Louisiana governor signs creationist bill

[Moridin]

Analysis of Lousiana "Academic Freedom" bill - http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/analysis-of-lou.html

 

[jostpuur]

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:

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

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...

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[robertm]

This kind of professional crap they use to fool so many people: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453"

 

[Gokul43201]

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?

 

[vociferous]

Was this signed before or after the bill that legally required pi to equal 3?

 

[csguy]

Was this signed before or after the bill that legally required pi to equal 3?

It depends on how a cubit is interpreted.

 

[island]

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

 

[RocketSurgery]

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).

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

If you don't want to believe in science

Who said anything like that? (I mean other than the conspiracy theorists)

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[RocketSurgery]

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.

 

[vincentm]

Yes, heaven forbid we teach our students critical thinking skills.

There's no critical thinking about ID, it's a lack of thinking.

 

[Hurkyl]

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".

 

[robertm]

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'?

 

[WarPhalange]

 

[robertm]

Haha. Ouch, caught in the act.

 

[vincentm]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

 

[vincentm]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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)

 

[vincentm]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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?

 

[NeoDevin]

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.

 

[robertm]

Fallacy: guilt by association. You are trying to discredit the bill not upon its own merits, but upon your opinion of its proponents.

It is not merely an association, refer to my earlier links.

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.

1) I think you'll agree this is unlikely.
2)Most of the societies did not submit letters until much later in the game, not knee-jerk by any means. I can not speak for the others, but I would have opposed this bill just as much regardless of were it originated or who supported it.
3) Not sure what you mean here...
4) http://lasciencecoalition.org/docs/AIBS_et_al_Jindal_veto_6.13.08.pdf" Hmmm... Sounds pretty straight forward to me... I could have misread though... Notice these people are no small fries in the scientific community.

You seem to have completely missed all my earlier posts. You really think that good will come out of this bill? There is no use for it unless it is applied to teach creation science.

Again, why would the bill only apply to historically religious and political arguments in science (evolution, stem cell research, cloning ect..) if it's goal was to promote critical thinking skills? Why ignore controversies in other subjects, and other real controversies in science?

A main point of yours (correct me if i am wrong) is that the bill specifically states:

"D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine,
13 promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or
14 promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

So there should not be an issue, right? However, what supplement arguments are there for the stated 'controversies' of: evolution, the origins of life, human cloning and others not stated by the bill? Scientific ones?

Besides the possibility of differing theories of abiogenisis (which I highly doubt Mr. Nevers, a deacon at his local church, would support) I see no other Scientific controversies to teach that would not already be included in the standard textbooks.

By the language of this bill, teachers could legally say, "Well kids, modern science has no explanation for this phenomenon, but this nice booklet (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453) by the great 'scientist' at the D.I. has some very promising ideas."
That is not scientific. It is very clever indoctrination technique.

How can you be so naive to actually believe that this bill is a good thing? Actually, what is your opinion? Do you like the bill, or do you just think it isn't a big deal? Maybe it is not a huge deal, but is definitely a step backwards down a dangerous path of illogic.

 

[Hurkyl]

A main point of yours (correct me if i am wrong) is that the bill specifically states:

That is incorrect. The points I am making are entirely derived from subsections B and C. (I haven't noticed anyone say anything relevant to point D)

Section B instructs the state school board to allow teachers and schools to create an environment that promotes:

critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories​

Additionally, section B instructs the school board to assist teachers in doing so, and explicitly specifies some forms of assistance that will be provided.

Section C instructs teachers that they shall first teach from the standard school textbook, and then may subsequently introduce

other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner​

insofar as it's permitted by the city/parish/local school board.


My point is briefly summarized as pointing out the fact the following two hypotheses are obviously contradictory:
(1) This bill allows the teaching of ID
(2) Teaching ID is not an example of teaching critical thinking, objective discussion, or whatever.

However, for some mystifying reason, people have repeatedly asserted these two hypotheses over and over in this thread.

 

[vincentm]

My point is briefly summarized as pointing out the fact the following two hypotheses are obviously contradictory:
(1) This bill allows the teaching of ID
(2) Teaching ID is not an example of teaching critical thinking, objective discussion, or whatever.

However, for some mystifying reason, people have repeatedly asserted these two hypotheses over and over in this thread.

What are the students going to be taught in analytically criticizing Evolution? If this isn't about Intelligent Design being taught, why is the Discovery institute ( major proponent of Intelligent Design and loser of the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial) supporting this?

 

[robertm]

That is incorrect. The points I am making are entirely derived from subsections B and C. (I haven't noticed anyone say anything relevant to point D)

Section B instructs the state school board to allow teachers and schools to create an environment that promotes:

critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories​

Additionally, section B instructs the school board to assist teachers in doing so, and explicitly specifies some forms of assistance that will be provided.

Section C instructs teachers that they shall first teach from the standard school textbook, and then may subsequently introduce

other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner​

insofar as it's permitted by the city/parish/local school board.


My point is briefly summarized as pointing out the fact the following two hypotheses are obviously contradictory:
(1) This bill allows the teaching of ID
(2) Teaching ID is not an example of teaching critical thinking, objective discussion, or whatever.

However, for some mystifying reason, people have repeatedly asserted these two hypotheses over and over in this thread.

You continue to ignore many of my points.

The argument is contradictory if you hold that ID is indeed a real viable scientific theory, however, none who have made that argument have ever given ID that distinction. Since so many are convinced that ID is viable (the Discovery Institute, the Louisiana Family Forum, virtually every religious organization, good ole' Louisiana boys, ect) the potential supplementing of science materials in public classrooms with ID propaganda is not considered to be a threat nor to be unlawful.

I challenge you to give one single example of a current controversy in the stated scientific subjects that is:
A) Rigorously being discussed and tested in main stream respected scientific communities; and
B) Is viable and important enough to be included in the curriculum of K-12 Louisiana public schools.

Once again, I am astounded to see that you can actually believe that this bill is necessary to ensure the stated purpose of creating an environment that promotes:

critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories​

Schools already do that just fine! There is no reason for this bill to exist, until you include the goal of introducing religious creationism wrapped in a shiny new terminology: Intelligent Design.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Schools already do that just fine! There is no reason for this bill to exist, until you include the goal of introducing religious creationism wrapped in a shiny new terminology: Intelligent Design.

Are you sure they do that just fine? Have you attended school in Louisiana lately?
Don't you think that maybe so many people think ID is a viable alternative to evolution because they don't really understand evolution? And maybe if they were to be made to really think about it they might actually see the sense in it and the lack of sense in ID? Just maybe?

It also allows teachers to bring in outside material to help study these subjects as long as the material is acceptable. And so maybe material supporting ID will be shot down as unacceptable. And maybe the they will be able to bring in material that helps shed more light on the issue and clear it up in the minds of the students.

So just maybe the schools don't do a very good job which leads to so many people believing in unscientific claims and perhaps this bill will help fix that regardless of whom ever it is that is supporting it and wanting it passed.

In the mean time the extreme reactions of people against the bill, which are down right insulting to anyone who sincerely believes that ID might be right, is not endearing them to anyone. Getting on an intellectual highhorse is not going to persuade any of those people who need to be persuaded. If they really wanted to help people they would stop being such prigs.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you sure they do that just fine? Have you attended school in Louisiana lately?
Don't you think that maybe so many people think ID is a viable alternative to evolution because they don't really understand evolution? And maybe if they were to be made to really think about it they might actually see the sense in it and the lack of sense in ID? Just maybe?

It also allows teachers to bring in outside material to help study these subjects as long as the material is acceptable. And so maybe material supporting ID will be shot down as unacceptable. And maybe the they will be able to bring in material that helps shed more light on the issue and clear it up in the minds of the students.

So just maybe the schools don't do a very good job which leads to so many people believing in unscientific claims and perhaps this bill will help fix that regardless of whom ever it is that is supporting it and wanting it passed.

In the mean time the extreme reactions of people against the bill, which are down right insulting to anyone who sincerely believes that ID might be right, is not endearing them to anyone. Getting on an intellectual highhorse is not going to persuade any of those people who need to be persuaded. If they really wanted to help people they would stop being such prigs.

I think it finally comes down to whether or not your science teacher is a religion pusher.

For instance, you're not likely to be exposed to the real scientific debate (as opposed to the pseudoscientific excuse for a debate that is becoming all to common now), if your teacher is someone like this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25284886/

Teacher in trouble for burning crosses on kids

A school board in central Ohio voted Friday to move ahead on firing a science teacher accused of preaching his Christian beliefs in class and using a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms.
...
Freshwater's friend Dave Daubenmire defended him.

"With the exception of the cross-burning episode ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," he told The Columbus Dispatch for a story published Friday.

Several students interviewed by investigators described Freshwater, who has been employed by the district for 21 years, as a great guy.
...
Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable to argue against evolution.

So, the kids really need to be better informed than their science teachers, in order to prevent abuse disguised as "critical thinking".

Think critically folks! How Carbon dating be right when it tells us that some rocks are - Heaven forbid - millions of years old?

 

[NeoDevin]

So, the kids really need to be better informed than their science teachers, in order to prevent abuse disguised as "critical thinking".

I would say the responsibility lies with the parents, not the kids. Be active in your childrens' education. At the very least ask ``What did you learn in school today?'' over dinner. If your child answers something to the effect of ``Science is wrong and we're all going to hell'' (or similar, possibly less extreme statement), it's time to homeschool biology.

 

[robertm]

Are you sure they do that just fine? Have you attended school in Louisiana lately?
Don't you think that maybe so many people think ID is a viable alternative to evolution because they don't really understand evolution? And maybe if they were to be made to really think about it they might actually see the sense in it and the lack of sense in ID? Just maybe?

Like I said earlier, there is no viable controversy to be teaching, therefor there is no reason to introduce this bill. Their is no controversy that is absent from the classroom that needs to be in the classroom.

I have never been to school in Louisiana, but I did grow up in the 'deep south'. My experience is that the books do a good job of objectively teaching subjects, but not necessarily the teachers.

I absolutely agree that there is a widespread misunderstanding of evolution, and that could be a large cause of it's current unpopularity, however, I do not think that it is a coincidence that I have never found a single person who believes in ID, and is not religious. Conversely, I have also never found a non-religious person who is convinced of ID.

Thinking critically about evolution should already be practiced. This bill, unless in the hands of a good teacher, will not help students think about evolution any more than the standard textbooks already should be used to.

That is a lot of maybes, and those maybes could be true, but this bill does not help achieve them. Teacher's who's goal it is to help students critically understand the principle's of evolution do not need this bill to do that, only the one's who's goal it is to falsely criticize evolution need this bill.

It also allows teachers to bring in outside material to help study these subjects as long as the material is acceptable. And so maybe material supporting ID will be shot down as unacceptable. And maybe the they will be able to bring in material that helps shed more light on the issue and clear it up in the minds of the students.

That could very well happen, in the hands of quality educators. But do you trust the Louisiana school board enough to believe that they will shoot ID down? Had my hillbilly backwater teachers of the 12 different southern schools I attended in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina had the chance they would have loved to caste a shadow of doubt in the minds of their students as to the viability of evolution. I can only think of two science teacher that I had (out of about 15) that would have objectively shown evolution as a very well evidenced theory.

I know that is just an anecdotal experience, but the chances are pretty good that this is the case throughout the bible belt.

So just maybe the schools don't do a very good job which leads to so many people believing in unscientific claims and perhaps this bill will help fix that regardless of whom ever it is that is supporting it and wanting it passed.

The fault lies with the educators and with the parents. Adding different material will not produce more effective teachers. Nor will it stop the religious social stigma against evolution that young scientist have to deal with in their own homes.

If this bill backfires in the face of the DI, that would be fantastic. It is definitely a possible scenario, just I think highly unlikely. Even if it wasn't unlikely though, I would still oppose the bill on legal terms.

In the mean time the extreme reactions of people against the bill, which are down right insulting to anyone who sincerely believes that ID might be right, is not endearing them to anyone. Getting on an intellectual highhorse is not going to persuade any of those people who need to be persuaded. If they really wanted to help people they would stop being such prigs.

I don't know about any extreme reactions, but if my emphatic denial of a crackpot theory offends anyone I frankly am not going to lose any sleep over it. The supporters of ID need to open their eyes and stop the religious bias. I don't think asking nicely is going to get the DI to close down their multimillion dollar creationism museum. There needs to be a systematic unwavering denial of the ridiculous nonsense peddled by these sadly mislead people. This is no high horse, the supporters of ID are trying to bully and shortcut their way into the scientific world by skipping the qualifications and ruthless peer-review that every other scientific theory must endure.

I hope I have not come across as a pig, if I have I do apologize; and I can agree with you on that point. There is no need to be extreme, just very firm.

 

[Hurkyl]

The argument is contradictory if you hold that ID is indeed a real viable scientific theory,

It's also contradictory if you hold that ID is not a real viable scientific theory.

The only thing this bill allows a teacher to do is to

create and foster an environment ... that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories ...​

Therefore, a trivial logical consequence of the assertion "this bill allows the teaching of ID" is that teaching ID promotes one or more of critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.

If you do not believe that teaching ID promotes one or more of critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories, then your only option is to adopt the hypothesis "the teaching of ID is not allowed by this bill". Otherwise, you are being self-contradictory.

You continue to ignore many of my points.

Because they are irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. Many of the complains in this thread are, at the very least, severely misguided, since they boil down to the simultaneous assertion that the bill allows certain activities, and those activities are directly opposed to that which the bill allows.

I challenge you to give one single example of a current controversy in the stated scientific subjects that is:

I choose to decline your double fallacy of red herring and shifting the burden of proof.

 

[robertm]

It's also contradictory if you hold that ID is not a real viable scientific theory.

The only thing this bill allows a teacher to do is to

create and foster an environment ... that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories ...​

Therefore, a trivial logical consequence of the assertion "this bill allows the teaching of ID" is that teaching ID promotes one or more of critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.

If you do not believe that teaching ID promotes one or more of critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories, then your only option is to adopt the hypothesis "the teaching of ID is not allowed by this bill". Otherwise, you are being self-contradictory.

The bill allows a teacher to create and foster an environment that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories. If the school board agrees with a teacher that ID fosters that kind of environment, then ID will be allowed in the classroom. Just because I disagree with such an assertion does not mean that I am committing a logical fallacy, it means that one of us (me, or the school board) is profoundly mistaken about the viability of that certain theory.

Many people believe that ID can and will promote the objectives of this bill, I happen to disagree.

Because they are irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. Many of the complains in this thread are, at the very least, severely misguided, since they boil down to the simultaneous assertion that the bill allows certain activities, and those activities are directly opposed to that which the bill allows.

It seems you misunderstand the point. The assertion is that:

This bill (in the hands of ID supporters and/or the religious majority of the state of Louisiana) allows certain activities that are directly opposed to those which the bill should logical and objectively be allowing do to the potential bias of the enforcers of the legislation.

I choose to decline your double fallacy of red herring and shifting the burden of proof.

It is your mistake if you think that the lack of need for legislation of this sort is beside the point. Does Occam's Razor not apply to legislation?

The bill makes the assertion that there are additional controversies that need to be taught in public schools. So how is my asking for proof of that assertion a shift of the burden of proof?