[Lava Lamp Freak]

[CreepDogg]

That would be funny if it weren't so sad. I've lost patience at this point with simpletons who insist everything has 2 sides - no more and no less. I really wish more people were capable of more than 2-dimensional thinking...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Same with evolution.

Oh please.

Sure the MOUNTAIN of evidence supporting evolution will never be just enough for some, but God damn..,

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Well in the case of intelligent design, the reason it hasn't been allowed in textbooks is not that there isn't a scientific consensus on it, but that it is considered to be a religious theory. There is no constitutional issue in teaching bad science, only in teaching religion.

Which is exactly where the logical flaw lies.

A. I don't think that that the ID theory requires you to have any more religious beliefs than the theory of evolution as the origin of our species. You can argue that there isn't as much empirical evidence to support ID as evolution, but that does not make it a "religious theory" unless you specifically state that the intelligent design was done by a God worshipped by followers. "Religion" is more than believing that there may be some kind of non-worshipped unknown "higher power" or energy source. If one is to study how humans came to be, there should be no intellectual barriers put into place that would exclude certain theories just because some people might get offended by them. That includes both evolution and ID if educators and the community decides that is proper. The prohibition on ID is clearly more than just a scientific concern, but rather a reflection of religious bigotry, IMO.

B. Even if the theory of the origin of our species is religious in nature, our founding fathers never intended for the Constitution to protect Americans from having to be exposed to religious thought or theory. As has been over time and time again, there were a minority of the people involved with the Constitution that wanted that "high wall" to protect people from any religious intermingling other than for the government not to force a nationwide denomination on anyone, and if we apply the same standards to interpreting the Constitution as we did the recent Second Amendment decision (actually read the words and know the intent of the fouders) this becomes even clearer. Evidence shows that most of the founders where more interested in government not intruding on our rights, rather than protecting us from exposure to religious thought.

It's irrational to suggest that it's a violation of someone's rights to force them to be exposed to something that MIGHT be religious in nature, but not explicitly so - but that there is no violation by forcing them to be indoctrinated in a subject matter that assumes there is no God or higher power when making a determination on how things happen. I truly think that the effort to suppress alternative theories says more about those who oppose them, then those who support them.

I see irrational fear.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300

Their state legislature passed a law -- AGAIN -- to force teachers to teach Intelligent Design and Creationism next to Evolution and Gravity. That state is seriously f**ked up.

Unless you can establish where the law says this, your interpretation of it may be what is f**ked up here.

The Louisiana Science Education Act
The state... shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment... that promotes 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. (Section 1B)

So... where does it say that Creationism and ID need to be taught in class?

You can be religious all you want, but keep it out of the schools. This is absolutely ridiculous.

While the sciences generally discussed in class are those of consensus, consensus has never been the alpha and omega of advancement. It has become a convenient bully-pulpit for the opinionated and holds no educational value whatsoever in this context. There's nothing wrong with critically analyzing evidences of scientific consensus. After all, scientists do. I can direct you to any one of a number of conventions held in which scientists discuss, debate, and analyze areas of conventional theory on a host of topics. Why should the teaching of the discipline be any different? If you were concerned about the teaching of evolution, you'd be more concerned not with the efforts of many to interject doubt of the theory, but of the degree of understanding of those given the authority to teach it. The scientific community is certainly concerned about it.

Again, what I see here is not so much concern for science, but fear of something else. What else? Whatever it is you fear most that has not even been the subject of the issue at hand as far as I can tell. If you can show me otherwise, I will readily apologize and concede my point.

In a world where my daughter has been required to watch An Inconvenient Truth no less than twice, in which others are subjected to Haeckel's long-debunked recapitulation theory still found in text books teaching about human "gill-slits", and the outright fraudulent pseudo-scientific nonsense espoused by those like Alfred Kinsey; the failure of the educational establishment has brought this on themselves. I don't care if it's a Buddhist, Muslim, flat-earther, Purple Spaghetti Monster-believing, green dog-man that ushers in the scrutiny. It may very well be the most necessary check to the dogma of another kind dressed up in bad science.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which is exactly where the logical flaw lies. I see irrational fear.

I agree with much of what you've said here. Many have mistaken "Separation of Church and State" for "Suppression of Church in State" and there is no more a fallacious notion. Evidenced by the precedent of Bible-reading in school, Congressional sessions opened in prayer, the Constitutions of many States still today regarding "Creator" etc... Now that we've cleared that up, about the logical flaw you cite in fact founded in irrational fear;

There is nothing in the law I can see where it claims teachers are now required to teach Intelligent Design and Creationism next to Evolution and Gravity. In fact, I cannot even see where it states ID and Creationism at all. For one thing, Creationism is directly pulled from Genesis in the Bible. I can assure you no one will be required to carry a Bible along with Origin of Species, not even on the most slippery of slopes.

Critical analysis ≠ Creationism and ID

It must've been a Creationist who challenged geocentrism.
It must've been an anti-American who questioned our war in Iraq.

... and all this time I thought "if you're not for us, you're against us" was a reprehensible notion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Oh please.

Sure the MOUNTAIN of evidence supporting evolution will never be just enough for some, but God damn..,

I'll remember that next time someone pops in with "new proof of evolution"

I sometimes wonder how convinced some of its more zealous proponents really are.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp Freak 

[IMG]illustration of strawmen

Funny picture. So... is it wrong to challenge conventional wisdom? What if;

- we had not challenged geocentrism?
- "honest Abe" was more concerned about weakening the economic foundation of the South than freeing slaves into a society without suitable skill-sets.
- Slavery was perpetuated by rival black tribes
- we had not challenged the shape of the earth when once thought flat
- the civil war was anything, but civil
- the horrors of the holocaust were being used to thrust an agenda of another kind

Oh, I forget; "if you're not for us you're against us" is only reprehensible if espoused by __________ ___________ (R)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While the sciences generally discussed in class are those of consensus, consensus has never been the alpha and omega of advancement. It has become a convenient bully-pulpit for the opinionated and holds no educational value whatsoever in this context. There's nothing wrong with critically analyzing evidences of scientific consensus. After all, scientists do. I can direct you to any one of a number of conventions held in which scientists discuss, debate, and analyze areas of conventional theory on a host of topics. Why should the teaching of the discipline be any different?

Do you also think elementary school physics classes should hold debates about the nature of quantum gravity and suggest that intelligent falling may be correct?

The thing is, the evidence for evolution is darn near incontrovertible. All the details may not be figured out yet, and it's perfectly fine to get that across in a science class, but no serious scientist doubts that it happened. Teaching alternative theories (at least without prefacing them with "This almost certainly didn't happen and I'm just wasting your time") gives a false impression of how strong those theories are relative to evolution. I'm all about teaching critical thinking, but somebody in an introductory-level class is not going to have the expertise it takes to critique the basis for all of modern biology.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you were concerned about the teaching of evolution, you'd be more concerned not with the efforts of many to interject doubt of the theory, but of the degree of understanding of those given the authority to teach it. The scientific community is certainly concerned about it.

I see those as going hand in hand. While people who are teaching evolution in good faith may not always do a good job, people who disbelieve evolution almost always propagate the poor arguments and misconceptions.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In a world where my daughter has been required to watch An Inconvenient Truth no less than twice, in which others are subjected to Haeckel's long-debunked recapitulation theory still found in text books teaching about human "gill-slits", and the outright fraudulent pseudo-scientific nonsense espoused by those like Alfred Kinsey; the failure of the educational establishment has brought this on themselves. I don't care if it's a Buddhist, Muslim, flat-earther, Purple Spaghetti Monster-believing, green dog-man that ushers in the scrutiny. It may very well be the most necessary check to the dogma of another kind dressed up in bad science.

Evolution is not bad science. This isn't some limited set of ideas like Kinsey's research or one little detail like the gill slits thing — this is the difference between science and non-science.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you also think elementary school physics classes should hold debates about the nature of quantum gravity and suggest that intelligent falling may be correct?

Only if we insist on bringing up exciting new proofs of gravity. Besides, has "intelligent falling" been proposed school curriculum or is this another tired red herring argument? Again, I don't see anywhere in the law where ID or Creationism have been mentioned at all have you?

The thing is, the evidence for evolution is darn near incontrovertible. All the details may not be figured out yet, and it's perfectly fine to get that across in a science class, but no serious scientist doubts that it happened. Teaching alternative theories (at least without prefacing them with "This almost certainly didn't happen and I'm just wasting your time") gives a false impression of how strong those theories are relative to evolution.

Can you show me what "alternative theories" are being proposed in this law?

I'm all about teaching critical thinking, but somebody in an introductory-level class is not going to have the expertise it takes to critique the basis for all of modern biology.

They should certainly be qualified on a residual basis to adequately teach the (in your words) "incontrovertible evidences". I suspect the inability or unwillingness for a teacher to address what should be relatively easy for them at this point is part of the problem here.

I see those as going hand in hand. While people who are teaching evolution in good faith may not always do a good job, people who disbelieve evolution almost always propagate the poor arguments and misconceptions.

Again, few at MacNN have difficulty addressing the questions posed by ID proponents in these threads, should teachers be no less qualified? This really shouldn't be a problem should it? Plus, I don't see what "alternatives" have been proposed in the legislation.

Evolution is not bad science. This isn't some limited set of ideas like Kinsey's research or one little detail like the gill slits thing — this is the difference between science and non-science.

Kinsey's famous work was related to sexual continuum from hetero to homo. Haeckel's work was on recapitulation. Both junk, both taught, and the notion of gill slits among human embryos is still taught among the ignorant educators who failed to realize it was debunked almost 100 years ago. Again, their general lack of information on evolution is what has caused this mess in the first place.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which is exactly where the logical flaw lies.

A. I don't think that that the ID theory requires you to have any more religious beliefs than the theory of evolution as the origin of our species. You can argue that there isn't as much empirical evidence to support ID as evolution, but that does not make it a "religious theory" unless you specifically state that the intelligent design was done by a God worshipped by followers. "Religion" is more than believing that there may be some kind of non-worshipped unknown "higher power" or energy source. If one is to study how humans came to be, there should be no intellectual barriers put into place that would exclude certain theories just because some people might get offended by them. That includes both evolution and ID if educators and the community decides that is proper. The prohibition on ID is clearly more than just a scientific concern, but rather a reflection of religious bigotry, IMO.

B. Even if the theory of the origin of our species is religious in nature, our founding fathers never intended for the Constitution to protect Americans from having to be exposed to religious thought or theory. As has been over time and time again, there were a minority of the people involved with the Constitution that wanted that "high wall" to protect people from any religious intermingling other than for the government not to force a nationwide denomination on anyone, and if we apply the same standards to interpreting the Constitution as we did the recent Second Amendment decision (actually read the words and know the intent of the fouders) this becomes even clearer. Evidence shows that most of the founders where more interested in government not intruding on our rights, rather than protecting us from exposure to religious thought.

It's irrational to suggest that it's a violation of someone's rights to force them to be exposed to something that MIGHT be religious in nature, but not explicitly so - but that there is no violation by forcing them to be indoctrinated in a subject matter that assumes there is no God or higher power when making a determination on how things happen. I truly think that the effort to suppress alternative theories says more about those who oppose them, then those who support them.

I see irrational fear.

It's not about protecting people from being "offended" - that trivializes church/state separation into a kind of PC sensitivity issue, which it is not, it's about whether the government should be in the religion business. Private citizens are certainly allowed to approach you and "offend" you with religious talk, and parents are certainly allowed to teach their kids religious beliefs. But I can't imagine that we want the government teaching kids religious beliefs.

On this ID thing, the courts that have ruled against it have decided that it was invented to be a back-up position for creationists who tried and failed to get straight-up creationism taught in schools. There's no doubt in my mind that that's true, but whether that means it violates church-state separation is not as clear to me...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It's not about protecting people from being "offended" - that trivializes church/state separation into a kind of PC sensitivity issue, which it is not, it's about whether the government should be in the religion business.

That's precisely what it is. Our founding fathers didn't want the government telling people what religion or denomination they had to be a part of. For most of them, they had no goal of "church/state separation" that the left cherishes. They understood that in order for people to have freedom of religion, they had to be free to express their beliefs and not have the government stopping them. When the Government tells students that they must learn a single theory whose premise requires the assumption that there is no God, that's no more a "separation" than forcing people accept Genesis as a guide for the origin of our species. Anytime the government or courts go past what the majority of the founding fathers intended and what was clearly written in the Constitution, you are engaging in politically correct claptrap.

Private citizens are certainly allowed to approach you and "offend" you with religious talk, and parents are certainly allowed to teach their kids religious beliefs. But I can't imagine that we want the government teaching kids religious beliefs.

The problem is, that these things can be tought without a direct "religious" element interjected. THAT is what ID is.

On this ID thing, the courts that have ruled against it have decided that it was invented to be a back-up position for creationists who tried and failed to get straight-up creationism taught in schools. There's no doubt in my mind that that's true, but whether that means it violates church-state separation is not as clear to me...

Courts have ruled lots of things. At one time, courts ruled that it was okay to ban handgun possession. They have ruled that Jim Crow laws where okay. Forgive me if I don't accept the opinion of the court as evidence of anything other than they have an opinion

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Our founding fathers didn't want the government telling people what religion or denomination they had to be a part of.

True, of course.

For most of them, they had no goal of "church/state separation" that the left cherishes.

Perhaps, but the ones that matter, like Jefferson and Franklin, clearly did. Not all Founding Fathers are equally relevant. Besides, the separation of church and state isn't some leftist idea.

They understood that in order for people to have freedom of religion, they had to be free to express their beliefs and not have the government stopping them.

Wow, that's two you got right!

When the Government tells students that they must learn a single theory whose premise requires the assumption that there is no God, that's no more a "separation" than forcing people accept Genesis as a guide for the origin of our species.

Sigh. Natural selection doesn't require any such assumption. No wonder you can't understand this issue.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's precisely what it is. Our founding fathers didn't want the government telling people what religion or denomination they had to be a part of. For most of them, they had no goal of "church/state separation" that the left cherishes. They understood that in order for people to have freedom of religion, they had to be free to express their beliefs and not have the government stopping them. When the Government tells students that they must learn a single theory whose premise requires the assumption that there is no God, that's no more a "separation" than forcing people accept Genesis as a guide for the origin of our species. Anytime the government or courts go past what the majority of the founding fathers intended and what was clearly written in the Constitution, you are engaging in politically correct claptrap.

Keeping the government from being intertwined with religion is exactly what the free exercise and separation clauses of the First Amendment demand. Allowing the government to teach children religious doctrine is exactly the kind of thing the founders wanted to prevent.

Parents and private citizens can teach kids whatever they want, truth or fiction. Hopefully they'll teach truth. But the government shouldn't be teaching kids religious beliefs like creationism. Parents and religious organizations can do that on their own. I'm not sure why you think they need the government and the taxpayers to help them.

The problem is, that these things can be tought without a direct "religious" element interjected. THAT is what ID is.

Perhaps.

Courts have ruled lots of things. At one time, courts ruled that it was okay to ban handgun possession. They have ruled that Jim Crow laws where okay. Forgive me if I don't accept the opinion of the court as evidence of anything other than they have an opinion

It's a bit more than just "an opinion," if you believe in our country's system of laws and government. But if that's your view of our laws and our system, I can think of a few other countries that have a view of church and state that may be more similar to your own. They also have a lot of oil.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Perhaps, but the ones that matter, like Jefferson and Franklin, clearly did.

PURE COMEDY, RIGHT THERE.

The guys who agree with the left are the "ones that matter", and we should ignore the fact that these guys and a couple of their friends couldn't get the majority to agree and just do what they wanted. HAR HAR!!

Sigh. Natural selection doesn't require any such assumption. No wonder you can't understand this issue.

Natural selection as FACT does.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Keeping the government from being intertwined with religion is exactly what the free exercise and separation clauses of the First Amendment demand. Allowing the government to teach children religious doctrine is exactly the kind of thing the founders wanted to prevent.

No one's asking them to be taught religious doctrine in the case of ID.

It's a bit more than just "an opinion," if you believe in our country's system of laws and government. But if that's your view of our laws and our system, I can think of a few other countries that have a view of church and state that may be more similar to your own. They also have a lot of oil.

Funny!

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300

Their state legislature passed a law -- AGAIN -- to force teachers to teach Intelligent Design and Creationism next to Evolution and Gravity. That state is seriously f**ked up.

You can be religious all you want, but keep it out of the schools. This is absolutely ridiculous.

So that should take, what, about 10 min of the curriculum?

[Luca Rescigno]

What I don't understand is how the religious community has singled out evolution as being so diametrically opposed to the concept of God. What's preventing them from coexisting? Is there any reason why God couldn't be the driving force behind evolution? Any reason why genetic defects preclude the existence of God, when they could just as easily be intentional on his part? And since the Bible (what little I've read) actually says how animals were created before humans, would it not make sense that, in creating humans, God took one of his previous designs that he liked (apes) and refined them and infused them with a soul to make them human?

Basically, science leaves open the possibility of God existing, because it can't be disproven. Science takes what we can observe about the world and attempts to explain it. It operates on a wholly different level from religion. One could argue that science is merely the study of God's creation, which is infinitely complex and is full of miracles. The laws of physics, for instance, are simply a way of measuring how matter and energy interact in our universe. But how do we know God didn't simply create the laws of physics himself? Similarly, evolution and all of biology is simply a way of explaining how living things operate. If you believe in God, why can't you believe he created them that way?

Intelligent Design supporters often claim that the universe is amazingly complex, too complex to develop that way on its own. But why does claiming that life achieved its complexity over time rather than all at once contradict your religious beliefs? Is it because it implies that, if God had to do trial and error to create life, that he isn't omnipotent? This is possibly the only argument I can think of.

It's just weird to me how everyone seems to argue that it has to be either one or the other. No one can possibly know the true nature of God, yet everyone seems to think they know just how he works. Unless you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (in which each day in the creation story in fact refers to a single rotation of the Earth on its axis), I don't see anything that can't be reconciled. Furthermore, if you do believe that and you think the Earth is only some 10,000 years old, then you have no business getting involved in scientific debates.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Besides, the separation of church and state isn't some leftist idea.

Correct. In fact, it was nothing more than sentiment expressed in a penned response to a letter from some Baptists who were concerned that their freedom of worship was regarded as a privilege instead of an immutable right.

I'm sure Congress considered this notion after having opened their session in prayer however.

[ebuddy]

Can someone point me to the verbiage in the Louisiana law that mentions the teaching of religion? Better yet, ID or Creationism? I didn't see it in my cursory glance at it. I'm hearing;

- indoctrinates religion into the school curriculum. How?
- forces teachers to teach alternative theories. Such as?
- the government is in the religious business. How? What religion? What alternative theory?

Are our panties just in a wad over nothing or is any of the above mentioned in this law whatsoever?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Natural selection as FACT does.

What the hell are you talking about?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one's asking them to be taught religious doctrine in the case of ID.

That's pure comedy gold! You know as well as I do that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a smokescreen to get god back into the school systems! The whole reason this scheme was dreamed up was to find a way to attempt to skirt using the word "god," while subliminally sending the message that the concept is so complex that only god could be the intelligent designer.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's pure comedy gold! You know as well as I do that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a smokescreen to get god back into the school systems! The whole reason this scheme was dreamed up was to find a way to attempt to skirt using the word "god," while subliminally sending the message that the concept is so complex that only god could be the intelligent designer.

Does this law require the teaching of ID?

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

What I don't understand is how the religious community has singled out evolution as being so diametrically opposed to the concept of God.

Most of the religious community hasn't done this at all. It's mostly hardcore atheists spreading FUD and saying that the religious community does this.

Example, from a UK election a few years back:

The Conservatives (to themselves): Right then lads, no talk about immigration during this campaign - you know how it gives the lefties ammo.

The Left: So, conservatives, what do you think about immigration?

Conservatives: <silence>

The Left (to the people): Here's what the Conservatives think about immigration.

Conservatives: <silence>

The Left: The Conservatives blah blah blah immigration.

Conservatives: <silence>

The Press: Well, the Conservatives have blah blah blah about immigration.

Conservatives: <silence>

The Leftist Press: The Conservatives are always banging on about immigration! Why are you always banging on about immigration?

No kidding, that's how it happened. Now look at what's happened here. The OP has come over all emotional saying something has been said when in fact the truth of the matter was nothing of the sort. It's either intentional FUD or unintentional lack of comprehension.

Most of the bile used by the left against their opponents is hysterical BS. This is how they operate - at all times. Seriously, go check what I've just said against any number of left-vs-anyone "debates".

Of course, there's a few members of the religious community who're opposed to evolution, but these people are very few and far between - it's nothing like as widespread as the anti-Christians would have you believe.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's pure comedy gold! You know as well as I do that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a smokescreen to get god back into the school systems! The whole reason this scheme was dreamed up was to find a way to attempt to skirt using the word "god," while subliminally sending the message that the concept is so complex that only god could be the intelligent designer.

See, there's that leftie FUD again.

Please explain why a bunch of nothingness decided to have itself a big bang one day. Was it bored of not existing?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's pure comedy gold! You know as well as I do that Intelligent Design is nothing more than a smokescreen to get god back into the school systems!

You can call it whatever you want. The fact is that the theory itself does not rely on religion and restricting something because of what you believe are motives and not actual content shows how desperate people are to push their religious bigotry on others.

You know as well as I do that attempts to keep stuff out of schools on the basis of "religion" that doesn't require religious teaching (but may support someone's overall religious goals) is nothing more than an attempt to squelch people's religious rights. See how easy it is to turn such a simplistic argument around?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The fact is that the theory itself does not rely on religion and restricting something because of what you believe are motives and not actual content shows how desperate people are to push their religious bigotry on others.

Right. That's why creationism was rebranded as Intelligent Design simply by a search and replace.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

See, there's that leftie FUD again.

Please explain why a bunch of nothingness decided to have itself a big bang one day. Was it bored of not existing?

You're a lost cause. Everything you don't agree with is the fault of the "lefties." Your mind is like concrete; all mixed up and permanently set.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can call it whatever you want. The fact is that the theory itself does not rely on religion and restricting something because of what you believe are motives and not actual content shows how desperate people are to push their religious bigotry on others.

You know as well as I do that attempts to keep stuff out of schools on the basis of "religion" that doesn't require religious teaching (but may support someone's overall religious goals) is nothing more than an attempt to squelch people's religious rights. See how easy it is to turn such a simplistic argument around?

The facts are that the theory does rely on an intelligent designer, and that being is being subtly disguised, through verbiage, but is in fact claimed to be the christian god. The facts are that it is being used as a smokescreen to get religious teachings back into schools, and no amount of denial on your part (or anyone else's) changes those facts. You're the one with the simplistic arguments. I couldn't care less if you want to teach religious theory or beliefs; just don't do it in government run schools; that's what private churches and schools are for.

[ebuddy]

Section 1D of SB733 (The Louisiana Science Education Act) specifically acknowledges the prohibition of religious promotion; “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination against religion or non-religion.”

- There is no mention of "alternative theories"
- There is no mention of Creationism
- There is no mention of ID
- There is no mention of religion of any kind
- Passed unanimously by the Louisiana state senate
- Passed the state House by a vote of 93-4.
- ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said that the Act as written is Constitutional.

Now, will this ensure teachers and districts will not abuse the text? Certainly not, just as they have not been hesitant in propagating Haeckel's and Kinsey's non-science in class. At least, this provides some accountability. Rest-assured if there are breaches, they will be challenged. Trust me, you'd want it no other way.

So... does it violate the 1st Amendment? Absolutely not. Does it indoctrinate religion into school curriculum? Nope. Require the teaching of Creationism? Nope. ID? Nope. Is it proposing intelligent falling or challenging gravity at all? Nope. Is it preaching personal salvation through Jesus Christ? Nope. Homosexuality is a choice? Nope. Is it saying that Allah is not God? Nope. Is it teaching that atheism is wrong? Nope.

The only things bolstering the teaching of religion in class and the credibility of Creationism and ID are the paranoid rantings of naturalists.


Damn you Creationists, BLAHHHHHRRRR!!!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The facts are that the theory does rely on an intelligent designer, and that being is being subtly disguised, through verbiage, but is in fact claimed to be the christian god.

Just as the Theory of Evolution has been used by atheists to indicate that a god is not necessary. That all things have a natural explanation. Those areas currently not understood are natural pending natural mechanism to affirm it. This science, through verbiage is the subtle notion that in fact the Christian God does not exist. I mean, as long as it doesn't specifically say otherwise right?

The facts are that it is being used as a smokescreen to get religious teachings back into schools, and no amount of denial on your part (or anyone else's) changes those facts.

There is no such verbiage in the law. Go ahead, read it. By this logic it must've been the craftily concealed agenda of the Creationist who challenged geocentrism.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're a lost cause.

In what respect?

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Everything you don't agree with is the fault of the "lefties."

See, there's that leftie FUD again. A perfect example of what I was just talking about.

Now, please answer the fecking question and explain why a bunch of nothingness decided to have itself a big bang one day. Was it bored of not existing?

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your mind is like concrete; all mixed up and permanently set.

No.

Show me evidence to the contrary and I'll change my position. I seriously doubt you'll be able to do so though, since my observations are valid conclusions derived from decades of open-minded observation.

Of course, what you're saying here ties in perfectly with another leftie dogma: Those who disagree with you are simply under-educated and would obviously see your side of the argument as the correct one were they educated further.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The facts are that the theory does rely on an intelligent designer, and that being is being subtly disguised, through verbiage, but is in fact claimed to be the christian god.

Please show me any guidelines for teaching ID where they would require that the 'intelligent designer" (would could simply be an unknown energy force) be "claimed to be the christian god". Otherwise, see my response above which pretty much covers the irrational fear and bigotry shown.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

just as the theory of evolution has been used by atheists to indicate that a god is not necessary. That all things have a natural explanation. Those areas currently not understood are natural pending natural mechanism to affirm it. This science, through verbiage is the subtle notion that in fact the christian god does not exist. I mean, as long as it doesn't specifically say otherwise right?

bingo!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Just as the Theory of Evolution has been used by atheists to indicate that a god is not necessary. That all things have a natural explanation. Those areas currently not understood are natural pending natural mechanism to affirm it. This science, through verbiage is the subtle notion that in fact the Christian God does not exist. I mean, as long as it doesn't specifically say otherwise right?


There is no such verbiage in the law. Go ahead, read it. By this logic it must've been the craftily concealed agenda of the Creationist who challenged geocentrism.

You're catching on. Scientific theory is infinitely more able to be replicated and is much more observable than religion based on fairy tales, believed only because they've been handed down by generations, by "wise" men whose word is accepted by the gullible.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Section 1D of SB733 (The Louisiana Science Education Act) specifically acknowledges the prohibition of religious promotion; “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or promote discrimination against religion or non-religion.”

- There is no mention of "alternative theories"
- There is no mention of Creationism
- There is no mention of ID
- There is no mention of religion of any kind
- Passed unanimously by the Louisiana state senate
- Passed the state House by a vote of 93-4.
- ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman said that the Act as written is Constitutional.

I think you're right. The arguments people are making here, me included, apply more to the Dover case that was decided three years ago, in which schools were required to teach ID, than to this one in Louisiana.

But what fun would the political lounge be without rehashing debates over and over and over again?

[Chongo]

A little more history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwe...f_civil_rights

Establishment of civil rights

The civil rights provisions of the ordinance foreshadowed the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Many of the concepts and guarantees of the Ordinance of 1787 were incorporated in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In the Northwest Territory, various legal and property rights were enshrined, religious tolerance was proclaimed, and it was enunciated that since "Religion, morality, and knowledge" are "necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." The right of habeas corpus was written into the charter, as was freedom of religious worship and bans on excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. Trial by jury and a ban on ex post facto laws were also rights granted.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think you're right. The arguments people are making here, me included, apply more to the Dover case that was decided three years ago, in which schools were required to teach ID, than to this one in Louisiana.

But what fun would the political lounge be without rehashing debates over and over and over again?

Bingo!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You're catching on. Scientific theory is infinitely more able to be replicated and is much more observable than religion based on fairy tales, believed only because they've been handed down by generations, by "wise" men whose word is accepted by the gullible.

Why would you compare science to religion? This makes no sense at all. Scientific theory is infinitely more able to be replicated and is much more observable than godlessness founded on the antagonistic ignorance of one ideal while displaying absolutely no knowledge of what it is they claim to support.

Everyone's buying something and I don't see a lock on intellect from either side. Evidenced primarily by the inability of many to read a law before knee-jerking into some tired and moronic anti-religious rant.

God Bless.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why would you compare science to religion? This makes no sense at all. Scientific theory is infinitely more able to be replicated and is much more observable than godlessness founded on the antagonistic ignorance of one ideal while displaying absolutely no knowledge of what it is they claim to support.

Everyone's buying something and I don't see a lock on intellect from either side. Evidenced primarily by the inability of many to read a law before knee-jerking into some tired and moronic anti-religious rant.

God Bless.

Why would I compare science to religion? Why don't you visit the new Creation Museum http://www.creationmuseum.org/

They're doing a bang-up job of attempting to debunk science, claiming that Jesus rode on dinausors, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, etc., etc. How much more disingenuous can you get?

Godlessness isn't founded on fairy tales that have been handed down through the generations. Interesting how your opponents' arguments are tired and moronic, and you're the one claiming that some mythical supernatural being made up the universe and watches down on it, and those who practice subservience to it will somehow be "saved."

[Kerrigan]

I'm surprised that Louisiana, which I think of as being predominantly Catholic, supports teaching ID, which I had always thought was the preserve of Baptists.

[Chuckit]

EDIT: Never mind. Not worth bringing up on second thought.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can call it whatever you want. The fact is that the theory itself does not rely on religion

The definition of "religious" is somewhat nebulous, but I think most people would agree that an invisible being who created the universe falls under that heading.

[Big Mac]

Teaching Intelligent Design does not violate the establishment clause if it's taught as the original proponents of the view describe it. If you've read anything by Behe you know that he doesn't write specifically about God or the Genesis account of creation.

[olePigeon]

eBuddy, did you read the article? The law doesn't explicitly list Intelligent Design, Creationism, Bigfoot, Space Herpes, or religion, but the architects of the law are quite proud to point out that the law was made to encourage views of alternative theories. Now, I would be the first to support such a law, but the problem is that it doesn't restrict itself to scientific theories. According to the new law, you can teach the "theory" of creationism as an alternative to theory of evolution. Likewise, as Chuckit pointed out, the "theory" of Intelligent Falling can be promoted as an alternative "theory" to gravity.

This completely destroys the entire premise behind a science class! It's not so much the theories or the laws, or which one is right or wrong, it's the process of testing and discovery. Once you remove those key factors, it is no longer science. Since Intelligent Design can not be tested, it is not science.

The law is intended to allow teacher to introduce non-scientific alternatives to scientific theory.

For the life of me, I don't understand why this is even an argument. If it's not science, it doesn't belong in the science classroom. What is so difficult about that? Intelligent Design is not a theory, it is not science, it does not belong in the science class room.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Teaching Intelligent Design does not violate the establishment clause if it's taught as the original proponents of the view describe it. If you've read anything by Behe you know that he doesn't write specifically about God or the Genesis account of creation.

Even if it didn't violate the establishment clause (which it does, because the entire point behind Intelligent Design is to get religion into the science class room) it doesn't belong in the science classroom. It can not be tested. It is not a scientific theory. The basis of Intelligent Design is completely, 100%, based on faith and superstition.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think you're right. The arguments people are making here, me included, apply more to the Dover case that was decided three years ago, in which schools were required to teach ID, than to this one in Louisiana.

Read the article. It's not that teachers are required to teach Intelligent Design, it's that the law is purposefully vague enough that Intelligent Design would qualify to be taught by teachers as an "alternative theory" by lumping evolution together with global warming and human cloning, giving the impression that there is some sort of scientific controversy regarding evolution.

This is a back door so religious asshats can get their superstitions into the science classroom.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Even if it didn't violate the establishment clause (which it does, because the entire point behind Intelligent Design is to get religion into the science class room)

That's your subjective view of things.

it doesn't belong in the science classroom. It can not be tested. It is not a scientific theory. The basis of Intelligent Design is completely, 100%, based on faith and superstition.

Macro-evolution is no more testable. And one needs to have just as much, if not more faith in evolution than a religious person has in God to believe evolution is responsible for life as we know it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Read the article. It's not that teachers are required to teach Intelligent Design, it's that the law is purposefully vague enough that Intelligent Design would qualify to be taught by teachers as an "alternative theory" by lumping evolution together with global warming and human cloning, giving the impression that there is some sort of scientific controversy regarding evolution.

This is a back door so religious asshats can get their superstitions into the science classroom.

That's exactly what it is, and anyone who doesn't realize that is either in denial or extraordinarily naive, or more realistically, does realize it and is being disingenuous. The Creationists are looking for any way, shape, or form to get their foot in the educational system door, so they can subtly find a way to propagate their religious beliefs to all students. Children already have churches and other venues to learn about creationism; this is nothing less than an attempt to inculcate them early, and often.

[Lava Lamp Freak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Macro-evolution is no more testable. And one needs to have just as much, if not more faith in evolution than a religious person has in God to believe evolution is responsible for life as we know it.

That's your subjective view of things.