Creationist bill passed by Louisiana House of Representatives

[Moridin]

This is bad news.

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-39/1213222164265360.xml&storylist=louisiana

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A proposal that would let science teachers change how they teach topics like evolution, cloning and global warming in public schools was overwhelmingly approved Wednesday by the Louisiana House.

The bill by Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, would let teachers supplement school science textbooks with other materials. The House voted 94-3 for the measure.

The Senate already has agreed to the bill, but it heads back to that chamber for approval of a provision that would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to prohibit supplemental materials it deems inappropriate. Nevers said he will ask the Senate to approve the amendment. He stressed that the amendment does not require BESE to review all the materials. The state board would only step in if someone raised a question about whether the material was appropriate.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/LA/95_creationist_bill_passed_by_lou_6_12_2008.asp

On June 11, 2008, with less than two weeks left in the legislative calendar, the Louisiana House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 733, a bill which opens the door to creationism in public school science classes. The bill, sponsored in the House by Rep. Frank Hoffman and in the Senate by Sen. Ben Nevers, purports to "promote[] critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

The Associated Press (June 12, 2008) reports that "The Senate already has agreed to the bill, but it heads back to that chamber for approval of a provision that would allow the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to prohibit supplemental materials it deems inappropriate. Nevers said he will ask the Senate to approve the amendment. He stressed that the amendment does not require BESE to review all the materials. The state board would only step in if someone raised a question about whether the material was appropriate." Meanwhile, the Alexandria Town Talk (June 8, 2008) observes that "State lawmakers are looking at a hectic two weeks as the 2008 legislative session draws to a close with many major issues yet to be settled." Outstanding legislation includes next year's budget, infrastructure construction bills, a voucher proposal for New Orleans public schools, and other controversial legislation.

I predict that we will be seeing more of these as time goes by.

 

[Stevedye56]

Finally some equality in the curriculum.

 

[Moridin]

Finally some equality in the curriculum.

Actually, this bill promotes inequality in the curriculum by exposing students to anti-scientific ideas that has not passed the rigor of scientific analysis in the slightest (creationism) and pretending that they are equal to ideas that have passed the rigor of scientific analysis with flying colors (evolution).

Creationism is just as much of alternative to the fact of evolution as Holocaust revisionism is to the fact of history.

 

[Doc Al]

Finally some equality in the curriculum.

Sure, it's always wise to balance science with crackpottery.

 

[Stevedye56]

If creationism can't be taught then why should the big bang be allowed?

 

[Stevedye56]

Sure, it's always wise to balance science with crackpottery.

If that is your take one it then that's fine. However, I disagree even though I am probably the only person in this forum to do so.

 

[Stevedye56]

Actually, this bill promotes inequality in the curriculum by exposing students to anti-scientific ideas that has not passed the rigor of scientific analysis in the slightest (creationism) and pretending that they are equal to ideas that have passed the rigor of scientific analysis with flying colors (evolution).

Creationism is just as much of alternative to the fact of evolution as Holocaust revisionism is to the fact of history.

Wait wait wait. So the Big Bang HAS passed all of these "tests"..

 

[lisab]

Wait wait wait. So the Big Bang HAS passed all of these "tests"..

Big Bang? That's a non-sequitur. Big Bang Theory <> Theory of Evolution.

If religion insists on inserting itself into science, we should get equal time. I should be allowed to teach Sunday school (btw, I'm an atheist).

 

[Stevedye56]

I think that a soon as science starts to solve problems that it can't then a debate arises. I pose this question to everyone: What happens with the CERN program if NO new information is found after full operation of the LHC? Is it a dead end? Or, is there a cover made up for why nothing was found?

 

[Gokul43201]

If creationism can't be taught then why should the big bang be allowed?

The former is NOT SCIENCE, the latter IS. In a SCIENCE class you teach SCIENCE. End of discussion.

 

[Santa1]

Does this mean somebody finally can teach the students what's really true instead of that science nonsense? I mean obviously true stuff like my own theory of the 256-dimensional fairies and the invisible flying juju in the skies.

If creationism can't be taught then why should the big bang be allowed?

Excellent question, maybe because christian creationism is based on the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days, and is also in the middle of the universe. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the origins of the universe, only how it evolves from a very early stage. And it also doesn't have a pro Human/Earth bias.

 

[Alfi]

the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old

It does ?
What version?
I have several and I must have missed that tid bit of fact in all of them.

 

[Andre]

The former is NOT SCIENCE, the latter IS. In a SCIENCE class you teach SCIENCE. End of discussion.

Almost agree, that is if science is about falsifiability. The creation "hypothesis" can be considered falsified. But is the big bang falsifiable?

 

[Moridin]

Wait wait wait. So the Big Bang HAS passed all of these "tests"..

Yes, it has. Furthermore, the big bang is about the development of the universe, not its origin.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

[Moridin]

Almost agree, that is if science is about falsifiability. The creation "hypothesis" can be considered falsified. But is the big bang falsifiable?

If red shift was observed not to occur, or if the ultra specific predictions concerning the cosmic background radiation was not confirmed, it would be pretty hard to advocate the big bang.

 

[Moridin]

It does ?
What version?
I have several and I must have missed that tid bit of fact in all of them.

It can be calculated from Old and New Testament genealogies. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. Naturally, this data is inconsistent with every dating method that exists.

 

[Santa1]

It does ?
What version?
I have several and I must have missed that tid bit of fact in all of them.

ask a young Earth creationist for the details.

 

[Moridin]

I think that a soon as science starts to solve problems that it can't then a debate arises. I pose this question to everyone: What happens with the CERN program if NO new information is found after full operation of the LHC? Is it a dead end? Or, is there a cover made up for why nothing was found?

LHC finding nothing that can advance scientific understanding is impossible by definition, since even a failure is information that can be used to advance our evidence-based models to a higher degree of accuracy.

 

[Gokul43201]

But is the big bang falsifiable?

At different stages of its development, the theory was falsifiable by different kinds of experiments. With more and more agreement and/or refinements, tests of falsifiability become harder and harder to perform, but are not, in theory, impossible. For instance, the "Big Bang" would have been falsified by observing chemical abundances much different from what we have. But at the same time, there are modifications that the theory is undergoing that refines details about the early universe, and these modifications have come about precisely because earlier explanations of these details have been falsified.

 

[mgb_phys]

It's not wether evolution/big bang/climate change is or isn't taught that matters.
(None of these were covered in science when I was at school - it was just learn the periodic table and Newtons laws.)
What is important is teaching kids the idea behind scientific method rather than "because god said so"as the answer to everything.

Otherwise where do you stop? If kids can answer 'it's God's will' to every school science question, can they write that in their degree, when they are in medical school, when they are signing off on a new aircraft design?

 

[Borek]

I hope they will teach about Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Santa1]

I hope they will teach about Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The possibility is certainly there.

What is important is teaching kids the idea behind scientific method rather than "because god said so"as the answer to everything.

Yes I agree, that is the most important aspect.

 

[Cyrus]

Finally some equality in the curriculum.

Come on, are you joking me? Should we start teaching kids alchemy while were at it to balance chemistry.

 

[Moridin]

At different stages of its development, the theory was falsifiable by different kinds of experiments. With more and more agreement and/or refinements, tests of falsifiability become harder and harder to perform, but are not, in theory, impossible. For instance, the "Big Bang" would have been falsified by observing chemical abundances much different from what we have. But at the same time, there are modifications that the theory is undergoing that refines details about the early universe, and these modifications have come about precisely because earlier explanations of these details have been falsified.

I may be misunderstanding the concept of falsifiability, but doesn't tests of falsifiability become easier with more and more agreements and refinements, because the predictions are so specific, such as CMBR?

 

[Stevedye56]

Does this mean somebody finally can teach the students what's really true instead of that science nonsense? I mean obviously true stuff like my own theory of the 256-dimensional fairies and the invisible flying juju in the skies.



Excellent question, maybe because christian creationism is based on the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days, and is also in the middle of the universe. The Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the origins of the universe, only how it evolves from a very early stage. And it also doesn't have a pro Human/Earth bias.

No it does not. There is no statement about how old the Earth is, although it does state that it was made in 6 days.

 

[Stevedye56]

Almost agree, that is if science is about falsifiability. The creation "hypothesis" can be considered falsified. But is the big bang falsifiable?

How could you consider it falsified- because you don't believe it? The Big Bang is falsifiable you obviously haven't looked very deeply into it. If the Big Bang DID happen how do you get from there to life. If the humanity is so smart then why can we not figure out cancer? Why have we not found cure for illness. Why can't we live forever?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If the humanity is so smart then why can we not figure out cancer? Why have we not found cure for illness. Why can't we live forever?

Some might ask the same about a certain omnipotent and omnibenevolent someone.

 

[Stevedye56]

You must have not gone to New York when Nima Arkani-Hamed was giving his presentation about the CERN program. Not believing in creationism he clearly shot down the fact that it was impossible for the universe to expand as rapidly as the big bang model represents. If the leading physicists at Princeton and the CERN project are refuting all of your evidence I don't know what you have to go on...

 

[Stevedye56]

ask a young Earth creationist for the details.

Oh, so you don't have them. But you heard the from someone who heard that from someone?

 

[Alfi]

maybe because christian creationism is based on the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days,

It can be calculated from Old and New Testament genealogies.Ah ..So, it is just a complete lie that the bible has anything to say about the age of the universe or this particular planet in it.

The bible is to truth of origin ; as Harry Potter is to the truth about magic.

I would much rather Harry Potter taught in schools than a bible. Even though they are both fictional.

 

[Stevedye56]

It can be calculated from Old and New Testament genealogies. Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. Naturally, this data is inconsistent with every dating method that exists.

No it can't. It can be calculated that the world is going to end tomorrow if you want. I could calculate that the Earth is 15 minutes old if I wanted to. There is no direct statement on the age of the earth. I would like to see your calculation.On a side note to the admins I haven't figured out the multi quote thing yet so I am sorry for cluttering this thread.

Otherwise where do you stop? If kids can answer 'it's God's will' to every school science question, can they write that in their degree, when they are in medical school, when they are signing off on a new aircraft design?

Certainly not, that does not demonstrate understanding of a topic it just shows an un-willingness to learn. If I wanted right now I could just write that I do not believe in Biology because the Bible says that it is incorrect. However, I do not because that would be obscene. Just because I do not believe in the theory of evolution does not mean that I will avoid it at all costs. I think that it is ridiculous to say that people would refute something because "the bible doesn't say so". If the person is taking that approach they clearly are looking for a way out. I love physics I think every aspect is interesting. However, I do not believe that it has the origin and or evolution of life.

 

[Kurdt]

Creationism is not science and has no place in a science class. If you want a creation story to be told it has to be done in a religious education class. End of story. What is the problem here?

 

[Stevedye56]

maybe because christian creationism is based on the bible, which also states that the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days,

It can be calculated from Old and New Testament genealogies.


Ah ..So, it is just a complete lie that the bible has anything to say about the age of the universe or this particular planet in it.

The bible is to truth of origin ; as Harry Potter is to the truth about magic.

I would much rather Harry Potter taught in schools than a bible. Even though they are both fictional.

So you think a book that has been transcribed hundreds and hundreds of times with errors only in punctuation is a made up fairy tale..

 

[lisab]

So you think a book that has been transcribed hundreds and hundreds of times with errors only in punctuation is a made up fairy tale..

Again, a non-sequitur. The number of times a book has been transcribed has nothing to do wtih the veracity of the first copy.

In any case I'm not aware of evidence that the bible has been transcribed so many times with no major errors or revisions.

 

[Vid]

I can't say I'm surprised. I was taught both evolution and creationism in 10th grade biology by the great Louisiana public school system. We also learned about the possibility of humans coming from space. All three of these were considered possible "theories" in this class. I blame the heavy, heavy catholic influence in Louisiana especially the further south you go. (I lived 90 miles south west of New Orleans.)