to present declared heresies must be disregarded and called a liar. Those who claim, in the name of science and education, that they are presenting all the necessary facts must never be questioned or have their motives impugned.
What a bunch of BS: bastardized science. Evolutionists fought to get tolerance for their theories and now they want to exclude any dissent. So typical of revolutionaries.
Oh, amnd talk about false pretenses: Under the pretense of keeping religious teaching out of neutral science classes, folks like Rick and Dallasite are spporting the suppression of actual scientific argument. Do any of you guys know what the actual arguments of Intelligent Design are? You talk like it’s indistinguishable from Creationism, which only shows that you don’t read the primary texts. Maybe the facts don’t fit your argument.
Listen this is about worldviews. Science is not value neutral although it pretends that it is. The first presupposition of naturalism and evolution is that there is no God and that everything happened by blind chance. They assume that somehow, anthough they can’t explaint it, is that complexity, over time, become more complex through random events. They need to be called on this and have their presuppositions challanged. Bsically they don’t want to deal with hard questions because they have no answer.
Chris, I’m not against supressing scientific argument. I am against the attempt to disguise religious believe under the pretext of “science” and being lied to about it. We are seeing the same thing in Texas. I have read the arguments of intelligent design theory and think that it is basically a Creationist religious argument dressed up to look like science. And no, I’m not “afraid” to have my suppositions questioned or to address hard questions, and I don’t know of real scientists who are. That argument is a red herring and ridiculous. If you are going to ask hard questions with answers you have presupposed, however, you need to have something to back it up.
Appropriate learning in the public sector involves intellectual discussion on ontology, creation and origins. How well this is done will depend entirely on how well teachers are prepared to handle the questions.
Dallasite, I am suggesting that evolution is itself a religion.
I would like to know what scientific critiques of evolution the bill-sponsors had in mind. Which scientific, peer-reviewed journals document these critiques?
I don’t mind teaching the controversy. That would make a great philosophy or religious studies or social science course.
“It’s not about a certain viewpoint,” said supporter Jason Stern, Vice President of the Louisiana Family Forum, a conservative group pushing the bill. “It’s allowing [teachers] to teach the controversy. It’s an academic freedom issue.”
With apologies to Orwell, it seems that some academics have more freedom than others. And as Br. Michael pointed out, “All these subjects are not sacrosanct.” Let the minds of the children be open, and let intelligent discussion and debate happen where its SUPPOSED to be happpening-in the classroom.
14, science is neither value nor philosophy free. Certainly any science course that is interested in truth should be willing to put up its underlying assumptions and presuppositions up for discussion. Yet science puts its assumptions off limits while challenging everyone else’s. That’s exactly what you do in your reply. Basically you want science to be judged by a methodology that has already excepted sciences presuppositions and assumptions as true.
Science (naturalism) begins with the basic assumption that there is no God, or if there is, does not interfere with the material world. This initial assumption is a religious one, and if God does exist and is active in the world, a false one. Yet science consistently and arrogantly seeks a free pass on this because it knows that under its own methodology its core assumption cannot be tested.
Sorry that’s “accepted” not “excepted”.
I have read the arguments of intelligent design theory and think that it is basically a Creationist religious argument dressed up to look like science.
And Darwinian Evolution is an atheistic theory dressed up as science but which nevertheless operates as a religion both in forbidding dissent from the core doctrine and in grand overarching explanations for the origin of life. Evolution is a unifying theory that doesn’t need to be proved because it makes sense of everything, as long as you don’t ask questions like “How?”. That is what Intelligent Design does. It looks at the greater knowledge of biological complexity that we have now and concludes that Evolution has no credible explanation for its origin.
Evolution postulates that all the elements of nature can be a product of chance, that we evolved from single celled organisms. ID says that there is no way to get to our functioning complexity gradually. That all our biological systems are so irriducible complex and interdepedent that they would have evolve spontaneously fully formed. The mathematical improbabilities of that are so astranoimical as to demand the conclusion that intelligence is at work. Even the evolutionist Richard Dawkins is willing to admit an intelligent designer, as long as it isn’t God. He prefers aliens, which shows what ideology is driving his so-called science.
#16 Br. Michael,
Yes, modern Western science (MWS) is materialist, or naturalist, in its methodology, because such a methodology fulfills its purpose. (Whether individual scientists of the Western scientific tradition are [i]philosophical[/i] naturalists, is another issue.) That is, MWS has discovered that knowledge, prediction, and control of the natural world is increased tremendously when one does not assume “supernatural” causes. This does not mean supernatural causes don’t exist — maybe supernature works by means of nature (e.g., theistic evolution), or maybe supernature acts in ways that are not amenable to scientific replication and falsification (e.g., the miracles of Padre Pio). Supernatural causes may exist, but MWS’s very purpose for being means that the such causes must be excluded, if knowledge, prediction, and control of the natural world is to be had. And the whole history of Western civilization from roughly 1500 has borne out the truth that the naturalist method of MWS has been very successful in predicting and controlling the natural world.
Courses in the philosophy of science, or in “Science — Broadly Conceived as Knowledge in General, whether of Nature or SuperNature” can be created, courses that look at the presuppositions of MWS. Of course, students should know is how MWS operates, the assumptions it makes, and the advantages and limitations of those assumptions. But you can’t cover that in a science class — say, A.P. Biology — because you would never get around to actually studying, collecting, and analyzing the actual empirical data. Courses specifically dealing with the philosophy of MWS would give the subject the attention it deserves.
Chris,
How about I quote myself eh?
[blockquote]Well hang on a second. Not all creationists are young earthers. Not all young earthers go with the six thousand figure. And not all Intelligent Design proponents are – strictly speaking – creationists. This is a simplistic over-generalization.[/blockquote]
I find it fascinating that most people when talking about the [i]bill[/i] the discussion shifts to the merits of Intelligent Design. Whoa nelly – I thought the Louisiana Science Education Act was not a Trojan Horse intended to slip Intelligent Design into the classroom. Or by extension creationism into the classroom. And here we are with you lecturing me about how I do not understand Intelligent Design! Excuse me – why are we talking about that? We are not debating Intelligent Design – we are debating the motives, propriety, and constitutionality of these sorts of “gosh let’s just have a little open discussion about evolution, origins of life, global warming, and cloning”. (That last item by the way is the smoking gun. Not evolution. Cloning?!?) It only goes to show what the bill is really about.
Now – let us address the issue of evidence that calls evolutionary theory into question. Okay. A thought experiment. And to make life simpler I will just quote myself again:
[blockquote]“Hi kids. You know, I have some supplementary material here that suggests that the energy metabolism process that occurs within mitochondria is just so amazingly complex and improbable it could not have evolved by chanceâ€.
“So Mr Richard – if it did not evolve by chance then where did it come from?â€
“Oh uh – we’re not allowed to talk about that. But go home and think about itâ€. *cough* God *cough*
To my knowledge no supporter of this bill has yet to address this basic question that I asked in my letter to the editor. “What other explanations could there possibly be that are non-religious?â€[/blockquote]
I look at biological science (such as the example above) and believe it points to an Intelligent Designer. (The very expression Intelligent Design begs the question “who is the intelligent designer?” And thus this is about getting religious ideas into the classroom.) That is my religious/theological interpretation of the evidence. Do not assume you know what I think about all these things! (Yes a little anger there. Sometimes defenders of faith get a bit too zealous and shoot their own.) But – getting back to the [i]bill[/i] – is it appropriate to discuss religious ideas as “truth” or answers to scientific questions in the [i]public school classroom[/i]?
The years I despised religion were when it was shoved down our throats at a British public school. It was not until I got back to the States and its pesky liberal secular atheist public high schools (in Massachusetts no less) that Christ got through to me. The Christian church must stop trying to use wrong means to advance the right goals! Such as getting the State to do our job for us.
#19
You mention “scientific replication and falsification.” Given science’s inability to replicate evolution, to observe evolution (macro, not micro), or to falsify the neo-Darwinian theory, is it really any wonder that many people consider it to be more religion or philosophy than science? Evolution isn’t based on typical scientific method, but is more of a historical discipline (look at the legacy of the past in the form of fossils, and extrapolate from those the mechanism that must have produced those results). As such, it is subject to the same variations in interpretation that history is. One interpretation of the data is that there are no natural explanations for the sudden appearances of complex systems much less life itself, at least not any that are no less speculative than ID (e.g., Dawkins’ postulation of alien seeding). So regardless of the motives of the bill’s sponsors, is it not conceivable that schools should be willing to teach the controversy and, yes, even throw doubt on the theory, if doubt is warranted?
The very expression Intelligent Design begs the question “who is the intelligent designer?†And thus this is about getting religious ideas into the classroom.
I’ll flip that right back at you, Rick; The very denial of Intelligent Design raises the question, “Does that mean there’s no designer to life?” And thus this is about getting atheistic presumptions into the classroom.
By excluding any theory that allows for God, if the evidence seems to work in that direction, by calling that religion and not science, is itself a foundational premise that cannot be justified by science. Many characterize ID as using God to explain everything that could otherwise be explained naturally. On the contrary. It is only those things that cannot be satisfactorily explained naturally that are said to a Designer.
As an atheist turned Christian I used to believe in both God and evolution. It doidn’t matter to me how God created and sustained creation. But I wasn’t forced to believe evolution anymore because the idea of God was no longer an obstacle to me. Thus my doubts about evolution came about through an objective examination of the treatment of the evidence, and I saw, and still see, a slip shod process of question begging, circular reasoning and ad himinem arguments used to defend evolution. I found, when I put aside my prior belief in it, that macro evolution did not prove its case even remotely. It was only when I accepted it as a fact that the arguments presented over the evidence seemed to make sense.
That is not a science in my book. It is an ideology. The same kind of ideology that is driving Global Warming theories. The same kind that works in Dispensationalist interpretations of Biblical prophecies: First accept the theory, which becomes the template, then interpret the evidence, and PRESTO, the conclusion backs up the theory. QED.
Except the line of logical reasoning jumps the tracks a few places. But as long as you have a “consensus” you can basically shout down, or “out of order”, all attempts to point out the flaws in the argument. That is what ID claims to do. It doesn’t claim to prove God. In fact, the God required by ID is little better that a deist one. ID is a critique of evolution.
Now, the proponents of these measures to allow ID into the classroom may have larger plans. Who doesn’t. They may plan on getting God back into the classroom. One could have an argument about how and whether that should be done, but it would be a hard to argue that the mention of God in schools before it was banned from on high amounted to unscientific barbarism or suppression of thought, or that our the moral and intellectual nature of children educated in State schools has increased since then. So getting religion back into classrooms may be a justifiable idea, but you can understand why, in our present legal climate, those greater goals are not invoked because it causes ACLU type minds to shut down automatically.
But the larger goals are just that: larger goals. They do not make the smaller more immediate ones mere pretexts. A truth which serves a larger truth is still a truth. And it is worth pursuing for its own sake. The fact that its acceptance will make a larger truth easier to promote is a secondary benefit.
“But you can’t cover that in a science class—say, A.P. Biology—because you would never get around to actually studying, collecting, and analyzing the actual empirical data.”
Of course you can. You just don’t want to. I think Chris Hathaway has given a good response. You run frome the difficult questions that science can’t answer by claiming religion in order to advance athiestic religion or worldview. It is time we called you all on it. The playing field of ideas need to be leveled. Science is not sacrosanct and must not be given a free pass if kids are to learn.
Where better to learn scientific assumptions and presuppositions that in science class?